I mostly agree with what you're saying but it's important to address this fallacy. "Men" are not more vicious or ferocious. On average, "men" are mediocre. Compared to the average woman, the inability to reproduce makes the average man far less valuable. It is only a select few individuals who carry exceptional abilities. Women don't have to compete with average men, they have to compete with the top men. It's the top men society looks up to. It's the top men that women want. Average men are invisible. A useless by product of natural selection.
I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military.
Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
The vast majority of employment opportunities do not involve physical labour requiring strength on a level unobtainable by women. Even moreso intellectually and socially, the sweeping majority of employment opportunities are equally accessible on physiological grounds to any sex. Time and again, we find that the main impediments to women's success in the workplace are the social constructs built to keep men and women in their designated roles. You're leaning very heavily on a fallacious understanding of human biology to make unsupportable declarations regarding the nature of human social interaction.
It's troubling that you appear to believe women are inherently incompetent when working alongside men, and thus in need of protection from them. It's a given that I find that paternalistic view acutely misogynistic, but I'd also like to emphasize the disservice you do to men by painting them as brutish predators. I wholly reject any concept of manhood rooted in emphasizing social and physical superiority over women, such as this.
> Men are not just physically stronger, but they are more vicious and ferocious to deal with. This is especially true the higher up you go. There's a reason that the vast majority of the richest people in the world are men.
These purely social barriers are slowly but surely being eroded as women rise higher in the economic hierarchies. I'd like to see that hierarchy destroyed, but if it has to exist, it must exist on more ethical terms.
> The rest of your argument is a strawman. Quit catering to toxic femenist propaganda.
I'm disappointed that you were unwilling to put your bigotry aside and approach this rationally. All the best.
It's a fckn disgrace that you and globular-toast haven't been banned already. Cancel culture you think? No it's just basic GC to not let a few dozens relics from the 1950s poison the environment with misogynistic bullshit for everyone else. You are toxic.
> What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them.
Your choice of words is curious. Unless you yourself are something that women need to be protected from, nobody is trying to be a saviour here. I'm not overly concerned if you want to dismiss me as a white knight, since it's not my own social abilities which are in question.
> They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would?
You won't find much argument from me that the modern working environment is inhumane. If this is the root of your argument, you can drop the sexual angle entirely -- we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex. Patronizing women and dictating their social roles to them will not bring us any closer to achieving that as a species, nor will falling into the trap of trying to wrap human social behaviour up in a nice little bow with overly simplistic biological hypotheses.
Perhaps not explicitly, but by ignoring reality and pretending that we live on a different planet, people with this mentality sure do come across that way. Some even explicitly so.
> we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex
Which is why in countries that are most egalitarian, you'll find women naturally drawn to more "female oriented" practices, like nursing or childcare, and men to more "male oriented" work like construction and plumbing. Of course, the SJW's don't like that and want to push women head to head against men, only for it to end in the chaos we see today.
> overly simplistic biological hypotheses
Except it's not so. Phenomenon that have been observed across cultures and geography and time is not a "simplistic biological hypothesis".
