Conversation

Sorry but absolutely disagree. You're failing to see past a few toxic recent battles to the massive opening up of possibilities attributable to 150 years of feminism. Starting with the stunning humanism of women entering the workforce en masse, doubling civilizational potential.
11
I'd rather have humanity go extinct than have one half coercively treat the other half as a no-agency pop of forced breeders. THAT is a perspective that smacks of financialism: perpetuating male-dominated institutions is a higher priority than letting all humans live full lives
21
I'm saying you are disregarding what the half who don't want to be unironic tradwifes say they want out of life, focusing on the lost breeding potential, and prizing perpetuation of the existing crop of patriarchal cultures over newer, potentially better ones
If they choose not to, they are doing what they want and perhaps finding ways to be maximally human in the home. My problem is with coercively keeping them there and preventing them from exploring beyond by force of tradition.
Nice try, we are both men arguing takes on gender wars and partially representing what we've taken from women whose views we each trust and respect. But you seem to be in favor of coercion to limit the freedom of one half of the population.
It's easy for both of us to see the wonderful side because that's largely the side we've had to deal with. If coercive structures work for you, it's easy to feel like their removal is "reverse coercion"
You got to choose a military life. I got to choose not to join that life. 100 years ago, both of us would have likely been subject to conscription. And yes, even accounting for men being disproportionately the instruments of violence, we've still gotten a better deal overall.