You should have started with that. No one would have had any doubts about your viewpoints. I'm tired of you walking your position back and forth between ambigui

You should have started with that. No one would have had any doubts about your viewpoints. I'm tired of you walking your position back and forth between ambiguity and sexism. It's a leap, because there's other possibilities you don't account for. I don't pretend to know why we have a patriarchal society, but I do believe that history is largely random and far from optimal, which is what you argue for. That is what I think is naive. You describe the world as a meritocracy, governed by the skilled. Believe me, you're in the minority in thinking that. > do you really think [...] That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Do you really see companies as the pinacles of human history? What if we still had racial slavery? Would you argue in favor of that as well? Is history the true judge of what is a good idea? History is what we do. To say that something is right, because it's prevalent in history, is to say that what we do is right, because we do it. If you want your close ones to fulfill some social dictates, I find it sad, but it's fine. I'm not interested in that, and I don't see it as anything more than useless dogma.