You write as if there's a shadow conspiracy to keep females from playing masculine roles. Have you ever thought that the reason most soldiers are men, that gene

You write as if there's a shadow conspiracy to keep females from playing masculine roles. Have you ever thought that the reason most soldiers are men, that generals are men, and governments and corporations are headed by mostly men, that the parent that stays home to take care of the kid is usually a woman, is because men are more inclined to play masculine roles, and women are more inclined to play feminine roles, out of their own natural preferences, due to the way their bodies are built, and the way hormones in said bodies are emitted? It's undeniable that there are physical differences between men and women, and it would be a gross denial of reality to suggest physical differences' effects on society could be rendered meaningless simply because people agree they can be. Confucius once said “Let the ruler be a ruler, the subject a subject, the father a father, the son a son.” "Truly if the ruler be not a ruler, the subject not a subject, the father not a father, the son not a son, then even if there be grain, would I get to eat it?” (Analects 12:11) And I'll add to it "Let men be men, and women be women. If the men are not men and women are not women, then all you'd have are a bunch of androgynous adults.". It's possible for men and women to have equal status, but it is lunacy to suggest that men and women are equal, because they absolutely are not and cannot be. It makes as much sense to suggest dogs can be equal to cats, that apples can be equal to oranges.