You strawman to not address the basic point that you make the claim that women didn’t wanted something that they obviously want is fascinating. I mean, a simple google search about “how to get ahead in work as a women” get you literally millions of results. If women weren’t interested, that won’t exist. And you know that from the beginning.
Your argument is the same applied at the same: Ignore all the evidence that show that women do want equality and claim that “maybe” women didn’t want equality. And we still haven’t seen evidence or data to back up your initial assertion. As I said, it is quite consistent with a pattern of men that come to articles asking for removing inequalities and try to persuade people that “maybe” it is ok if there is inequality because really, all the women asking for equality didn’t wanted anyway…
And let me guess, you consider yourself “rational” despite ignoring evidences. Sorry, you're not special, your argument is exactly the same and follow the same pattern. More on this on this book:
As it happens, there are patterns on the way reactionaries argue against change. And I’ve offered plenty of arguments against yours, you just ignore them for the strawman. When you are able to show evidence of women didn’t want the promotions and the rises at work in higher numbers that the ones asking for them, I might consider that your “maybe” is a possibility instead of a weak try to persuade people that discrimination is “not that bad or justified”.
And more data:
So, what now? Are we supposed to ignore more than half the workforce?
