Because men and women are not equal.
The statement is merely another politically correct assumption devoid of evidence made because it feels good, and allows the world to seem prettier and simpler than it is. Men and women are too different for any concept of equality, inferiority or superiority to make any objective sense.
Such is the case with gender differences in intelligence, for example. Did you know that almost all IQ tests are “sex normalized”? Meaning that while constructing an intelligence test researchers toss aside any section on which either gender significantly outperforms the other, assuming a priori that the sexes are equal in intelligence. Essentially, any time observable reality challenges their assumption, they choose to disbelieve reality. Not necessarily due to incompetence or dishonesty, questioning egalitarian creed is dangerous.
Any scholar labelled a heretic is pursued and punished with the zeal typical of those who have convinced themselves beyond reason of their stand behind infallible truths, on the right side of history. Most researchers are likely afraid of the phenomenon dubbed The Watsoning, after the abrupt end suffered by the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel prize recipient James Watson, for daring to question egalitarian dogma. If someone like him can be sacrified for wrong-think, is there anyone safe to speak his mind? Is the loss of credibility being suffered by academics and mainstream journalists cause for surprise?
“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”(Thomas Jefferson)
We now follow truth so long as she leads to our preferred dogma.
Alas, reality rarely conforms to dogma and the few remaining intelligence tests which are not “sex normalized” are no exception: in adulthood (given that boys mature slower than girls), men have an average IQ about 7 points higher, give or take 1-2 points. It is true that this difference vanishes once one controls for the positive correlation between height and intelligence within the same ethnic/racial group. But this approach does nothing to refute the existence of said difference and misses crucial biological facts such as men having larger brains on average (brain size being moderately correlated with intelligence), and other brain differences.
The dispersion effect still remains, meaning that men–relative to women–have a very uneven distribution; they cluster around the top and bottom of human intelligence with fewer men being just average. One interesting effect of this clustering is that males outnumber women the further high up one goes in intelligence: in the top 85% (IQ115+) there are 2 men per women and for genius level IQs (140+) 8 men per women.
If you feel the need to claim that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence, you should know that the statement is not only demonstrably false, but means almost nothing in practice, as I showed in the introduction to another answer. In the same answer, you can see that IQ (and by proxy intelligence) is the single best predictor in existence for a slew of positive life outcomes: virtually anything which you would dub an “achievement”, from financial, to artistic to scholastic and even human relationships. It is such an excellent predictor that it makes the effects of discrimination on pay gaps irrelevant.
The fact that there exists gender differences in IQ means that it is a literal impossibility for men and women to achieve any semblance of equality in those outcomes–given free and open competition–especially at the highest levels; ergo men have always and will always dominate the highest levels of human accomplishments.
Unless one is willing to engage in eugenics or genetics engineering.
Research on the genetic heritability of intelligence has consistently shown that the effects of parenting on intelligence are nil or nonexistent into adulthood. Intelligence could be up to 85% heritable into late adulthood, with the remaining variation almost exclusively due to the unique environment of a child (e.g not shared with siblings) and other unknown factors.. Supposedly, those are things such as peer groups, in utero etc…The only studies which find otherwise do not account for shared genes between parents and children; assuming–a priori–that genes have little to no effect on how intelligent people turn out to be. You can use this to have some fun: challenge any naysayer to bring you a single study which finds that someone’s intelligence can be significantly changed by upbringing–while controlling for genetic heritability and the full development of late adulthood. Watch them stutter.
We then know that the gender differences in intelligence are not a product of the patriarchy, assuming that it is a shared environment between siblings.
There are ways to create the illusion of equality and even superiority. A notable one lies in the realm of American education where women now–supposedly–outperform men. In school, it is easy to explain away by the fact that boys mature slower, and because mass education must by default cater to the average, are at a disadvantage given that their uneven distribution in intelligences means that fewer are close to average. Whenever education caters to the highest intelligence, the ratio of men to women predictably gets skewed.
This is even true at the highest levels, such as between different medical specialties.
I don’t doubt that these two facts put boys at a disadvantage, but that they tell the whole story; they have not been enough–historically–to cause boys to fall so far behind. Note that women also enjoy all kinds of preferential treatments from the first day of school to the highest levels of education, and into their careers, further accentuating the disadvantage. Even when the result is that women now outnumber men in universities, preferential treatment in men’s favor is almost never introduced. In the minuscule number of cases where it is, maybe involuntarily as a form of protocol, there is no shortage of people being upset. A sweet hypocrisy among egalitarians: boys more successful than girls–>Introduce preferential treatment to be fair; girls more successful than boys–>what’s wrong with the boys?
Natural girl behavior and learning styles (easily focused, non confrontational etc…) have become “gold standard” in schooling; which probably means that boys are not well emotionally integrated into the new system, and acting like boys always have is the quickest way to get an “expert” to label one’s behavior diseased–without performing any medical tests–and enjoy a sedating dose of Meth, sorry, Adderall for ADHD; or be punished. Lastly, public teaching has become dominated by women. I once read about an interesting study which suggested that female teachers grade boys more harshly for the same performance as girls, being far less tolerant of their failings, unless the boy behaved as girls do.
But I digress. Do you know the first rule of gender equality? To desire gender equality, one must first lose the worries of an empty stomach.
Perhaps you will have noticed that gender equality is only ever the rage in wealthy countries, after life has either become easy or full of first world problems. It’s also the only place where it is fashionable to push the mysogynist statement that all men, everywhere, for all of human history, have subjugated, domineered and oppressed women into doing their bidding. I can never figure out how anyone convinces themselves that women are so weak and helpless that men can get together and manage to pass and maintain social rules which are actively unwanted by the other half of the human species–never mind that all little boys are raised by, and usually adore, their mothers.
How do you justify the claim that men are not utterly and completely superior to women if they can pull that off? If physical violence were enough to maintain such dominions, I know a lot of people who would be slaves today.
The misogynist statement, in all its glory, is just another manifestation of the arrogance of fortunate people—looking from their Ivory Towers—unable to fathom that anyone could desire something else out of life.
Truthfully, the historic and traditional model of gender relations is a crude and unsophisticated case of bartering. A man goes out into the difficult world, in times and places where work is too harsh (physically or intellectually) for most women to successfully engage in. He works himself to death, is possibly eaten by a saber-tooth and takes the extra risks necessary for the extreme “achievements” you speak of to make himself a more attractive mate; and gathers as much in the way of resources as he can for a woman who will, in exchange, give him “ownership” over something he lacks but wants desperately: her reproductive capacity.
It’s why rape was considered an offense against the husband, for example, and daughters the property of their fathers. It was understood that he had “paid” the wife for the kids by pledging to work and provide for her throughout his life-and as he likely dies sooner–after, on his inheritance or connections.
It’s interesting that the oppression narrative is so popular. Is there a single historical case where the old model of gender relations survived after life got easier and women made it clear that they were no longer interested? If men are so good at oppressing women, why do they fail so easily–as soon as most women say no–as they have all over the West? Have Western men somehow lost their natural bent towards violent female oppression? However did that happen?
Not to mention all the data suggesting that liberated American women have never been less happy, aggressive or medicated while Saudi women–in full oppression–report strange levels of happiness. In an interesting twist, while American women have historically reported more happiness than men, the situation has reversed: young Western males–completely outside the patriarchy–have never been happier too, it seems, with their video games, sports and uncommitted sexual adventurism: who is liberated now! I would forgive you for reaching the erroneous, yet funny, conclusion that the only people happy in a patriarchy are women.
These happy young lads are ripe for a rude awakening: their ever so delightful, liberated women, are unfortunately in danger of dying out. Look at birthrates across western nations: all heading fast below replacement levels, if they have not done so already. Liberated women spend their time pursuing educational, professional and sexual achievements.
When done, they often find that it is too late for any significant investments in motherhood, should they wish to.
It is interesting to note the dysgenic effect on the populations: the most intelligent women are having fewer children, if at all, meaning that the heritable components of intelligence—which make up the vast majority of the attribute—are making themselves scarcer each generation. It makes the recorded decreasing reaction times (highly correlated with intelligence) among European children scarier, doesn’t it? True, a nation can survive for a long time with an ever aging population and bellow replacement levels; but we must all eventually go full Japan, or be demographically replaced.
This is true within countries and without. In the USA, without constant immigration, traditional conservative White women, with their much higher birthrate, would essentially out-breed feminists (and everyone else really) in due time–demographically dominating the nation and making women’s liberation–and leftism–an uphill battle. In Europe, liberated German women are under threat of being replaced by less liberated, beautiful Burka wearing ladies.
This is true of non-patriarchal men, too. Happy western boys are under threat of being demographically displaced by stern, handsome, bearded patriarchs. I would forgive you for getting the weird idea that after defeating the patriarchy at home, liberated women have decided to import handsome foreign patriarchs, in their support of third world immigration. Funny, yes, but untrue. What is true is that the sexy bearded strangers will never abandon their religion and accept feminism as the one true faith. If they out-breed the happy western lads, liberated European ladies, as minorities in their own nations, will be wearing burkas next–as many of them did so long ago following violent invasions from the East.
Last, but not least, the greatest instrument of illusory gender equality is the Welfare State. Women are by far the primary consumers of public “services” and “jobs” provided by the state. Most of the expense in healthcare, food, housing and education is consumed by women. “Liberation” is an interesting choice of words given the fact that when you break down taxation by gender you realize that, among other groups, the welfare state essentially serves the role of transferring wealth from men to women. The average woman in Australia–for example–consumes 150,000 more in taxes than she contributes over her lifetime.
The wealth transfer from men to women is accentuated in the progressive model of taxation by its heavy reliance on the highest earners who (due to the link between high IQ and income) are predictably, unavoidably and overwhelmingly males; essentially forcing these men to takes on some or all of the traditional roles of the husband, for many women they don’t know and who have never done anything good for them: providing food, shelter, child education, protection, old age security etc….
Funny, isn’t it? How long do you think it takes welfare states to collapse with an ever aging and declining population though? Don’t sweat it, Japan will answer the question soon enough. Not to mention that western lads may be happy, but they don’t work as hard as their fathers to produce the kind of extra wealth necessary to sustain a progressive welfare state. Why should they? They are no longer socially pressured to shoulder the burden of a family; a single man needs very little wealth to support and entertain himself. They play, sleep around with sexually liberated women, do sports and almost nothing to make themselves “husband material”, as the Wall Street Journal once noted; going from woman to woman, beefing up their sex stats as much as possible without the pesky expectation of commitment which other men fall victim to. It is fun. And they are happier than they’ve ever been oppressing women.
“Where have all the ‘good’ men gone?” has become a rather common complaint though. Of course, one of the many things we must always assume despite a total and absolute lack of evidence—aside from gender equality— is that the “good” women are still here.