women only gained the right to vote less than 100 years ago . What this comes down to is rights vs . responsibilities , and the continued fallacious conflation of men ' s rights with concomitant responsibilities without those of women ' s without concomitant responsibilities . Men were subject to hue and cry laws and the draft for their right to vote and earlier , landholdings . Thus women did vote , women didn ' t want any of that responsibility though , did they ? Just the goodies thanks . Have a read and see what was asked for compared to what men were legally bound to at the time . I tend to be of the view that past wrongs are in the past , but if we are going to play that game then where ' s the draft for women ? Why hasn ' t the criminal sentencing differential been addressed ? How is it that a woman has sole decision making ability when it comes to pregnancy when both the man and society are forced to accept costs without consent ? 1 Less than 50 years ago women couldn ' t have a bank account without the sponsorship of a man . Who was on the hook for a woman ' s unpaid debts ? Oh , that ' s right her father or husband . The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act is an act as the name explicitly states related to the provision of credit . Banks are private institutions and subject to legal compulsions they don ' t have to offer anyone an account . What antidiscrimination laws did was remove the legacy of what would have been an entirely reasonable exclusion from provision of service up to that point , namely that a woman was likely to be a bad risk poor employment and that any debts would have to be recovered from a third party her husband or father . Unsurprisingly , the market didn ' t bother to offer an unsecured product to most women on those grounds which was a problem that rich business or land owning women didn ' t have . It ' s amazing how inconvenient that is to the narrative . There ' s a very simple principle at work whenever you see these women couldn ' t do X statements and that is that agency and responsibility are intimately linked . It is only very recently that women have been legally expected to pay for their mistakes and wrongdoing to any remotely reasonable degree and it ' s still a work in progress . Women were legally excluded from jobs , schools , and many roles in the military . Still , even after the laws were changed , the inclusion of women was formally and informally resisted . What law currently on the books applies to men that doesn ' t apply to women ? Where is the legal prohibition against women doing the dirty and dangerous work that society is founded on ? How is it reasonable that voluntary discrimination towards women is acceptable women ' s only spaces , quotas , unfair resource provision by government and private enterprise , etc . yet voluntary discrimination against them is not ? I can certainly agree that social issues are worthy of inclusion in gender equality discussions , where I disagree is with the rank hypocrisy of benevolent sexism and the wilful exploitation thereof . Government or organisational intervention has its place but the current implementation is sorely lacking in fairness towards men . The elephant in the room is equality of opportunity vs . equality of outcome . Nobody gets a free ride and life isn ' t fair . Despite what decades of concentrated feminist propaganda says having a penis isn ' t a voucher you exchange for automatic privileges . You have to work , you have to compete , and the playing field isn ' t level . That isn ' t compatible with the feminist victimhood narrative of reductive identity groupings all men must be advantaged over all women otherwise merit comes into play and we are forced to accept equality of opportunity . Equality of opportunity is the last thing the feminist movement is willing to accept , as it is predicated on one having to work for outcomes as an individual and accepting personal responsibility for consequences , both fair and foul . Equality of outcome is what they want , a system where having a vagina guarantees individual benefits and socialises responsibilities and consequences typically to men as a group based on their social and taxation obligations . The reason it is called a glass ceiling is because while it appears that the sky is the limit , that invisible ceiling still exists . The problems here are obvious quantification and contrary theory . The glass ceiling is a theory . The way a theory works is simple it ' s never truly proven , it just becomes accepted on the basis of a preponderance of evidence in support of it and deficit of evidence to the contrary . This is where the glass ceiling theory is critically lacking . It ' s a weak theory being pushed by people with an openly sexist agenda , they aren ' t seeking to explain what ' s there as much as they are seeking a way to alter the gender balance in the most powerful and monied positions for their own benefit . We know there ' s a gender bias , we do not know it ' s there because of patriarchy and sexism . We don ' t even know it ' s there because of gender gender is the observable bias , it ' s the effect . It isn ' t inherently correlated or causal unless we can demonstrate that to be so . We have the data of gender as it relates to workplace participation and promotions and various other factors . Given that the apex of the working environment is presumably a mirror of the rest of the working environment then why shouldn ' t we assume that the gender differentials observable are primarily nothing more than a result of extrapolation of female voluntary reproductive choices ? That seems like a far more plausible explanation to me than 49 % of the population despising 51 % 2 . To pull it away from gendered entitlement that always infects these discussions for a moment what about the height ceiling ? We ' ve long known that there ' s a physical height bias in management positions . This effect is far more pronounced than the gender bias is . Should we have height quotas in the boardroom ? Unlike the glass ceiling this is a straightforward observable and testable effect . We do what we need to do about the height ceiling in society nothing . Nobody is owed a place at the table for a physical quality or lack thereof . That includes having a vagina . 1 This one is an easy fix 1 . If a woman terminates the pregnancy against the man ' s wishes she must pay blood money for the man ' s loss . 1 . If a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy against the man ' s wishes she gets sole custody and no financial claim on the man . 1 . If both parents have a private agreement then that ' s their business subject to whatever rules society determines are in the interest of the child by default should there be one , and whatever laws of contract apply . This allows for much more flexibility as to what actions are available , and it allows for far more even application of responsibility . The woman retains the right to choose but she gains the consequences of her actions which is the part that is currently missing and that results in many of the negatives outcomes we currently see . 2 I personally believe that sociopathy and disinclination has more to do with gender differentials in business . The incidence of sociopathic behaviour and actual sociopathy in upper management is significant . Sociopathic tendencies and outright sociopathy occur at higher rates in males for biological reasons . Most men don ' t have the stomach for the kind of machinations and brutality required at that level . I ' m hardly shocked that women are less inclined with their lower rates of sociopathy and higher rates of cooperation .