But the whole point of almost every kind activism is to change what has so far been called the traditional way of life -- from the struggle of the plebeians and patricians in ancient Rome, through the French Revolution and abolition to women's suffrage and desegregation (and even, you could say, that of vegetarians) -- because the traditional way of life distributes power unequally (that's an objective fact) and unfairly (that's a subjective opinion). It's fine to say that you think that the current distribution of power should remain (because you think that this unequal distribution is fair for some other reasons or because equality of power among large groups of people is not one of your values) -- that's what conservatism is about -- but it's not fine to deny it or claim that those who want to change the current distribution of power are "obsessed". The tactic of claiming that the marginalized don't even really want their share of power is also an old and ultimately unsuccessful one. The argument that we want more women but they aren't there is also weak, just as saying "we want rich and educated black land-owners to run local farming associations but there aren't any" during the reconstruction would have been. Social change occurs as a result of activism; it's a slow process and one that always meets plenty of opposition.
The real argument is this: do you think that women should (meaning that it is our priority as a society to make that happen, and that means changing things) have equal power or not?
> The real argument is this: do you think that women should (meaning that it is our priority as a society to make that happen, and that means changing things) have equal power or not?
I'm not sure what equal power means, nor what changes would help bring that about.
By the way, I don't think people who want to change the current distribution of power are "obsessed", but it's hard for me to know what a fair distribution of power looks like. It's also likely that due to unfair distribution of personality traits among the population that a fair distribution of power is unlikely in practice unless enforced on society.
I also think women and men have different values and priorities in life, in part due to women's fertility declining sooner than men's. It's hard to have a high-status job and it's extremely hard to care for young children while doing a high-status job.
> I'm not sure what equal power means, nor what changes would help bring that about.
I think equal power means just that (see [1] for definitions of power), and as to what actions would bring that about, that's a matter of debate among progressives. But the main question is whether you want to bring it about with all the social change that entails; conservatives generally don't (they find the status quo satisfactory, and some even want to roll the clock back). My main issue is not with conservatives who admit their conservativeness, but with those who've convinced themselves that their conservative and (sometimes extremely so) values aren't conservative but neutral. If you don't think social action of any kind should be taken to change the current power distribution in society (and let alone if you want to roll back changes already made), then you're advocating for conservative policy. Wanting to do nothing is conservative by definition, and it means that your values are such that you find the status quo preferable over a change in the distribution of power.
> It's also likely that due to unfair distribution of personality traits among the population that a fair distribution of power is unlikely in practice unless enforced on society.
No, because we're talking about statistical distribution, not an equality among all individuals.
> I also think women and men have different values and priorities in life, in part due to women's fertility declining sooner than men's. It's hard to have a high-status job and it's extremely hard to care for young children while doing a high-status job.
That is a largely irrelevant question (or a secondary one [2]). The question is whether you want to change society so that women and men have equal power (statistically).
[2]: That's because we can ask why that's so. No biological basis for that has been proven and even if biological factors play a significant roles, we constantly use technology to overcome biological limitations to achieve desirable goals. For example, biology is certainly a 100% complete explanation for humans' inability to fly, but because we've deemed flight desirable, we overcame that limitation with technology. I always find it amusing how people who normally see technology as a solution to many problems and are reluctant to admit defeat use the slightest hint for small biological effects as a satisfactory explanation that some change cannot or should not be achieved.
The real argument is this: do you think that women should (meaning that it is our priority as a society to make that happen, and that means changing things) have equal power or not?