It's easy to end up with a reductio ad absurdum - if you start from the position that there's a homogenous demographic group called 'women' and a different homogenised demographic group called 'men' and that relationships between the two are always stereotyped, and always and exclusively (by implication) solely to the detriment of women, then you end up somewhere indefensible and disconnected from reality.

My point isn't so much about who's bossing who around, but that assessments of value made by the equality industry are largely based on economics - specifically who gets more cash.

This is a non-starter because the whole point of most economic thinking is to increase inequality, not reduce it. So trying to change relationships between gender roles by trying to increase economic status is like driving with the brake on - you may get selective improvements for certain groups, but they will usually be at someone else's expense.

To put it another way - I don't care about women getting into boardrooms, because I don't want boardrooms. And getting people out of boardrooms and into more open and inherently participatory political and economic systems is going to do more for practical equality than adding legal and legislative epicycles to a toxic and unstable system which is likely to implode soon anyway.

Care to inform yourself about nurses having it far worse than doctors ? Care to read my argument, which is not that "nurses are oppressed and doctors are authoritarian men" (although your recognised the latter part in admitting bosses were often patronising in France) but that there is a framing that considers nursing to be a subservient, caring, uncreative occupation, which thus doesn't fit the masculine gender ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères