> What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them.
Your choice of words is curious. Unless you yourself are something that women need to be protected from, nobody is trying to be a saviour here. I'm not overly concerned if you want to dismiss me as a white knight, since it's not my own social abilities which are in question.
> They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would?
You won't find much argument from me that the modern working environment is inhumane. If this is the root of your argument, you can drop the sexual angle entirely -- we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex. Patronizing women and dictating their social roles to them will not bring us any closer to achieving that as a species, nor will falling into the trap of trying to wrap human social behaviour up in a nice little bow with overly simplistic biological hypotheses.
Perhaps not explicitly, but by ignoring reality and pretending that we live on a different planet, people with this mentality sure do come across that way. Some even explicitly so.
> we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex
Which is why in countries that are most egalitarian, you'll find women naturally drawn to more "female oriented" practices, like nursing or childcare, and men to more "male oriented" work like construction and plumbing. Of course, the SJW's don't like that and want to push women head to head against men, only for it to end in the chaos we see today.
> overly simplistic biological hypotheses
Except it's not so. Phenomenon that have been observed across cultures and geography and time is not a "simplistic biological hypothesis".
