[throway33]

It's actually an important point. For example, one of the most misogynistic societies I can think of are the polygamous communities like Bountiful, BC, which are basically ruled by a small cadre of elite senior men with multiple wives. Women are very oppressed. However young men are just as oppressed; they are treated as competition by the elite, and essentially exiled or put to work as child labour in dangerous jobs. This community is very misogynistic and ruled by a patriarchy, and clearly the power is concentrated in the hands of men; at the same time it is not a community that you would want to be born into as a man or a woman, and the median man will end up with none of that patriarchal power or status.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/

This is why it's important not just to average over groups. Dear Leader might always be a man, but that's not relevant to the fate of 99.99% of men who will never be Dear Leader, nor will they receive favour from him for sharing his gender.

This is why a lot of people are sensitive to arguments that use language that equivocates between the entirely non-equivalent propositions "if you have power, you probably are a man" and "if you are a man, you probably have power".

And yet the confusion between these two propositions is so widespread that probably most of the arguments in this HN comment section will come down to it.