[jmromer]

You're thinking in partial equilibrium. I've no doubt that many women suffer under the yoke of gender expectations that are at odds with their biology. So do men. And even now, somewhere, there are women who suffer because of gender expectations you'd no doubt be in favor seeing made the norm.

But a world in which your vision ("Gender needs to go" == "your conception of gender norms needs to go") is realized is one where many more suffer similarly oppressive expectations. And anywhere in between we're making tradeoffs that are costly to someone on some margin.

Somewhat relatedly: "Theor[ies] of oppression" would be all the more compelling if the humanists and sociologists who peddle them for a living bothered (or had the training) to think in terms of general equilibria.

[_bfhp]

I have never heard of "training [] to think in terms of general equilibria". Where does one acquire such training? Is there a YouTube channel for that?

Men benefit directly from how women suffer under gender. Did you read any of the articles? The only reason any of that occurs is for the benefit of the men in the society. The demand is for girls/women to "make themselves sexy," sexy being defined as appealing to straight men's sexuality. The idea of "oppression" has always implied an oppressor class -- attempting to revise the idea as to not include you and I in the class is only expected, though. "Sociologists"? Try Marx.

I don't "favor" any gender expectations. I don't know what you're referring to. The worldwide conception of gender, facets of which is illustrated by the articles, needs to go -- you can read what this would be like in the short essay "Imagining a World without Gender" by Judith Lorber [1].

[1] http://paste.pound-python.org/show/QGJwDfVVulEjLTdEmdmU/