Um, no. Strawman. You didn't answer my actual assertion.
There's nothing vague about the inevitability of death and satisfaction with a life lived to the full. Conversely, you're using phrases like "gender equality" that have no natural definition. The genders are not "equal". I, as an individual, am not "equal" to you, so how could an entire class of people be "equal"?
As do plenty of men. And the truth is that none of them get it. 99.5% of women in the workforce are employed in what Graeber calls "bullshit jobs" - pointless make-work whose only purpose is to get the plebs paying more taxes. Those childless university academics you mention are 0.1% of the population. They do not represent the aspirations and abilities of the ordinary man or woman in the street. And I bet half of them lie awake at night thinking, What's it all about, Alfie?
My sister is at the top of her career in academia. She's a fairly well-known name in her particular field. She's trapped by the poisonous nonsense that your sort gleefully fling around: she believes it's her duty to do the best job she can, while feeling desperately guilty that she's not always around for her kids. Ultimately, what she does at work is unimportant. It might be interesting (to her), but it adds nothing to the sum of human happiness. Spending five minutes reading with your kids, OTOH, does.
Rubbish. They're held back by the fact that they're mediocre human beings, just like the majority of us. I'm not Prime Minister because I'm not Prime Minister material, not because I'm being held back by racism.
Has it never occurred to you that somebody has to look after the children? Were you decanted from a vat? Didn't you ever cry for your mum when you fell over? When everybody is out at work - mothers and fathers - kids can only run to whoever's in charge of whatever Matrix they've been plugged into, and that's not a smart arrangement.
I have no problem at all with individuals making their own family-funding arrangements, but it's none of your business if the majority of women prefer to spend more time with their kids than with their bosses and ugly co-workers. Kids with sociology degrees have probably done nearly as much damage to society as kids with economics degrees have done to the economy.
Seriously, Gain, I can't even tell if you're pretending to be a Student Grant-like caricature, if you are actually are one.
And yet, funnily enough, I keep getting promoted. So it's because my straightness and maleness somehow outweighs my non-whiteness, like the silly video someone posted back there? How about my gay, female colleague, who also keeps getting promoted? Does she have some ace card that negates her sexuality and gender? Ah, she's white, so that must be it. No, wait, all the other people are white too ... oh, and she's married and she has a kid, so that's got to count against her ... her wife must feel so oppressed, stuck at home looking after the baby ... ooh, my head hurts. Anyway, her success is clearly nothing to do with the fact that she's an astoundingly talented individual, right?
The problem here is that it's so easy to blame one's failure in life on external factors. Oh, it's not because I'm a lazy, unreliable cnut, it's because I's black!
Your position was demolished long ago by actual research. The stuff I mentioned to (JB?) was well-known even when I was sleeping through my psychology lectures. Funnily enough, my gf at the time was a sociology student. Very smart. She was quite taken with all the same bullshit as you are, at the time. We had long drunken discussions about it. About 10 years later, she just laughed about it all and dismissed it as bullshit. She knew it was bullshit because she had a successful career and well-brought-up kids.
Wrong again. You're just wheeling out the 'blank slate' argument - that humans are just sponges that absorb whatever culture imposes on them. This is self-evidently untrue from various hard-science perspectives, and has been confirmed as implausible from psychological research.
Men and women differentiate themselves; they want to emphasize their maleness or femaleness, not equalize it away. They do it with 'male' and 'female' careers just as they do with 'male' and 'female' modes of dress. The choices they make might be arbitrary, but they're intentionally different. In my father's culture, a skirt is proper working attire for a (male) manual labourer. Women wear noticably different garments. Apparently there's a tribe in North Africa where hairdressing is a macho career. Every red-blooded male wants to be a hairdresser, and well 'ard warriors sit around chatting about their latest 'do. Women don't.
My class was about 70% women, and that was at a university relatively famous for social sciences. If you couldn't get laid in social sciences you were either gay or had no game.
My niece is in medical school right now. Nobody discriminated against her, despite her rather dodgy grasp of physical chemistry. OTOH, perhaps this is an instance of unfairness: she's skinny and blonde, so in theory she should have been rejected in order to give that place to someone fat/black/gay/disabled, right? My goodness, doesn't this get complicated?