See? This is what I was talking about. I _can't_ change your mind. Not that I don't have the arguments (I do, plenty), but each argument I use gets turn jiu jitsu style and supports your world view. I can (and will) continue to argue for fun, but as far as actually reaching you, I might as well fight a shadow. (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Confirmation_bias).

Now, as far as arguing for fun goes:

> I make no apologies for my belief that women and men are equal.

They are equal. I know of no-to-little research that says they have significantly different _capabilities_. What I strongly disapprove is feminism (or however you call it, "society") trying to tell women what to want. That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The first, when confronted with an obvious imbalance (women in STEM, army, board room) will do its best to lower barriers, including btw with child care which most of Europe has. And surprise surprise, the more health care and government support you have, the more women still stay away from STEM/army/boardroom. It's as if more freedom actually allows them to express their real preferences.

Equality of outcome is something I find repugnant, both because I was born in a totalitarian regime and because it insults my sense of justice. And I also find illogical to the point of being insane - I read when I was a child about an archaeologist found chipping away at the corners of a burial chamber, because it did not conform with its calculations. This is the kind of behavior I'm seeing, not honestly trying to find out what the reality is, but shaping reality to conform with a pre-decided idea of equality and to hell with the truth. If as a side-effect it makes lots of people unhappy, too bad, the Equality won!

> So to sum it up, in my view we don't live in a meritocracy right now, because a meritocracy would produce closer to a 50/50 representation of men and women in the board room.

Grendel has a point here. There's no way a perfect equal-opportunity society would lead to a 50-50 split. It's unreasonable enough to say this to qualify you as "that kind of feminist".

If you want we can talk about this, but it would be more productive it you would look for the facts yourself. There is research that shows that in this kind of discussions the more arguments the other party offers, the more convinced people become they are right. But just in case it helps:

- men and women have different _preferences_. Not capabilities, research actually goes towards almost identical capabilities, but they want wildly different things from life. Of course, you can go and say it's society's blame that people are different, which is another can of worms I'm not really keen to open, but fact is - they do want different things. So they make different choices. And men's choices tend to lead to the boardroom more often than women's. Now you could go and say that's nor right and "educate" both men and women and teach them what to want - personally I don't find this idea particularly attractive - but we're talking current facts here.

- and speaking of preferences, women have children. There is absolutely no way you can say equal opportunity would lead to 50-50 split, when women have the children. Again, I'm not saying about how society might "fix" this "problem" - again I see it as a preference issue and as a matter of principle I don't think that it's a good idea to have the society teach people what to want. But fact is, women get pregnant and tend to want to bond and raise their children at least for a while, which on average HAS to have some impact on final performance.

So you see, you are "that kind of feminist", looking beyond reason toward an ideal and trying to twist the facts to fit that ideal. I really wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now, having to chose between accepting this truth and finding some shred of maybe falsehood in the other guy's comment and convincing myself that it makes the whole argument invalid.