I said it from the beginning, I can only speak from my experience, which just happens to be rather unique. Not everything is as it seems, and like I said, to speak about benefits, how they are distributed and what their impact is we first need to discuss what can really be called a benefit.
It's like if a woman were to complain about there not being enough women in the military, she could see this for the income and perceived respectability and think it's a blessing, but the men dying alone in the fields would tell a different story. The men that have to sign off their bodies to be regulated or else face losing their freedom would feel differently about it being a benefit.
What is being measured to determine which gender (if any) benefits/suffers most from this system is lacking.
back when people in the west went to war en masse, each gender experienced different, yet both very real and equal hardships. Depends where they lived. North Americans think of women in WW2 as being at home and working in factories to replace men, but what of the lives of women in the nations which had the wars faught on their soil?
I'm with ya, gender discrimination resorts to gross overgeneralization. It has to be about specifics. The individual experience of living as male vs female is so very different in certain spheres it really shouldn't be compared so easily.
To measure what benefits us we need to use scientific reserach as the point of reference. Only science can help us to discover what social conditions/values/behaviours are socially sustainable.
"wars faught on their soil?" Many of women fought in those countries during WW2.