You have something wrong. Women's contributions to procreation aren't more valuable unless they are more valued. A man (in theory) can make many women pregnant in one month, but overwhelmingly this is not something that is done in our society, There are surely some exceptions out there, but that some of excessive polygamy is the tiny exception, not the rule. The ability of one man to get many women pregnant simultaneously is not particularly relevant.I think we can agree, one man can make many women pregnant in a month. A woman can give birth only once in about 9 months. Do we agree on that?
Scarcity adds value. A woman's contribution to procreation is scarcer than a man's, hence more valuable. Still with me? Let me know when I have something wrong.
Yes, society benefits rich/powerful people as well as men. It also benefits certain races and sexualities over others. That doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist.Feminism holds that as men control the leavers of power, the society is one that is made to benefit men. I would write, it benefits powerful men.
...
More later... but for the meantime watch this based on true story movie clip of a jr. officer telling sr. officer a certain military attack is suicide. sr. then says, (paraphrasing) but there's a possible promotion and pay raise in it for you! after which jr. officer says, "you know, I think it can be done!" and gets something like 800 of his men killed when he should of known better.
Yes, and, as always, we have to remember that the majority of combat positions (in Western militaries) are held by men because women aren't allowed. Women are fighting for the right to serve, but haven't got that far (yet).Do we agree 95% of combat deaths are male?
We should also remember who else can't serve in those roles. Children and people with intellectual or physical disabilities, obviously. Also, in many places, trans people, and until fairly recently gay people. Not that long ago, certain ethnicities had restrictions placed on them. Those are very different groups, but what they have in common with each other (and women) is that large slabs of society deems them "not good enough".
IIRC, during the American Civil War, units composed of mostly Irishmen suffered disproportionately high casualties. Some historians say that this was because the commanders didn't care for the Irish, and didn't care if they died. Others argue that it was due to the opposite reasons, that the Irish had a good reputation for being good fighters, and thus were sent where the fighting was hardest. Either way, a lot of Irish died. Being seen as superior means you get picked for dangerous jobs requiring your best people.
(Traditionally, at this point, someone suggests that only men should serve, as the survivors of the conflict will have to breed the next generation, and you need less male survivors than female as in your first point. This isn't a concern in modern warfare, as the number of combatants killed is only a small amount of the total population, and no Western nations has had to institute polygamy for their ex-soldiers)