Do you mean the modern feminist movement, or all feminist/women’s rights movements since the creation of civilization?

or something else

all of it

Women should be property again?

when you try to push women into science and engineering for example, you lower the standards of performance, you disrupt the all-male work culture, and you take a women out of the wife pool since she would have to be superhuman to work a high power job and have 3+ kids.

The only good that comes of it is for the company that hires her, as women are much worse, statistically, at negotiating salaries and raises, and will be a docile employee forever.

I mean, I was referring to encouraging women to learn the stuff and apply it, not simply apply if they weren’t capable. Disrupting work culture is likely not as much of an issue as the natural talent companies miss out on because of the relative lack of female participation in those fields; you can imagine the cost to society if someone like Marie Curie had decided or been forced not to participate in STEM careers. That Marie Curie had a loving husband also contradicts your statement (although maybe this is what you mean by superhuman?). I don’t support shoving women into STEM jobs until it’s perfectly half-and-half; I’m saying that it’s beneficial to make sure that naturally talented women do get their opportunity to try out these fields without feeling unfairly discouraged on account of their gender.
And while I would like to see your data on how bad women are at negotiating salaries, that problem is separate from the first ones. Either way, the problem is not to take power away from women, the inevitable result of which is to further reduce their economic bargaining power. After all, the modern feminist movement (the non-crazy-SJW-part) does promote things like equal pay for equal work that would address problems like that.

Sorry for sounding like a preteen libtard.

Don't worry about it bud

Listen, there are defiitely some girls who would be good at this stuff and would never pursue it unless encouraged. But as long as there is the freedom for women to pursue high power careers, most who are capable and into that kind of lifestyle will go for it without being told to. Yeah women who can have a high power career and fulfil their reproductive duty are very rare.
As far as equal pay for equal work, that is actually a 100% bullshit project and most corporate sponsors of that effort do not pay women equal wages themselves. The "wage gap" is the result of horribly mangled statistics, with the 76% number or whatever it is now being derived from the mean income of all working men and that of all working women. Men take up higher paying careers and are much better at negotiating salaries *and* often have a wife at home allowing them to work longer and better. Not to mention that a larger proportion of working women are employed only part-time. It really is just bs all the way through.

There are many women who go into those fields; however, I think there’s still some societal attitudes (gender roles and all) that may discourage other women from exploring them. And women don’t really have a reproductive duty more than adults / parents in general have a family duty. It takes two, after all.
For your second part, you seem to contradict yourself - you say that women are bad at negotiating salaries and ultimately end up working for less than they deserve (which would mean they do deserve higher pay based on the work they do), but also that men get paid more simply because they work harder and better than women do (implying that women are being paid what they deserve). Which is it?
Lastly, i can’t help but notice that you cite traditional gender roles as support for traditional gender roles, in that the societal trend of keeping women at home (who would possibly be better off doing other things) causes women to work less, which you interpret as a sign that women naturally belong at home. In addition, I could create the hypothetical counterpoint of saying that if wives had *husbands* at home, then *they* could be the ones to work longer and harder at their jobs. Either one is just a reflection of whatever happens to be the gender employment ratio, not any underlying biological differences.

Which is it? It is both. There are many factors that exist simultaneously.

True. The question is, are those causes or effects.

and the biological differences between men and women *do* support traditional gender roles

it makes a lot more sense for the one who is 8 months pregnant to not have to go out and work

and I don't know what you mean by "are those causes or effects"

oh, you're pulling a "women would do all the high power jobs if society let them" meme

I would also not want a woman who is 8 months pregnant to have to go work

Do you support parental leave

You mean federally mandated parental leave? No.

Also, that’s not what I am trying to pull - I’m saying that women are somewhat more disproportionately excluded from high-level jobs than the sheer talent differential and work ethic provides for

Have you ever worked for a company and met your executives

would you want your employer to give your family parental leave?

like 75% of the c-suites I have met have been men over 6 feet tall

ouch

and the other 25% were men with foul tempers

it takes an imposing presence to control an organization

That’s 100% men

women cannot be imposing

it is very rare for a woman to be capable of leading effectively

I would disagree that it’s very rare

they are short and weak

they do not create respect

not in the leadership kind of way at least

Angela Merkel and Theresa May deserve at least some credit, I think

Although they are different types of jobs

Merkel is childless and is destroying her country

What’s your opinion on Thatcher

I don't care to have a strong opinion on most politicians

I see

some women throughout history have existed who can lead effectively