Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

I am surprised by the implication the principles of logic and the accuracy of statements have a size limit, which is how I take your opening claim, especially when a large portion of the text I posted is simply quoting your arguments to keep responses in context. I would accommodate you if I had available another method to do so without sacrificing accuracy, which is what I would hope everyone strives for in a debate. Additionally, I did negate the ideas you were conveying by showing the individual pieces to be inaccurate and, occasionally, showing how, even if the pieces were accurate, the conclusions drawn from them would still be wrong. An analogy would be showing how individual grains of pixie dust do not exist and how, even if they did, a statue made of them would still not exist. Since I have left your statements as is with very little editing and, even then, with no editing which changes the substance of your statements, your charge of “my statements have been quoted way out of context” is dubious, especially in light of the fact I have gone so far as to leave, for example, capitalization errors in place when quoting you. To illustrate: you did not argue “about every married couple tries to have a baby” but “now, i don't know about your or other societies but where i live, every married couple tries to have a baby, and most of them are successful.” The word “about” is conspicuously absent from the actual quote. Pray tell, where did I misquote you or misinterpret you? I left your text in plain view for everyone to see in the previous round and anyone clicking on the link can compare what I quoted with what you wrote to confirm that point. Consequently, there is no irony in pointing out I never said something you said I said. Your return to the conflation of marriage with reproduction does nothing to refute the points regarding such I put forth. You can freely “stand by the point” all you want but you would still be “standing by” an erroneous point unless you can show my prior conclusion to be incorrect. I also find skeptical the assertion “Results obtained without the intention is not influence, but luck.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the primary definition of “influence” when used as a noun is “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself”. Two examples my copy provides are the phrases “the influence of television violence” and “I was still under the influence of my parent”. Merriam-Webster gives the definition “the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen” and Wiktionary gives “the power to affect, control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change the development of fluctuating things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions.” None of these definitions require intent. So, clearly, influence need not involve intentional results. In fact, you provide examples of CEOs, judges, politicians, etc., each of whom make decisions with both intended and unintended effects, further undermining the claim such does not meet the definition of “influence”. Therefore, “Such power to control things is what i and everyone else means by 'influence’” is patently false. Your critique of the Aristotle comment misses the key word “primarily”, which does not mean “only” as said critique implies; however, even if did, you neither provide nor offer any citation of your Indus Valley claim here or in the comments just as I offered for mine. I can offer sources on Aristotle in the comments if you’d like but a quick cursory web search shows conflicting results with respect to the veracity of the Indus Valley claim. By all means, present your references for review. The structure of animal societies definitely has no relevance to how human society ought to be structured nor on logical deduction, nor does social psychology. Additionally, with the Indus Valley, animal, and social psychology arguments, you seem to be arguing more about what currently is and/or how we got to where we are while I have been arguing about what ought to be. You have not shown how “when it comes to reproduction men are equally cautious and selective” because you have not shown how, for example, the “pre-selection filter” I describe does not exist or does not operate in the way I describe. You also change the claim I make: I did not say at any point in time “women gain power and influence in society by giving birth to influential people”. I am not sure why you feel the need to “tilt at windmills”, so to speak, but you certainly seem to be doing so.