> Otherwise the statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited.

It's only provably false because you're making a semantic argument against it, sticking on the strict definition of "every" rather than interpreting it as heard by others.

> First off, very few men have access to those positions of power.

Right. That's a problem, too. It's just not a feminist problem.

> Second, much of feminism ignores the question of why one-to-one gender representation is desirable in the first place for each and every position of power.

> Well, the man is still the most objectively skilled person for the job maybe you should figure out how to build control mechanisms that prevent male ideologies from perpetuating insidious effects throughout the system, rather than just scream about how men should be barred from the position.

And step one to figuring out how to build said control mechanisms is explaining to people that they should help out. To which there is always the response that there isn't anything wrong in the first place and look, women are underrepresented because they aren't supposed to be in positions of power anyways so why change anything?

These conversations are necessarily circular because you can't talk with everyone about everything all the time. You're always going to rehash conversations periodically, and one-to-one representation is a fairly concrete fact-based grounding point for such conversations. You're going to have to explain the benefits of functional programming to every fresh-faced only-learned-Java college graduate over and over again until you change the underlying system to explain functional programming to them before you have to.

> Third, there is the question of whether or not these inequalities are systemic because of male oppression or female behavior. It is likely a mix of the two, but feminists completely discount the latter.

Surely not EVERY feminist! That statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited.

> There are innumerable other issues I could list but what's common to all of them, in my view, is that they focus so intently on the end goal of elevating women's power status that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately.

Yes, that's true. This is why I, for instance, have stopped arguing with atheists or privacy advocates. They're so focused on the end goal that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately. That's one of those costs you pay for people being human and actually caring about the issues they fight for.

Another cost is that, here in reality, if you don't take a polarizing stance, it's incredibly hard to provide compromises when it comes down to actually deciding policy. And if you take a polarizing stance long enough, you start fully committing to it rather than holding it for the sake of making change. If you take a realistic stance, then when you compromise, you start losing the things that are necessary, too. Both strategies are bad. You have to get insanely lucky for everything to work out well and crystallize over the course of generations.

There is no right answer. Thinking you have the right answer virtually guarantees that you're bulldozing over someone else's considerations. Failing to think you have the right answer pretty much means no one will listen to you. Fucked either way, so you fuck it up until it's less bad.