Equality is Not the Same as Symmetry
Looks like some sort of wacky domino, yes?
In fact, it is a diagram which epitomizes the distribution of abstract life qualities between the two biological halves of the human race. These abstract life qualities may be conveniently grouped under the twin headings of 'the bitter' and 'the sweet.' I have selected those words, bitter and sweet, because they cover the ground pretty thoroughly as regards the generalizations most people would make about life.
You may notice that each half holds precisely the same number of dots, to wit 20. You could say the two halves are 'equal' in that respect. But you will also remark that the dots are not identically distributed on both sides of the center axis, that the configurations don't mirror each other. The diagram is asymmetrical; it lacks symmetry, and this gives it a lop-sided appearance.
Let's just arbitrarily say that the dark-on-light dot pattern, to the left, represents the male half of the species, while the pattern on the right signifies the female half. Understand also that the spatial coordinates on the diagram have no assigned meaning. Here, the concept is what matters.
And the concept is, that while the aggregate of either bitter or sweet may be quantitatively equal on both sides of the sexual fence, it is not symmetrically configured, and that this want of symmetrical configuration could lead the naive realist to conclude that the balance-beam is not equally loaded on both sides.
What does this mean? On the terrain of life, where the rubber meets the road, it means that each sex will often have it smooth in an place where the other sex has it rough. This accounts for the uneven distribution of dots. And the reason for the uneven distribution? Fairly simple, I think. It is because men and women play different roles and occupy different zones of responsibility in the scheme of things. Each sex gets its own package of assets and liabilities, distinct to each, and endowing each with a differentially patterned locus of vulnerability. This in turn dictates where the universal thump, when it thumps, will end up thumping.
Those who would make a case for the "oppression of women" would need to demonstrate that the male side of the diagram holds quantitatively more dots in the category of the sweet, or that the female side holds quantitatively more in the category of the bitter, however you wish to parse it. To demonstrate "inequality" on the strength of isolated, selectively chosen dot correspondence mappings, would amount to cherry-picking, or "stacking the deck." This would not be an acceptable practice.
I trust that what I've shared will prove useful as conceptual ammunition. Hey, let's call it "the wacky domino effect" - there's an arcane neologism we can add to our flow of jargon, to baffle the feminist sector. Ha!
Moreover, I think this would have value as a disruptor meme - so let's aim and launch.