This is very long, and thank you for taking the time. I don't have as much time right now, but I will speak to some quick points that stood out to me.
- A meat-only diet didn't sustain early humanity, and nutritionally cannot. The gatherer role, performed predominantly by women, ensured that we got carbohydrates and micronutrients. A little later, when domestic sources of meat and dairy became prevalent, women and men split the work of caring for these animals, and women did most of the milking and processing of dairy. Agriculture continued with shared labor. And all this while, childcare was a full-time concern, performed predominantly by women.
- Pre-industrial designing and manufacture of clothes was predominantly a women's profession. Spinning, carding, dyeing, weaving, knitting, sewing, crocheting, nalbinding, were all skills developed and passed on by and among women. Post-industrialization, since it involved handling machines, it was re-cast as a male profession for a while, but not for long. Today's clothing sweatshops employ women for flatbed knitting, machine sewing, vat dyeing, and crocheting. Handmade clothing is a family affair, with men and women both taking part. Ladies' tailors are at least half women, and men's tailors also employ women in sewing roles. New patterns for machine work are designed by a significant fraction of women, and new patterns for handiwork are almost always either teamwork within families or by individual women.
- Equality of opportunity on paper isn't everything. Women face serious harassment in blue-collar professions. Despite that there is minority participation (I already said minority, so I don't see why the small numbers are contentious here). Since you mentioned "redneck": if you're going to use US statistics, then the numbers are even less in favor of your argument. Teamsters, the largest labor union of American transportation, construction, and manufacturing workers, has 27% female membership as of 2017. Public buses in every US town/city I have been to have equal incidence of male and female drivers. Women also had much higher participation in these jobs during WW2 when men were conscripted; later when the men came home, the jobs went back to those men--not through any fair screening process but by firing women en masse. So even if women are less inclined, women can at least manage in a crisis. I never claimed it will be painless, but men being the majority doesn't make women helpless automatically.
- You severely minimized the example of a hospital, of all things. If hospitals don't function, people will definitely actually die.
- Men are socialized with better survival and wilderness skills. I don't see the reason to consider women less capable of these, until young women are habitually taught the same skills. Saying "men are better in the wilderness" is like saying "women are better at sewing". Sure, yes, but it's because young girls are taught sewing and young boys are not (as a general trend ofc).
- Early computing had majority female participation. It became a "men's job" when its prestige increased, which was a common phenomenon in those days.
- Farm work today is a family affair, shared equally among men and women. Drive through India's rice fields in replanting season and see who is doing most of it.
- WiFi relies on technology invented by a woman. Our mobile phones are actually built by children, irrespective of gender, in horrific sweatshop conditions. It's a whole other problem. Even there, older boys are kicked out of the assembly lines whereas girls survive to a higher age, because they want fine fingerwork. And the building I am in right now, was built by men and women laborers together.
- MAANG companies, as of 2022, reported ~20% female participation in tech roles, ~60% in non-tech roles; and also ~35% in leadership and ~40% overall. These are the most conservative estimates btw, because my knowledge on these numbers is a tad rusty. I did quickly reverify for Meta: there the numbers are 25.8%, 60.5%, 36.7%, 37.1%. All these stats are global.
Most of your conclusion is a response to your general perception of how women treat you (which I cannot single-handedly change), and not to my specific point about the value of women's labor; so I will refrain from a long response to it. My brief view on the matter is that individual examples shouldn't be used to vilify a demographic. "Not all men" is okay by me as a fact, I only dislike the phrase when it is used to deflect. Similarly, in this Athul situation, I am not going to yell "not all women", and I will not defend corrupt/abusive women either. If your whole outlook towards women is affected by bad experiences with women, believe me I understand: given how many harassers and molesters I have faced, it takes a lot of energy to have normal interactions with men. But I still choose to approach individual men as individuals, because otherwise I would be miserable and lose out on all the positive male influences that also exist in my life. I also practically can't avoid men because of my career. Like many women, I accept that men can be dangerous, but also are unavoidable practically, plus there are many men I don't want to avoid. You are instead holding on to hope that you can get away with avoiding women altogether; that is an altogether understandable trauma response, and if it works out for you then good luck with it.