Re: If you think it I should:

Interesting position. You believe in an inherent universal morality and, I assume (given that you are of one of the Abrahamic faiths), something like original sin, but you also believe that all conformity is culturally based. I'd be interested in seeing how you reconcile those positions.

I don't understand why you think it is contradictory:
Cultural conformity goes far beyond behaviors that are subject to moral judgments: no religion (or secular philosophy) tells you to dress or not dress in pink. I don't see any (real and sincere) universal moral argument that makes it compulsory either way.
And any and all morality models are diffused partly through cultural conformity: while it is true that the ideal world would have everyone arrive on their own at ethical conclusions, you and I know that many people's ethical judgment doesn't go beyond what society likes or dislikes. So cultural conformity is an efficient (if imperfect) way to bridge this gap.

Just because these conditions arise in every culture doesn't mean that there is inherent value in them. Please note that 'rape' is on Brown's list; that doesn't then lead one to the conclusion that rape has universal merit.

But what is rape? In some cultures, marital rape is not rape. In others, rape of slaves is not rape. In others, rape of POWs or conquered people's civilians is not rape. In others, a rape is forgiven by marriage. The exception lists are cultural, even if behind there is a universal-moral imperative not to rape.

The reason mammals have size variance between sexes almost universally (as opposed to most other species) is for the reasons I provided, even if it may not be politically correct even among biologists to admit it: it is so males can physically dominate their opponent whether they're fighting or copulating.

Most birds have size variance; specifically polyandric fish do too. Specifically widow behavior arthropods do too.

Can you provide some significant examples of what you're talking about?

Widow behavior spiders.

How so?

By talking about polyandric fish?

Notice that this is a specific subset, as most fish are generally promiscuous in a non-biased way.

Women can fly remote controlled planes too. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Every time I mention Thatcher, Meir or any woman with power and unafraid of showing military muscle, you are the one to say they are not womanly enough for you...

More importantly, war in the traditional sense would likely become obsolete without men. It is always men who wage wars, not women.

...because Thatcher and Meir were sleeping through the cabinet meetings while the countries they led were making war. Behind their backs.

Again, see my point above: in your book, interstellar travel = possible but wars run by women and/or machines = impossible. Duuuuuude, are you always this condescending to females?

Of course wars can be run by women; but you explicitly proposed to breed aggression out, not only male aggression.

Sigh - which one do I have to argue???? that women are just as capable of aggression as men are (them two, Catherine, Joan, Elizabeth, Boudicca...), or that aggression as a trait is needed (and therefore war should not be extinguished even if it ever could be extinguished)?

Your desire for male genocide is based on combining both, and both are arguable - but they are not the same! Stop conflating them! Of course women are capable of war - we were arguing that a month ago; but the women in your future hypothesized world are women bred specifically for doveishness - not Lyndie England's whose idea of fun is playing BDSM games with non-consenting POWs.

As a matter of fact, I think Audishen would love the women of your future. They would be submissive like that.

There's no shame in a species dying out when there's nothing to be done about it.

For some reason, the voluntary extinctionist movement hasn't taken off, though.

Yes, there is a difference between selfish hoarding and hoarding in order to help others. Does it really need to be spelled out more clearly than that for you?

No, what I argue is that nobody has a built-in little bell alarm that tells them that the next dollar is one dollar too many. Rationally everyone agrees with this: Buffett is calling for higher taxes, isn't he? Well he wouldn't be so rich if he had quit making money years ago, now would he? But he never heard the alarm bell telling him when going on would become too much hoarding.

Well, given that it's on Brown's list of universals, I'd say it's pretty damn serious. I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in it's definitely negative. All the wars, atrocities, violence, rape . . . it all comes from men.

What part of "I don't deny this" have I not-denied not enough?

I still think the positives outweigh the negatives.

Not to mention, the elimination of one gender will fix the gender wars and sexual discrimination.

Yeah, and the elimination of all races except one will fix racism.

How is a "monopoly" the best way to end monopolies? It's called checks & balances, look into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Venezuela

However, in anarchies the most brutal and violent almost always triumph. Anarchies never last for precisely that reason: because power vacuums always get filled. I cannot think of a single sustained anarchic state in the whole history of humanity. They are doomed to fail because they lack the power to withhold those who do possess power.

So give more power to the already powerful and pray they protect us from the middling-powerful?

I don't really dispute that anarchy has proven unsustainable in communicated communities. I still think it to be so unequivocally morally superior that it must be the standard against which everything must be compared.

And the availability of guns.
And the invasive and totalitarian capacities of the state.
And if I wanted to be even more obnoxious, with material wealth.

My point was that if you want to read something into a tendency lasting for generations, there will always be many factors to read if so you wanted. Any of these might or might not have had as much or more influence than women empowerment. And I am sure I can (and you too) come up with more.

I'm talking about hierarchies that are out of step with what would naturally occur minus the artificial power structure.

Me too. This is, again, classical anarchist thought. Even if more salient in the left side of anarchism.

Right, so the fact that some people somewhere don't need something proves that no one needed it? My, how you do like to make sweeping claims about humanity. You are equivocating on the meaning of "need" here. You are using it to mean one thing (a desire for something required for survival) and I'm using it to mean something much broader (a desire for something which achieves a particular end.) Thus, there was a need by Eli Whitney for a much faster and more economical means of removing seeds from cotton fibers. Ergo, the cotton gin was born.

And that is not the hunting mindset, because...?

You're just delaying the question: a faster, more economical means of removing seeds from cotton fibers is not going to clothe you. It's so that you can sell more cotton. Accumulation, again? If you take away that mindset, few will think of it and nobody will do it.