> an post-hoc modification to the general theory without much deeper examination into the inconsistency.
I don't see it that way at all ... it is clearly true in a statistical sense that outcomes from a small sub-population do not necessarily tell you much about the general population at all. It is obviously possible that there is a general systematic bias in favor of men across most segments of society, but a different stronger bias against some sub-population of low-status men that easily compensates for it.
Allowing for this (indeed proposing it) doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all, merely an allowance for complexity. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it doesn't even run afoul of Occam.
> if society is systematically biased against women, then why are they disproportionately absent from the lowest tiers?
I proposed one possibility above, in terms of how their issues are dealt with. More generally though, it's not entirely clear that women
are absent here - it really depends on how you draw the line "lowest tier". It's true that men are represented more highly in homeless populations (65/35 ish, if I recall correctly) and prisons (even higher). So it is of course interesting to ask why that is. Part of that might be answered by what interventions are available and taken up before that point (e.g. we know there are connections between homelessness and mental health, and we know women, for what ever reasons, are more likely to receive treatment. Are these connected to homelessness stats? Or how much of prison representation relates to prosecution and/or sentencing stats?). We also know most homeless children are with their (majority single) mothers. It's plausible that social programs work a lot harder to get children out of this status, and indirectly their mothers. Not sure what affect that would have on the overall stats.
It's much less clear to me that this is a good definition of "lowest tier" though, clearly some prison populations and most/all homeless are in there, but it inclusive enough? What about other populations? Sex-trade workers are disproportionately women, and most of them are very low-status, but relatively few are counted as homeless. Etc. etc. I would have to know a hell of a lot more of the poverty literature before I would be comfortable that I understood where to draw this line.
Anyway we have probably reached the depth of viable conversation in this medium, or close to it. And that on a subject that is difficult to get honest engagement with. Thank you for being reasonable the whole way through, it's rare and I appreciate it.