The same would be true for anyone who won the lottery.
Yes, extraordinary luck can radically alter normal circumstances, but that's a meaningless outlier.
Yes, extraordinary luck can radically alter normal circumstances, but that's a meaningless outlier.
Also I don't know of any men who gets to open a charity with his wife's money or influence, but I know a lot of women who do. Even the first lady of USA gets a charity fund and a small crew of people to help her spend it, why do we do that? Because that is what we expect powerful husbands to do for their wives. Shouldn't such things get taken into account when we dole out privilege points?
I mean, men are more likely to earn a lot of money and influence, yes, but women are much more likely to marry into a lot of money and influence. So if your goal is to get a lot of money and influence but don't want to do the sacrifices required for it then you'd rather be a woman.
Or in other words, marrying into wealth and getting to spend said wealth on your pet projects is one of the most privileged roles you can have and the sex ratio for said role is extremely skewed in favor of women. Taking Melinda as an example of a woman who had to struggle due to her gender is very poor taste since she is basically the embodiment of female privilege.
Ok. Let's say that becoming a Fortune 500 CEO is like winning the lottery. Let's give that to you for a second.
It's a lottery that only a small section of the population has access to. Men overwhelmingly that lottery. White men especially. If it were truly a lottery, we'd see statistics that would more closely mirror the general population.
You also note that men are more likely to earn a lot of money and influence. Then try to contrast it with women marrying into that. You then lament that men hardly have the opportunity to marry into money.
You know why?
Because historically women haven't been afforded all the same opportunities men have to do the same. Women don't have the money to marry into.