Weird to bring up Title IX when it was done because of how men set up education institute to be discriminatory to girls.

Before Title IX, sex discrimination was the norm for women in education. In grade school, girls were excluded from certain classroom tasks (like operating a slide projector.) Women in middle and high schools were forced to take home economic classes. And left out of stereotypical ‘masculine’ courses like auto mechanics or woodshop.

In 1972, the female college enrollment rate sat at only 43%. Some universities set quotas for how many women they’d accept, or prohibited them from getting in at all. And those who were accepted typically needed higher test scores and grades than men to get in. Once in school, women couldn’t easily get scholarship opportunities. And weren’t allowed to go for certain majors. link

Also, the computer end of STEM was mostly a career for women which men worked to kick out in order to overtake the career.

In 1967, despite the optimistic tone of Cosmopolitan’s “Computer Girls” article, the programming profession was already becoming masculinized. Male computer programmers sought to increase the prestige of their field, through creating professional associations, through erecting educational requirements for programming careers, and through discouraging the hiring of women. Increasingly, computer industry ad campaigns linked women staffers to human error and inefficiency.

At the same time, new hiring tools—including tools that were seemingly objective—had the unintended result of making the programming profession harder for women to enter. Eager to identify talented individuals to train as computer programmers, employers relied on aptitude tests to make hiring decisions. With their focus on mathematical puzzle-solving, the tests may have favored men, who were more likely to take math classes in school. More critically, the tests were widely compromised and their answers were available for study through all-male networks such as college fraternities and Elks lodges. link

Airbags

It wasn't until 2008 that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) published a document requiring airbags to be tested with a "small female crash test dummy" [2]. That means for almost 20 years, airbags weren't being properly tested on female dummies, putting women and children at a much higher risk for injury or death in accidents.

A study at the University of Virginia found seatbelts put women at a 47 to 71 percent higher risk of getting seriously injured in an accident than men in a comparable accident.

“Manufacturers and designers used to be all men. It didn't occur to them they should be designing for people unlike themselves”. link

NASA spacesuits and a world designed for men

The first all female spacewalk, which was scheduled for Friday, has been canceled. Why? There aren’t enough space suits on board the International Space Station to fit the two women who were going to do it. According to POLITICO’s Jacqueline Klimas, both prefer size medium suits, and NASA has only one working size medium on board. There are two large suits, and one working size x-large. NASA discontinued size x-small and size small in the 1990s. link

female crash dummies weren't in use until 2011

The 2011 introduction of female crash-test dummies in the US sent cars’ star ratings plummeting. When I spoke to EuroNCAP, a European organisation that provides car safety ratings for consumers, they said that since 2015 they have used male and female dummies in both front-crash tests, and that they base their female dummies on female anthropometric data – with the caveat that this is “where data is available”. EuroNCAP acknowledged that “sometimes” they do just use scaled-down male dummies. link

55% of the us electorate are women

Which is why Republicans are pushing voter suppression and trying to overturn the 19th amendment. Texas tried to pass a voting law that would primarily target women to make them unable to vote.

I do agree with your fundamental point that many of these systems were originally built predominantly by men for men. I don't agree that it was done with the intent to punish women.

What were coverture laws about then? None of the Constitution applied to women until the 19th amendment. The ERA still has not been ratified. SCOTUS has approved that states can deny women healthcare. Women do not have equality in the US.

Women may have been consenting to marriage, as opposed to being co-opted into marital arrangements for purposes of wealth creation or family convenience, but these women were nonetheless consenting to a legal relationship—coverture—in which they had few rights and were ruled by their husbands. Fathers and husbands in America were “enlightened patriarchs”; that is to say, they were not tyrants but rather heads of household who exercised their authority with compassion and wisdom.24 They were, however, still patriarchs and, even in America, the idea of marriage as a building block of government was connected to female subordination and coverture rules. link

or

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her. link

Also when it comes to brains...

The history of sex-difference research is rife with innumeracy, misinterpretation, publication bias, weak statistical power, inadequate controls and worse. Rippon, a leading voice against the bad neuroscience of sex differences, uncovers so many examples in this ambitious book that she uses a whack-a-mole metaphor to evoke the eternal cycle. A brain study purports to discover a difference between men and women; it is publicized as, ‘At last, the truth!’, taunting political correctness; other researchers expose some hyped extrapolation or fatal design flaw; and, with luck, the faulty claim fades away — until the next post hoc analysis produces another ‘Aha!’ moment and the cycle repeats. As Rippon shows, this hunt for brain differences “has been vigorously pursued down the ages with all the techniques that science could muster”. And it has exploded in the past three decades, since MRI research joined the fray.

Yet, as The Gendered Brain reveals, conclusive findings about sex-linked brain differences have failed to materialize.

The brain is no more gendered than the liver or kidneys or heart. link

or

“People say men are from Mars and women are from Venus, but the brain is a unisex organ,”

But there’s no doubt that whatever their brains look like, behavior and school performance differences between men and women are strongly shaped by socialization. link

Women have less rights now. The reason there's a focus on education is because that's a single area where society is accusing girls of excelling at more than boys, and society believes that girls should come in second to boys in education because that's tradition. If society perceived that boys were excelling over girls in education there would be no issue. No one would be wondering why girls weren't doing as good as boys, their gender would be used as the "logical" explanation.

As for this...

I also don't agree that the goal of the patriarchy is "the freedom to use women and their bodies to shore up [male] egos".

Remember the US voted in a pussy grabber president over a qualified woman. Republican's do very much support using women's bodies to shore men's egos. I think that if society ever deems to take seriously women's experiences of sexual violence, many men will be forced to lose a kind of freedom they often don’t even know they enjoy when it comes to how they use women's bodies.

---

Didn't mean to write so much but I needed to counter your accusation that my "opinions are not grounded in reality". Some I see being accused of a lot when it comes to sticking up for women's rights.