Saying it's "fundamental hardwiring" is not science, it's speculation at best. Figuring out what's cultural versus genetic in humans is a difficult scientific problem that can't be solved by vague analogy to other species.

If you want to be "real" just avoid pseudo-scientific claims altogether. If you think there's science behind something at least cite a paper.

Not posting links to papers also doesn't automatically make what I said any less true.

True or not, it means that between two strangers on the Internet, there's no reason to believe you.

"Why do you think that?" "Someone in an Internet forum said so."

Nobody does that.

Telling stories from personal experience sometimes works. (Take Susan Fowler's essay for example.) Linking to articles from credible sources can work (for example, the NYT article). Asserting scientific statements without backing it up doesn't.

It’s far from perfect, but Scandinavia frowns upon anything too blunt in that direction. Depending on the country, they have influential female politicians, board members, etc. Trying to leverage position of power for sex is presumably highly unlikely to get you anywhere else than the front page of a scandal magazine.

I’d recommend interviewing men and women living there for some context on what a word like that could be like.

> Let's be real, males using positions of power to obtain sex isn't exactly a US-only problem, it's fundamental hardwiring of virtually every primate species

I'm sorry, but did you just make a generalizing statement linking a difference in behavior to sex? Logically, you can invert your comment to say that females use sex to get power. Neither of these things can be said. Ever. Isn't this sort of thing precisely what got James Damore run out of town on a rail for, just a few months ago?