> delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised

If we don't do that then wouldn't the obvious question be "why have women accomplished so little compared to men?".

You comment perfectly illustrates that point

> the point here is a pretty specific type of treatment by men toward women that is unarguably bad behavior.

You are saying "women as vulnerable or marginalised" when GP comment is saying we shouldn't do that. I was logically explaining why its not possible to do that.

Also, quite rude of you to call me immature and childish and implying that I am condoning 'unarguably bad behavior'.

You seem to assume that is the case, but maybe the answer is that you do not value or notice the accomplishments of women? The Nobel prizes honor one very specific kind of achievement, one that many (not all) women do not particularly strive for. You don't tend to get a Nobel as a pediatrician, but society needs pediatricians anyway.

The gender wage gap is mostly due to jobs dominated by women paying less on average, i.e. women are putting up with smaller rewards and less recognition. You can see this as a vulnerability (since it enables exploitation) or as commendable altruism.

This is gender essentialism, to be believe that women have some specific type of preferences that men don't. This particular pernicious form of misogyny much much more harmful than overt sexism.