The reply to me was non-sequitur. I wasn't talking about Finland, and I wasn't postulating universal laws. "Women suffer more unfairness" doesn't mean every set of women will suffer more unfairness than every set of men. Casting doubt on whether a particular highly untypical set of women suffer more than the corresponding set of men is completely beside the point in that context (unless it were intended as evidence against the statement, which apparently it was not).

And I was arguing against a priori allocating everything to women. So if Finish men are suffering more fixable injustice they and not the women would be the main beneficiaries according to the argument in the comment nawitus was responding to. So if nawitus had just been putting things in the Finish context (instead either producing non-sequiturs or perhaps ascribing imaginary positions to me) the fitting reply would have been something along the lines that such a pragmatic allocation might make men the main beneficiaries in Finland for the reasons actually listed.

Nobody has yet provided arguments that women suffer more in e.g. USA.

I've add that nobody has provided arguments that women suffer more outside the USA, either. It's just another truism in white liberal middle-class circles. Whether this view is reasonable or not, an argument for it that compares the suffering of men and women worldwide has never been made.

If anyone hold this view, check out the literature on gendercide, and the work of Adam Jones. For example, see his essay on the erasure of male victims in Kosovo. At Gendercide Watch, Jones argues that male victims of gender-related atrocities are systematically erased:

The difficulty with Warren's framing of gendercide, though -- and this is true for the feminist analysis of gender-selective human-rights abuses as a whole -- is that the inclusive definition is not matched by an inclusive analysis of the mass killing of non-combatant men. Gendercide Watch was founded to encourage just such an inclusive approach. We believe that state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly targeted men through history, and that this phenomenon is pervasive in the modern world as well. Despite this prevalence of gendercide against males -- especially younger, "battle-age" men -- the subject has received almost no attention across a wide range of policy areas, humanitarian initiatives, and academic disciplines. We at Gendercide Watch feel it is one of the great taboos of the contemporary age, and must be ignored no longer.

If you check out the case studies at Gendercide Watch, men, particularly men deemed "battle-age" are disproportionately targeted in most forms of armed conflict. In the US, we hear a lot about women being raped in war, while men who die in greater orders of magnitude barely get a mention. The case studies are truly chilling, and when I read them, I wondered "why am I only finding out about this now?" For instance, I didn't know that the majority of victims in Stalin's purges seem to have been male.

If you (general "you") didn't know the magnitude of the slaughter of men worldwide, then ask yourself: what else is left out from my understanding of gender? What else have feminist not told me?

If you are a guy and you don't like forced labor, purges, machetes, chainsaws, or hanging out in mass graves, then it's really difficult to say that you are better off in many areas outside the U.S. that are experiencing armed conflict. Women have a horrible time in war, too, and experience high rates of sexual violence. But is that really worse than death? Note that men commonly experience sexual violence in conflict zones, also. Jones quotes Dubravka Zarkov:

People who have lived through armed conflicts around the globe know that sexual violence against men, even if random and with fewer victims than violence against women, has been a fact of war for hundreds of years. In the contemporary wars, however, it is a rather well-hidden fact. Experts in the field of conflict studies, or aid workers, may know about it. But a war rape of a man was never a major story in the press, nor castration in a war camp on the evening television news. I had hardly heard of it myself ...

It's not at all obvious that women suffer more in conflict zones, even taking into account sexual violence towards them, due to the high rate of murder, forced labor, and sexual violence towards men in many conflicts. The truism "women suffer more outside the US" should be updated to: "women suffer more outside the US, except in conflict zones," which just doesn't have the same ring.

Nobody has yet provided arguments that women suffer more in e.g. USA.

I'm not interested in that sort of argument. My position is that such arguments are mostly useless, and that you'd do better spending your time fixing whatever injustice is most fixable instead of trying to make the injustice exactly balanced. (As you should know if you read the comment you were replying to)

I made the statement you keep going back to as an aside and because it's obviously true: There are no places where enough men are treated unfairly enough to make up for places like Saudi Arabia (though apparently even Saudi Arabia has been improving somewhat). I don't particularly care whether it's true in particular countries where it's close enough to be non-obvious because I don't think that should guide any decisions in such countries (though I think it's probably true in all but a handful of European countries, and I did give the link on women in parliament which is more evidence than you gave)

I'm not sure why the point about a literal global budget seems so important to you. Promoting equality between Finish men and women would be very far down on the list of things as perfectly rational UNICEF would spend money on, a charity devoted to such would presumably score pretty low on GiveWell compared to other equality causes, and I'd certainly hope a Finish LessWrong group would find a better cause to devote themselves to. Why does it matter to you whether that's stated in the form of a hypothetical global budget or not? The statement was mostly just to point out that Finland is untypical anyway.

Under circumstances like that I would start by requisitioning some census data from the Director of Figuring Out What Gender Actually Is, to determine the number of males, females, and misc/other. Initial budgeting would assume a uniform per-capita distribution of gender-specific oppression.

Then I would do some surveys, focus groups, statistical analysis of written complaints, and so forth to identify the main problems in each category. Naturally, information-gathering for a specific gender's problems comes out of the budget for that gender, although there might be some post-hoc fiddling around if a survey intended to address one issue provides unexpected insights outside it's category.

Once the issues are identified, I would set up teams of economists, anthropologists, etc. (mixed specialties in any given team) for in-depth analysis of causes and possible solutions. Each problem gets more than one team, each team is expected to come up with a predictive model of the problem before anyone proposes solutions, and then to have multiple possible courses of action with cost/benefit analysis for each, including the null option and at least one option which is completely stupid.

After the possible courses of action are laid out, each team is handed the full analysis of two or more interventions proposed by other teams and assigned the task of mapping out how those courses of action might interfere with each other. Bonus points for spotting errors or oversights in the other team's analysis, or ways that multiple interventions could be cost-effectively combined. The result is one or more new proposals which are then added to circulation.

Eventually, a few 'gems' would emerge: plans with exceptionally high cost/benefit ratios, exceptionally low risk of negative externalities, or that would otherwise be unconscionable to avoid acting on. Each of these gets as much funding as necessary, up to... let's say about 80% of the relevant category or categories.

After the gems are polished off, either to the point of diminishing returns or concern over too many eggs in one basket, the remainder of any given categorical budget is distributed between contingency planning against the possibility of flaws in the 'gems,' the various second-string plans (with an eye toward political expediency), and various long term concerns such as follow-up studies.

Does that seem reasonable?