Opponent is a word. Here, it refers to the person advocating the opposite view to mine. If you would like, I can use a different word, but it will change very little. Arguing over semantics is not a productive way to cause each other to update. Though to be honest, I ceased having much hope that you were in this discussion for the learning and updates when you started using ad hominem and fully general counterarguments. (Saying that your opponent is defensive and emotional and "opponentist" is also a fully general counterargument and also ad hominem. "Not even blaming me" for not agreeing with you is another example with an extra dash of emotive condescension. You have a real talent.)

Quite often, people have useful information about themselves because they know themselves quite well. I'm a useful data point when I'm thinking about stuff that affects me, because I know more about myself than I know about other examples. But I could also point out other examples of women in my community who are protectors. For instance, I know a single mother who is not only a national-level athlete but had to rush each of her children to hospital for separate issues four times in the last week. Twice it was because their lives were threatened. She stays strong and protects them fiercely, keeps up with her life and her training, and is frankly astonishingly brave. She is far, far more of a "traditional strong figure" than any man I have ever met. Of course, this is still anecdata. I haven't got big quantitative data because I can't think of a test for protectorness that we could do on a large scale; can you suggest one?

Your idea, as I understood it, was that men can carry out protective roles and therefore they should have high social status and prestige. I think this is a pretty good example of what I've heard called the Worst Argument in the World. I believe that protective and self-sacrificing individuals should be accorded high prestige. I agree that protectiveness can loosely correlate with being male. But protective women exist in high numbers, and non-protective men exist in high numbers, and many women exist who are significantly better at protectiveness than the average male. According protective women low prestige because they are women, and according useless men high prestige because they are men, is an entirely lost purpose. It is irrational sexism, pure and simple. You're doing the same thing as people who say "Gandhi was a criminal, therefore Gandhi should be dismissed and given low social status." You're saying that it would be good if people said, "Individual X is a male, therefore he should be accorded high prestige and conscripted. Individual Y is a female, therefore she should be given low prestige and not conscripted" even if X doesn't fit the protective-and-strong criteria and Y does fit the protective-and-strong criteria. Forcing protective strong women to stop doing that and accept low prestige, and forcing non-protective weaker men to try and fill protective roles, just hurts everyone.

You still haven't answered my question. You want to make a society where men get conscripted (an astonishingly rare event in a modern liberal democracy, by the way...) and protect those around them, and in return get high prestige. I know, and I presume you also know, numerous men who would be unsuitable for conscription and don't protect those around them. Some women would be perfectly suitable for conscription, and protect those around them. Why do those women not deserve the prestige that you want to give all the men?

Can you also tell me why you think "the same stuff the mainstream media, BuzzFeed or Tumblr pouring on day and night" is necessarily uninteresting/wrong? Shouldn't a large number of people agreeing with an ethical position usually correlate with that ethical position being correct? I mean, it's not a perfect correlation, there are exceptions, but in general people agree that murder and rape and mugging are undesirable, and agree that happiness and friendship and knowledge are desirable. Calling a position popular or fashionable should not be an insult and I am intrigued by how you could have come up with the idea that something that is "done to death" must be bad. Has "murder is wrong" been "done to death"?

If this conversation keeps going downhill, I'm just going to disengage. It is rather low utility.