What are the ethical differences between women saying

"We're going to take full advantage of our genetic abilities to get what we want, damn the other gender. If most men die sad and alone so be it."

VS men saying

"We're going to take full advantage of our genetic abilities to get what we want, damn the other gender. If most women die dependant and desperate so be it."

that one is empowerment and the other is oppression when all that is required is that either party act in self interest without empathy for the other?

I know a lot of women will respond "do you want a cookie for not being a piece of shit?" but if flexing every advantage is being a PoS then how is it women are not being PoS and getting their cookies anyways?

This is a very non-rapey hypothetical for those who automatically go there - don't. I'm just talking about men's ability/tendencies to be more comfortable with overtly aggressive competition. Furthermore, this is not an appeal that women start dating BPers like welfare.

I realize simply not sharing the opportunity for resources would create life-threatening hardships for women as an obvious point of difference but on the other hand I consider men's high deaths of despair and industrial casualties manifesting as the inverse.

Let's all keep in mind terms like men and women are generic and address the attention towards tolerated and accepted culture rather than individuals.