Force Doctrine proclaims that the manifestation of rights comes from men because men have a monopoly on force; women ultimately appeal to men for their rights.

First of all, raw strength exists, but it is chaotic and unorganized. Men having a "Monopoly on Force" requires them to act as one, by way of some kind of social will. To act as one, the men must prioritize a promise over violence. The social will is the engine that makes organized force possible; therefore, the collectivized will is logically prior to the doctrine of force. Women are ultimately appealing to the “collective” before they are appealing to the force of the men.

My second argument is a bit different, from a statistical perspective. Evidentially, I can say that 30% of the time, both men and women are equally just as weak. Is that a statistically significant amount of time to justify a social contract so people aren’t murdering each other when they are at their weakest? If you truly believe that rights are only a product of physical force, then you are admitting that your own life has no value the moment you close your eyes to sleep. We exist specifically because we historically all agreed that 30% vulnerability is too high a price to pay for the illusion of 70% dominance. If a car’s breaks only worked 30% of the time, you would consider that to be extremely problematic from a pragmatic perspective.