Feminism: Its Principles & Critics

[Dei Terrare]

Of all of the controversial topics out in the modern world lets talk about feminism this day and age. Numerous of feminists are turning into misandrists, not all of them. They demand for equality, but they have enough equality (in America). Now they are talking about looking at them is rape (there is a shirt regarding so), or even saying yes to consent to sexual intercourse is not really consenting. These are examples of taking advantage of men alike and is a common form of misandry. Feminists also justify criminal actions done by their own gender, for example an author of the female gender admitted in one of her own books that she did pedophilia years ago, no big public eye on it. Or how about Hope Solo, a female soccer (association football) player that beat up her own children and got charged for it. But she still gets endorsements from her club and Nike. Another form of taking advantage of men, if you are looking for more evidence, go search it up.

So NSG what do you think?
I think most feminists are turning into misandrists.

[Farnhamia]

Of all of the controversial topics out in the modern world lets talk about feminism this day and age. Numerous of feminists are turning into misandrists, not all of them. They demand for equality, but they have enough equality (in America). Now they are talking about looking at them is rape (there is a shirt regarding so), or even saying yes to consent to sexual intercourse is not really consenting. These are examples of taking advantage of men alike and is a common form of misandry. Feminists also justify criminal actions done by their own gender, for example an author of the female gender admitted in one of her own books that she did pedophilia years ago, no big public eye on it. Or how about Hope Solo, a female soccer (association football) player that beat up her own children and got charged for it. But she still gets endorsements from her club and Nike. Another form of taking advantage of men, if you are looking for more evidence, go search it up.

So NSG what do you think?
I think most feminists are turning into misandrists.

Merged into the existing thread on Feminism.

[Threlizdun]

Of all of the controversial topics out in the modern world lets talk about feminism this day and age. Numerous of feminists are turning into misandrists, not all of them. They demand for equality, but they have enough equality (in America). Now they are talking about looking at them is rape (there is a shirt regarding so), or even saying yes to consent to sexual intercourse is not really consenting. These are examples of taking advantage of men alike and is a common form of misandry. Feminists also justify criminal actions done by their own gender, for example an author of the female gender admitted in one of her own books that she did pedophilia years ago, no big public eye on it. Or how about Hope Solo, a female soccer (association football) player that beat up her own children and got charged for it. But she still gets endorsements from her club and Nike. Another form of taking advantage of men, if you are looking for more evidence, go search it up.

So NSG what do you think?
I think most feminists are turning into misandrists.

So you somehow believe gender equality has been realized in the United States, racial inequality is ceasing to be an issue, and most feminists actually hate men rather than advocating for equality? In other words, you haven't heard a single news story in decades and feel like ranting about something you don't understand.

[Saiwania]

I'm a bit of a conservative, maybe even a social one. So of course I have no love for feminism. But I recognize that it is in a woman's self interests to be feminist, it is still diametrically opposed to people who are content with the old social order and way of doing things. Rather than actively oppose feminists however, I tend to ignore it.

[Threlizdun]

I'm a bit of a conservative, maybe even a social one. So of course I have no love for feminism. But I recognize that it is in a woman's self interests to be feminist, it is still diametrically opposed to people who are content with the old social order and way of doing things. Rather than actively oppose feminists however, I tend to ignore it.

It is in everyone's self-interest to be a feminist. Women and non-binary individuals face significantly more oppression than men as a result of the patriarchy, but men also suffer from it's limitations. Everyone shares an interest in striving for an egalitarian society.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

So NSG what do you think?
I think most feminists are turning into misandrists.

*Sigh*

Misandry is a problem, and we do need to address it to make sure that it doesn't actually get out of hand, but people like you are the other side of the problem.

Insisting that misandry is everywhere is just as damaging as insisting that misandry doesn't exist.

I'm a bit of a conservative, maybe even a social one. So of course I have no love for feminism. But I recognize that it is in a woman's self interests to be feminist, it is still diametrically opposed to people who are content with the old social order and way of doing things. Rather than actively oppose feminists however, I tend to ignore it.

Why would you be content with the old social order and the way of doing things?

[Olthar]

What do you expect? The MRA movement is a direct response to the failures of feminism to approach equality in an egalitarian way. Focusing exclusively on women and discounting the idea that men can even have problems could only be expected to produce a counter movement and there is no reason to expect that counter movement to be kind.

Speak for yourself, please. Feminists were some of the very first supporters of the LGTB rights movement, and were there right from the very beginning in formulating the movement and its self-conception. Contrast that with the MRA movement, which conspicuously ignores and sidelines gay or trans men and was founded pretty much solely with the heterosexual, cis-gendered male in mind.

Depends. First Wave Feminism was very exclusive and focused only on well-off white women. Second Wave Feminism was more inclusive with lesbians, but the other problems were still largely present. Third Wave Feminism has been much better, but it still usually sidelines or specifically excludes trans women.

[Saiwania]

It is in everyone's self-interest to be a feminist. Women and non-binary individuals face significantly more oppression than men as a result of the patriarchy, but men also suffer from it's limitations. Everyone shares an interest in striving for an egalitarian society.

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. If most people saw feminism as in their best interests, it would not face such controversy and opposition. I don't want to hate feminism, but I don't want to like it either. I'm ambivalent about it because feminism holds views I'll clash with and others I have no problem with.

[Chestaan]

It is in everyone's self-interest to be a feminist. Women and non-binary individuals face significantly more oppression than men as a result of the patriarchy, but men also suffer from it's limitations. Everyone shares an interest in striving for an egalitarian society.

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. If most people saw feminism as in their best interests, it would not face such controversy and opposition. I don't want to hate feminism, but I don't want to like it either. I'm ambivalent about it because feminism holds views I'll clash with and others I have no problem with.

Thinking something is in your best interest and something actually being in your self interest are two very different things. I am male, and I can confirm what OP says that gender roles and discrimination also affect males. I am skinny and I have long hair and the society we live in puts a massive amount of pressure on me to look a certain way. Society believes I should be buff and that I should cut my hair. There is massive pressure to look and behave a certain way, to be "manly" and it can cause horrible hardship and feelings of inadequacy. But the fact is that feminists largely understand this issue already. There's always a few who don't, but they are a minority.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm a bit of a conservative, maybe even a social one. So of course I have no love for feminism. But I recognize that it is in a woman's self interests to be feminist, it is still diametrically opposed to people who are content with the old social order and way of doing things. Rather than actively oppose feminists however, I tend to ignore it.

It is in everyone's self-interest to be a feminist. Women and non-binary individuals face significantly more oppression than men as a result of the patriarchy, but men also suffer from it's limitations. Everyone shares an interest in striving for an egalitarian society.

Source for women+significantly more.
Not contesting non-binary.

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. If most people saw feminism as in their best interests, it would not face such controversy and opposition. I don't want to hate feminism, but I don't want to like it either. I'm ambivalent about it because feminism holds views I'll clash with and others I have no problem with.

Thinking something is in your best interest and something actually being in your self interest are two very different things. I am male, and I can confirm what OP says that gender roles and discrimination also affect males. I am skinny and I have long hair and the society we live in puts a massive amount of pressure on me to look a certain way. Society believes I should be buff and that I should cut my hair. There is massive pressure to look and behave a certain way, to be "manly" and it can cause horrible hardship and feelings of inadequacy. But the fact is that feminists largely understand this issue already. There's always a few who don't, but they are a minority.

Source for them being a minority.
Would you regard the recent attacks on due process on universities as misandry?
Are you quite sure the misandrists are a minority?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Would you regard the recent attacks on due process on universities as misandry?
Are you quite sure the misandrists are a minority?

Could you source that please? It's a little too vague to come up easily in a Google search

[Czechostan]

I support equal rights for both men and women but prefer to identify as egalitarian.

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you regard the recent attacks on due process on universities as misandry?
Are you quite sure the misandrists are a minority?

Could you source that please? It's a little too vague to come up easily in a Google search

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... _upenn.pdf

(Law professors object to attacks on due process.)

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/19/at-th ... e-process/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-sha ... 71500.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... s-n1935391
(Due process articles.)

But these campus policies are also broken because they completely abandon any semblance of due process or fairness to the accused student.

Essentially, feminists have pushed for universities to adopt a preponderance of evidence standard and to expel students based on this standard if they are accused of rape or sexual assault. That this biases the system toward females because of institutional and cultural sexism as regards rape accusations and rape victims is unaddressed. (Indeed, some universities explicitly demand the MALE provide evidence of consent, which flies in the face of due process fairly obviously and means that unless you fancy taping your sex encounters, the mere say so of a female can get you in serious danger of being expelled.) A very prominent case of this recently involved a female accusing a male of rape, feminists flipping their shit and supporting her, DESPITE the fact that she accused him of a violent rape, and sent messages to him asking him to date her for days after the supposed rape occurred, which he refused. Suddenly, she accuses him of rape. To me, that seems suspicious. That's mattress girl, by the way.
That these feminists flip their shit and accuse law professors of rape apology when they point out, you know, peoples rights under the law, just shows how fucking crazy these groups have gotten.
It's all well and good for feminists to claim that it's a minority. But, you know, this sort of shit suggests otherwise. How did this kind of stuff happen (In multiple universities) if it's a minority?

That's before you get into even crazier shit such as:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... rine-timpf

"He looks like my rapist. Please expel him or MUH FEELINS."

Consider that university ratios already favor women. Now try and justify this bullshit.
Should we ban feminist groups at universities if this is the shit they get up to?
Because to me, this is an indication that it can't be a minority.

Here is the only article of a feminist opposing this shit I could find.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/femin ... _click=rss

Note that she calls them insane too, and says she would have been on their side when she was their age.
That suggests something to me.

That is when she “realized what an insane, Kafkaesque world these student disciplinary proceedings are.”
Shatz describes what some of us already know: That school disciplinary panels handling sexual assault cases are throwing out due process in order to appease the Obama administration, which has demanded that college administrators crack down on the offense.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Essentially, feminists have pushed for universities to adopt a preponderance of evidence standard and to expel students based on this standard if they are accused of rape or sexual assault. That this biases the system toward females because of institutional and cultural sexism as regards rape accusations and rape victims is unaddressed. (Indeed, some universities explicitly demand the MALE provide evidence of consent, which flies in the face of due process fairly obviously and means that unless you fancy taping your sex encounters, the mere say so of a female can get you in serious danger of being expelled.) A very prominent case of this recently involved a female accusing a male of rape, feminists flipping their shit and supporting her, DESPITE the fact that she accused him of a violent rape, and sent messages to him asking him to date her for days after the supposed rape occurred, which he refused. Suddenly, she accuses him of rape. To me, that seems suspicious. That's mattress girl, by the way.
That these feminists flip their shit and accuse law professors of rape apology when they point out, you know, peoples rights under the law, just shows how fucking crazy these groups have gotten.
It's all well and good for feminists to claim that it's a minority. But, you know, this sort of shit suggests otherwise. How did this kind of stuff happen (In multiple universities) if it's a minority?

Reviewing your articles, I definitely agree that this is getting out of hand.

I think the problem stems from the fact that everyone is looking for someone to blame for campus sexual harrassment, and the blame runs downhill to whoever is least able to protect themselves from it. In this case, that's the students.

And feminists going on about how we need to 'believe first', even after an investigation found the claim to be false, are certainly not helping.

[Des-Bal]

Reviewing your articles, I definitely agree that this is getting out of hand.

I think the problem stems from the fact that everyone is looking for someone to blame for campus sexual harrassment, and the blame runs downhill to whoever is least able to protect themselves from it. In this case, that's the students.

And feminists going on about how we need to 'believe first', even after an investigation found the claim to be false, are certainly not helping.

I think it has more to do with a combination of being uncomfortably with sex and the general feeling that feminism is necessarily right. The only defense of some of the more disturbing feminist proposals are cries of rape apologism. There are ideas and policies being pursued that are in different measures ineffective, draconian, and silly and given any real scrutiny I don't think they'd survive the light of day.

[United Russian Soviet States]

There is nothing inherently wrong with women's rights. It just sometimes goes overboard.

[Oneracon]

People like to go on about how feminism hurts men (because evil "misandry") and that's why we need MRAs and "meninists"... but all the issues that the latter groups claim to fight against have been fought against by feminists for years when they try to challenge patriarchy.

The basic issue is that instead of fighting to remove patriarchal aspects of our society, which benefits everyone, MRAs generally focus only on issues and parts of issues that intersect with the heterosexual male identity (which distinguishes them from pro-feminist men's advocacy groups such as The Good Men Project). An appropriate analogy would be that MRA activism is a salve that treats the top layer, in this case the effects of patriarchy on straight men, but doesn't address the deeper underlying issues.

Men's liberation movements were formed in the 1970s and ran parallel to and were often inspired by the women's liberation (i.e. feminist) movements of the time. These early movements often, but not always, acknowledged that women were unequal to men in society but tended to focus more of their work on redefining masculinity in society. By the late 1970s, feminist issues began to be politically addressed and the men's lib movement split into two parts: one which supported the political changes for women, and the other which felt the need to push back against the new rights and perceived "advantages" of women.

The Men's Rights Activists groups that are recognizable today largely formed from that second group. Many MRAs in the 1980s asserted women had "gone too far", played a role in their own objectification by society, and that male-female relationships were a fight for supremacy that men should use force to win.

With the growth of the internet, these MRA groups began to connect with each other and talk amongst themselves. The minority members of these groups that held extreme views (i.e. actual hatred for specific women in their lives) came to dominate many conversations... which led to many MRA online discussions degenerating into anti-women tirades, name calling, and actively endorsing violence against women who weren't "in their place". These groups gave us such colourful epithets such as "feminazi" and "femtard" which you can find all over the internet today.

The case for groups that seriously advocates for men's issues is weakened by these MRA groups that use the idea of "men's rights" as a codeword for anti-feminist and sometimes just plain anti-women views. Not only that, but for groups that complain about the hatred of men supposedly held by every feminist ever... they certainly do a lot of hating on men who are not straight white cis guys or don't share their agenda.

Black/Hispanic/Asian/Trans/Gay/Bi/Pan Guys: So are you guys going to advocate for our rights too.
MRAs: Not all men...

[Des-Bal]

People like to go on about how feminism hurts men (because evil "misandry") and that's why we need MRAs and "meninists"... but all the issues that the latter groups claim to fight against have been fought against by feminists for years when they try to challenge patriarchy.

That's not really true. Feminism is interested in directly addressing women's problems and occasionally paying reference to mens problems as something that will somehow eventually be solved.

"There's (sort of) a pay gap" merits "immediate and concentrated response from a number of different groups"

"Male rape is often dismissed as a nonissue" merits "fighting patriarchy will (somehow) fix this"

Where's the real feminist interest in the education gap between boys and girls which to my best knowledge is not explained by much more than pure discrimination? Google education for girls and you get about a dozen different organizations interested in expanding education for girls. Google education for boys and you get a couple of pointers and resources for teaching boys and an article which having not read I am comfortable saying is about Fifty Shades of Gray turning young boys into rapists.

[Oneracon]

People like to go on about how feminism hurts men (because evil "misandry") and that's why we need MRAs and "meninists"... but all the issues that the latter groups claim to fight against have been fought against by feminists for years when they try to challenge patriarchy.

That's not really true. Feminism is interested in directly addressing women's problems and occasionally paying reference to mens problems as something that will somehow eventually be solved.

"There's (sort of) a pay gap" merits "immediate and concentrated response from a number of different groups"

"Male rape is often dismissed as a nonissue" merits "fighting patriarchy will (somehow) fix this"

Feminism as an ideology is focused on the equality of the sexes and achieves those goals by fighting patriarchy. The great thing about feminism is that fighting patriarchy also benefits men, but the benefits for men are diminished simply because most feminists are women. More pro-feminist men challenging patriarchy = more benefits for men.

Fighting patriarchy will fix the issue of male rape victims being dismissed as a non-issue, because it is patriarchal viewpoints that lead to these men's traumas being dismissed. The idea that rape is something that only some sort weak and powerless woman (not a real man) can experience, the idea that all men are expected be sex fiends and always "want it", the constant societal reinforcement that men shouldn't express emotion or vulnerability... that's patriarchy.

The Good Men Project has a great article about why male rape survivors are dismissed by society (and hint... it's not because of feminism).

Where's the real feminist interest in the education gap between boys and girls which to my best knowledge is not explained by much more than pure discrimination? Google education for girls and you get about a dozen different organizations interested in expanding education for girls. Google education for boys and you get a couple of pointers and resources for teaching boys and an article which having not read I am comfortable saying is about Fifty Shades of Gray turning young boys into rapists.

The comparison you're drawing is a false dichotomy, and I hope you realize why. All of those groups that come up in a Google search are dedicated to improving access to education for girls in countries where they have little to no access. These are for women and girls who live in countries where females are banned from going to school or aren't considered "important enough" to be allowed out of housework roles to get an education.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism as an ideology is focused on the equality of the sexes and achieves those goals by fighting patriarchy. The great thing about feminism is that fighting patriarchy also benefits men, but the benefits for men are diminished simply because most feminists are women. More pro-feminist men challenging patriarchy = more benefits for men.

Fighting patriarchy will fix the issue of male rape victims being dismissed as a non-issue, because it is patriarchal viewpoints that lead to these men's traumas being dismissed. The idea that rape is something that only some sort weak and powerless woman (not a real man) can experience, the idea that all men are expected be sex fiends and always "want it", the constant societal reinforcement that men shouldn't express emotion or vulnerability... that's patriarchy.

The Good Men Project has a great article about why male rape survivors are dismissed by society (and hint... it's not because of feminism).


The comparison you're drawing is a false dichotomy, and I hope you realize why. All of those groups that come up in a Google search are dedicated to improving access to education for girls in countries where they have little to no access. These are for women and girls who live in countries where females are banned from going to school or aren't considered "important enough" to be allowed out of housework roles to get an education.

Yeah but it's only men's problems that are addressed solely with vague tactic of fighting patriarchy. Women's problems merit legitimate immediate responses. Feminism doesn't look at male on female rape on college campuses and say "well we just have to fight patriarchy and this is all sewn up." There is a massive push for new legislation that pisses on due process to ensure that something happens immediately. Hell, it doesn't have to be that serious; some nerd wears a weird homemade shirt and there's infinitely more energy thrown at that than the fact that male rape victims as a matter of common law have to pay child support to their attackers. Feminism causes a few problems, for example the aforementioned pieces of aggressive and generally not great legislation, but for the most part I'm not blaming feminism for the existence of problems. I'm saying the actions of feminists do not suggest an interest in "equality" so much as "advancing women" which is exactly what you would assume with a name like "feminism".

I also wouldn't call it a false dichotomy given some of them are about changing the way we educate women to ensure they participate in STEM fields in countries where there's an education gap favoring them. In any case they're ignoring the fact that in the countries starting and supporting the programs they have a gender disparity of their own and that yes even in the third world this is a thing. Boys are pushed into working and forgoing education as a well as taking part in conflicts. According to feminist IR theory ideas of masculinity are the fuel that runs the armies and militias of the third world in a never ending cycle of destruction so why the actual fuck is this being treated as at best an object of cursory interest? Feminism is about supporting women and nothing else, for all the theory, for all the claims, the only consistent pattern of feminist action is "back women."

[Oil exporting People]

Women and non-binary individuals face significantly more oppression than men as a result of the patriarchy, but men also suffer from it's limitations.

To be honest, it's statements like this that really infuriate me and others.

Yes, in the Third World among other places women do face oppression, most notably in Islamic nations. However, and I assuming you live in the West, Western Women are not oppressed in no way whatsoever. Seriously, ranting about how oppressed you are in of itself proves you aren't. It's also this ranting of a "Patriarchy" that makes everyone think Feminists are bonkers; just replace Patriarchy with New World Order to have an idea of what others think.

[Threlizdun]

I support equal rights for both men and women but prefer to identify as egalitarian.

"Egalitarian" implies that the oppression faced by men and women is equal and that identifying yourself as standing for the empowerment of women somehow is going too far. It is a term than can only be used through a severe misunderstanding of the reality of the world. It, is like someone during the African American Civil Rights Movement saying "Whoah, whoah, whoah! Why are all the black people getting all the attention?"

[Ostroeuropa]

I support equal rights for both men and women but prefer to identify as egalitarian.

"Egalitarian" implies that the oppression faced by men and women is equal and that identifying yourself as standing for the empowerment of women somehow is going too far. It is a term than can only be used through a severe misunderstanding of the reality of the world. It, is like someone during the African American Civil Rights Movement saying "Whoah, whoah, whoah! Why are all the black people getting all the attention?"

Notice you didn't manage that source.

[Allanea]

Fighting patriarchy will fix the issue of male rape victims being dismissed as a non-issue,

Yes. It will.

But that's because the definition of the patriarchy includes society's entire complex of gender stereotypes and gender-related hierarchy.

It simply will not do to say 'fighting the patriarchy will fix the issues faced by male rape victims', just like saying 'being tougher on crime will reduce hot burglaries'.

Both the means and the goal designated in the statement are very vague.

[Stahlberg]

Hold your horses. I know there are a lot of feminists here, but please, read what I have to say before going off and condemning me. I am not a misogynist and I do not advocate the discrimination of women (or any kind of discrimination at all). I completely agree with you that women are being discriminated against and I fully support the idea of equal rights and status for all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. My issue is that you're doing it wrong.

Let's think of society as a living organism and look at this issue as a social disease. When you get a disease, what do you do? Do you treat the symptoms, or the cause? Because, if you don't eliminate the cause, those symptoms are just going to come back and social inequality (as well as racial inequality and every other kind of inequality) is a symptom, which you pit so many resources against, without ever considering the bigger picture and what is causing the disease.

The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways. Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect. What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender. How so? Because of the rigid social conventions on "gender roles" which we are all forced to abide by. While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful. In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end). These gender conventions demand that men assert their dominance in a relationship and act the way we often do. In other words, we're just as conditioned and restricted by these conventions, as you are.

Social conventions such as gender roles, racial and ethnic status, etc, are all just another excuse for the people with a very high social status, to restrict access to their position and eliminate potential competition, thus increasing their offspring's chances of inheriting that position of power. The cause of all these issues is heredity. To prove my point, we're seeing a whole bunch of problems, like racism, slowly being eliminated, while other forms of discrimination, such as classism (discrimination against the poor), are taking their place.

I imagine that, at some point in the distant past, there was a struggle for social status and resources, in primitive human culture. At some point, that struggle was won by a group of males, for a some unknown reasons (it is possible that the opposite might have happened and females could have won, which would have resulted in a completely reversed scenario with women on top). Ever since then, that winning group has done everything in its power to not only consolidate its grip on the position which they have acquired, but to expand their power even further. Nowadays, we call these people "the 1%" and they're the ones who control the media, finances, etc, thus they're in a position to dictate which conventions should the society follow. In fact, all of these social conventions are the result of people playing by the rules of the privileged few, due to a misguided belief that thus, they are able to climb the social ladder just one step further. What you do not realize, is that the game is rigged. The people who make the rules will only seek to further their own interest and eliminate any and all potential competition, by making it impossible for people to compete in the first place. Thus, you have issues such as discrimination, which cause social frictions, malcontent, disappointment and stagnation and are invariably leading the human race towards its own destruction.

Try going through a mental exercise with me. Imagine a world without inheritance. A world without an elite which has that position of power, merely because they inherited their advantage. If power and wealth were not hereditary, we could have a world where one had to earn his or her place, through their own merit. In my opinion, the only way to solve society's issue is through making people in power have more responsibilities, while eliminating heredity in its entirety (100% inheritance tax and the abolition of aristocracy). All those taxes could then go towards making the world a place where every person has the chance to succeed in life on his/her own. Think of it this way. What would you rather leave your children? Material assets like money and social position, thus very little motivation for self-improvement? Or a world which offers your children the possibility to start in the same position as everyone else (by eliminating the concept of pole position), thus stimulating them to grow and evolve? Leveling the playing field would only increase competition, thus promoting an accelerated improvement of society and the human race as a whole.

What I propose, is that you stop looking at this issue from such a narrow angle. Its not just about women's rights, its about humanity as a whole. Why not try to point out the negative effects that discrimination against women, has on men? Instead of addressing just one of the symptoms, why not seek to promote a world in which everyone starts off with the same chances and has an equal amount of support, to succeed in life?

I'm really looking forward to reading your responses to this.

Mod edit: Generalized the title.

Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect.

Women are not paid less (please, refrain from citing that time and time again disproven seventy cent statistic), women are seen as being weaker because they are biologically so, and those who treat women with disrespect are just disrespectful people, often to everyone.

While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful

Show me a law where women are forced to stay in the kitchen and men are required to be unfaithful? Many women gladly decide to become housewives, and many also decide to pursue professional careers, some do both. People can be unfaithful and insensitive if they want, if that just happens to be their personality. My uncle was a Marine and he still cries to sad movies and is seen as no less of a man for it. These "requirements" on sexes don't exist in Western society.

I imagine that, at some point in the distant past, there was a struggle for social status and resources, in primitive human culture. At some point, that struggle was won by a group of males, for a some unknown reasons (it is possible that the opposite might have happened and females could have won, which would have resulted in a completely reversed scenario with women on top)

I think you have gotten to a point where you are overlooking the biological reality of things. Women carry their children for nine months at a time, and have to nurse them for more after birth. In a world without baby formula and where families would have large amounts of children, it was utterly impractical for women to go out and hunt.

Try going through a mental exercise with me. Imagine a world without inheritance. A world without an elite which has that position of power, merely because they inherited their advantage. If power and wealth were not hereditary, we could have a world where one had to earn his or her place, through their own merit. In my opinion, the only way to solve society's issue is through making people in power have more responsibilities, while eliminating heredity in its entirety (100% inheritance tax and the abolition of aristocracy). All those taxes could then go towards making the world a place where every person has the chance to succeed in life on his/her own. Think of it this way. What would you rather leave your children? Material assets like money and social position, thus very little motivation for self-improvement? Or a world which offers your children the possibility to start in the same position as everyone else (by eliminating the concept of pole position), thus stimulating them to grow and evolve? Leveling the playing field would only increase competition, thus promoting an accelerated improvement of society and the human race as a whole.

Sounds good on paper, wouldn't work in real life. You'd simply see people digging holes in their backyards and filling them with millions of dollars to be dug up later instead of paying the inheritance tax.