Reddit reviews The Nobility and Excellence of Women and the Defects and Vices of Men (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

> feminism doesn't demand men and women be treated equally, rather, it demands that women be treated equal to men.

That is a distinction without a difference. Unless that difference is to say that women must be treated as the equal of men in all things, but the reverse is not true, which would be blatant and obvious sexism.

> As men have always had the upper hand

So the fact that the vast majority of people who were murdered, have died on the job, been thrown in prison, etc, going back to the dawn of time, were men means that we had the upper hand? Please explain to me how that works, how me having the upper hand gets me killed or incarcerated. Is prison like some sort of resort? Is the afterlife really that amazing?

It sounds like you've been subjected to some disgustingly biased material. There's plenty of it, dating back to the 16th century, when Lucrezia Marinella published, not just wrote, but published, "The nobility and excellence of woman and the defects and vices of men." That sure is an anti-female bias, there, that a woman could get such an obviously adropathic book published, and that it would still be around more than four centuries later...

> I've dismissed the fact they are due to sexism

And thus you do not even attempt to meet my challenge. You defend, without any evidence that your assertions are correct, yet when I do the exact same thing, you admit to dismissing it out of hand. That, my friend, means I have to break rule V and state that I have reason to believe that you are arguing in bad faith.

Yes, actually, it is, because it focuses on the fact that the people in power are men, rather than the fact that they're in power.

What's more, defense of the term in the face of a more accurate term (kyriarchy) is misandristic because it attempts to perpetuate that inaccurate idea despite it being pointed out that there is something else even more significant going on, focusing entirely on the fact that the people in power happen to have a particular chromosomal structure.

> But they fight against replacing it with the word egalitarianism because that would imply that gender disparities are equal

Wow, there are a lot of presuppositions to unpack from that statement. It presupposes that the -ism is about the starting point, rather than the goal, which is, quite frankly, stupid (I mean, really, did people really think that communists believed we currently held property as a community?). It further presupposes that it cannot be the case that the inequalities might actually be roughly equal. Then, to top it all off, it presupposes that any inequalities men suffer are somehow of less concern without even looking at them.

This goes back to a blatant derision of men that dates back a full Four Centuries, assuming that anything bad that happens to men is something they deserve, and anything good happening to women is something they're entitled to. Hell, even in the 1920's, when women were only recently allowed to vote, it was seen as somehow okay for a woman to murder a man who decided not to marry her

So no, I'm sorry, that very thought is wholly predicated on the idea, the presupposition, even, that men aren't of equal concern to women. The fact that I cannot make such an assertion without people coming out of the woodwork to argue with me, yet women can expect a gender reversal of the same concerns to draw out similar levels of support makes a lie of your assertion that it is women who lack power.