You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men. That's just not true, quite clearly. There are a ton of studies showing material differences and known social issues that affect women more than men (higher rates of attack/abuse, different expectations in terms of sexual activity, abortion legislation, expectations of marriage & childbirth, etc...). If you move beyond the most developed countries, it quickly falls to horrific levels with things like FGM (yes, I also think circumcision is a problem that affects men and shouldn't be done, but it's clearly not equivalent to FGM).

Even if it was equivalent, that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's.

> Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?

I mean, why is it suddenly limited to law? Rape clearly disproportionately affects women (more women are raped). Again, this isn't to say there are not men's rights issues (under-reporting of rape, etc...) there too, but that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. It also has outcomes that can't happen to men (pregnancy). It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it). In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels. If you truly think that women are not seriously affected by this issue, you clearly are not looking.

> I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as representative of feminism?

The thing I said after that statement - dismissing feminism as unnecessary and making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.

> What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?

If they do, they are wrong to do so. However, sites like the one this article was on propegate the idea that all feminism (or at least a large part of it) are doing that, when they aren't. The article about the woman's son is an example - they make a reasonable article sound like man-hating nonsense. This is to instil fear and make people reject feminism in a knee-jerk response.

> This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have to assume some definition of equality first.

Equality means people should not be defined by their gender (or anything else like race, etc...), but rather by who they are. Of course reality has differences between genders. If most women are shorter and there is a necessary height requirement to do a job then you will have less women doing the job - but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman. It's simple in concept - not in execution of the law, obviously, but that's besides the point - complexity in enforcement doesn't justify villainizing those trying to improve the situation.

> In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little loaded...

Of course it's loaded, the issue is loaded. There was a time when women were literally property, just like slavery. Just as racism is better, but not solved, the same is true for women's rights.

> Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).

Again - it's not simple in execution. Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split (not to mention the potential for the causes being indirectly the result of sexism themselves). That's just one issue however. It being complicated doesn't mean we should just give up on equality.

> If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face today? On average, our families are equal.

A nonsense example against a strawman argument. I'm not claiming equality means we should just average all wages or something dumb.