> Voting rights were extended to common women very soon after they were extended to common men (compared to the time no-one was allowed to vote), and with no such requirement attached.

If by "very soon" you mean after decades of intense feminist political action, stronger than any feminist action we have now. But in any event, what does this have to do with the hypothesis? The hypothesis is that women have been marginalized relatively to men, not that some men have never been marginalized as well. Of course they have -- the prime example is men of color, at least in the past few centuries.

> Voting rights were extended to common women very soon after they were extended to common men (compared to the time no-one was allowed to vote), and with no such requirement attached.

This is factually incorrect. E.g., in the US, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1869. Women were given the vote only 50 years later. BTW, the abolitionist movement and the feminist movement in the US has been very intricately tied, and feminists/abolitionists were very strongly correlated, and yet it took women another 50 years to get the vote (of course, the vote was only given to blacks de jure, and they continue to face suppression to this day).

You may claim that fifty years isn't a long time, but it was fifty years of a feminist action of stronger intensity and longer duration than the action you see now.

> And of course, since women are statistically smaller than men, all evidence you present for the marginalization of women is evidence for the marginalization of smaller people.

This is not true, because short men were allowed to study, practice a profession and vote. And we haven't even discussed cultural marginalization. Even when legal barriers against women were removed, society still discouraged women from practices that were considered masculine; this did not extend to short men.

> In fact, there is strong evidence that small men are in fact one of the most marginalized groups of all, far more than women, except they don't get treated as a group.

This is incorrect. The problem isn't just the existence of marginalization, but its extent. The extent of the marginalization of women (with respect to education, work and political rights) did not extend to short men.

So it is very much possible that the marginalization of short people is a real problem requiring redress, but it is no doubt a smaller (no pun intended) problem than the marginalization of women. It should be noted (as above), however, that the feminist movement has long been associated with adressing many different kinds of marginalization (e.g. slavery and now abelism), so it's not as if we ignore other problems of a similar nature, even if they are of a smaller extent. On the contrary, feminists have often allied and even led other struggles (abolition in the US is a prime example).

> She is not marginalized.

What? And Oprah Winfrey is both powerful and rich, ergo, no marginalization of blacks and/or women? I don't understand how you tie the evidence to the hypothesis. There is no hypothesis of "all women are less powerful than all men".

The fact that Merkel is still almost alone among heads of state (even among the Western countries) shows that this marginalization still exist, even if some exceptionally talented and persevering women do manage to break through (unless you think that German women are biologically superior to other women).

> then lack of representation in the present is evidence of male marginalization in the present (see overall rates of college attendance).

While women education (at least in the West) has improved considerably due to a long struggle (which, BTW, has been opposed constantly with claims that women are less naturally adept at intellectual pursuits), and things are not as bad as they used to be by any means -- feminism has had a lot of hard-earned success -- this improvement does not change the current state of affairs which is that overall women still have significantly less power than men, even though they have gained (again, through hard struggle) some pockets of considerable success.