>>Query: why are 80% of men homeless. That stat on it's own is not indicative of disadvantage towards men. There needs to be some analysis of the why to determine that.

>It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.

False. This is not how statistics work. There could be other confounding factors that are relevant. For instance, of the women who would become homeless how many are forced into some sort of prostitution scheme from which they can't escape? How many die early in homelessness because they are at a survival as homeless person disadvantage? You are not providing enough data, just cherry picking context free numbers as if it meant something.

>>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice

>If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.

Maybe. So what advantages to women have. Again, you need to explain a causal relationship of advantage, not just cherry pick numbers as if it were meaningful.

About the dating stuff: your stat makes no sense with regards to genetics. Everyone gets a X chromosome, some get 2 of them. Of course there will be more attributable genetic lineage to women, wheres a guy who only produces daughters will not necessarily be identifiable in a few generations from his sister who passes on the same X chromosome to ~50% of her offspring. Also, why does this genetic number prove evidence for "do nothing"? That is conflating two similar numbers pointlessly. Again, I suggest you learn some simple statistics.

As for the initiation thing: that is not a disadvantage to males. A couple reasons:

First of all, except for people who have 0 social skills initiation is really not hard.

Second, initiation must be invited, putting half the onus in the woman's hands (again, there are cues and signaling for this) - the act of asking or a date or starting a conversation is quite far into the courting process.

Third, simply choosing the best candidate is not - ever been part of a hiring process? Sometimes all the candidates are shitty and you have to choose "no hire", this is a problem.

Fourth do you really think women just sit there and do nothing in dating but wait for a candidate to come along? I doubt that, otherwise why would there be a giant business targeting women with things like "how to make guys notice you", and "improve your dating potential".

Fifth: In the traditional role, women have the following disadvantage: they are the ones with the job of keeping men around far more often than men keeping a woman around. Once the relationship is established, the woman has to keep the man happy. (again - big buisness in magazines with articles like "keep your man happy and around", "how to prevent him from cheating" and the like).

Finally your linked article presupposes the conclusion it reaches, and ignores in its analysis any other factors.