> In a marriage the women of course benefits from the man's income to provide economic security. They've also had the security of not dying in senseless wars, and the security of men defending women from danger as is the gender norm even today.

Certainly there is a benefit to having some income through a marriage than none at all, but it is a problem if marriage or association with men is the only option available to have any economic safety at all. Women do not fare well in war because women are very often the target of violence from armies and military conflict even if women do not serve in those conflicts. Men defending women from danger isn't a real phenomenon, as violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Common stories about women and lifeboats, for example, may not reflect reality: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/chivalry-at-sea-a-myth...

> Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.

My main point about this is that there it was much more likely for women to have no economic security without marriage, whereas men could achieve some economic security without a marriage. Obviously there is a big class element to this w.r.t work access and pay and that women of color have always been working in large numbers outside of personal domestic work.

> I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past.

It isn't about quantifying the difficulty of some kind of work, but that women still were very like to perform labor in home even if they worked outside of the home in some capacity. Either way, the notion that women didn't do work in a marriage while their husband did contributes to the perspective that domestic work isn't real work and that domestic work performed by husbands/wives at home doesn't have the same value as paid labor.

> Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.

Women's studies doesn't start from an axiom of "that women had and have everything worse". Women's studies generally explores the condition of genders and provides research, including statistical and empirical research, about the lived conditions and experiences of people.

> Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.

First, work isn't something that most people have for their lifetime in perpetuity. Many folks go through periods of having work and not having work and social factors may exacerbate the availability of paid work. The era leading up to prohibition in the US, for example, made the working situation for the poor worse and damaged existing marriages and families, so to say that there is some kind of binary decision making process in who gets married to whom is silly. Also, the notion that women could marry and not work isn't a common reality for most marriages, in the past and now.

> I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.

The pay gap is a complicated thing, and while incomes have improved for younger working women, executive level pay and representation is still belong men in similar positions and companies. Working patterns like the one you mention don't fully account for wage and position gaps for women.

> No, men are mutilated more than women (since male-only circumcision is legal in most countries). Also, majority of rape victims in USA are male: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-a....

Firstly, male circumcision isn't a form of domestic or sexual violence, so while it is an important thing it is not really what I was getting at. Second, yes most rape victims in the US are male due to how many men, mostly of color, are imprisoned and how prevalent sexual assault in the prison system is. That reality and sexual assault for women go hand-in-hand reflect a real reality of male violence made manifest through social institutions and beliefs. Women in prison also suffer from high rates of sexual assault and coercion. The number of men in prison is much, much higher than the number of women in prison, so we would expect that by raw number men are victims of sexual assault more than women in prison. That said, none of these things negate the nature of sexual violence towards women.

> What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.

I might not have been clear, but I meant to say an app that can help women label men as violent or misogynistic is legit even if that kind of app amounts to collecting rumors, because women are much more likely to face domestic or sexual violence from an intimate partner and people have a right to know about someone before they expose themselves to that kind of violence. I don't particularly care for lulu, but rumors are a legitimate defense when social systems do not protect you from violence.

> Good that you agree with me!

I was being sarcastic. Calling something or someone PC is a derailment to avoid thinking critically about what you said and why it might be a shitty thing to say.

> Not an argument :).

As tumblr ppl like to say, misandry don't real: http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/sorry-men-you-are-no...

That said, a single study that attempts to take issues of patriarchy and misogyny and turn them on their head to make them about misandry, a thing that doesn't exist as a social institution in the western world, should be treated with a high amount of skepticism.