>This isn't true no matter how you slice it. Men had more economic security because they could work, whereas most women could not. Men have bodily security in ways women do not, esp. in regards to sexual assault and domestic violence.

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.

>I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.

I never claimed that men had to marry, though most of them wanted to (to gain access to sex if nothing else). 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.

>Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.

I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past. Workplace safety was non-existent, for starters. That's of course in addition to military duty and dying in wars.

>This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.

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

>Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.

That's of course blatantly not true. 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.

>This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts.

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.

>Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.

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...

>Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.

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.

>Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.

Just because women's studies are based on non-empirical "science" doesn't mean there's no research on the subject. Like this: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450

>Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.

Good that you agree with me!

>The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.

Not an argument :).