Dlaw -
My story is not wrong. Science and technology has done a whole lot more toward changing society then women being able to vote. Men in todays western society do take care of pregnant women, and in the past they were still essential to the survival of women. To exaggerate your position (simply to express what I mean) it is ridiculous for women to say men do nothing when they provide food and shelter and an environment safe enough for women to live - I am not saying YOU are saying that only striking a balance between the idea of women not having to rely on men or being completely dependent upon men.
My point was that science and technology are far greater when it comes to changes in society than women's votes. I would argue quite strongly that the reason women came to gain political status is because of science and technology, and economic developments. I was trying to show you that any suggestion that women's votes have caused greater social success and stability for the human race is rather a dubious point to put it mildly. I would argue the very same point against Sausage Dog because it is bloody hard to deny as far as I can see.
Almost any random correlation can be made. It is far from black and white, but we can at least see the astounding scientific and technological advancement of the 20th century as being quite extraordinary. Women's votes are small fish.
I find it crass that you push the obvious which has been repeatedly stated. YES, men are more violent/aggressive than women. It is part biological and partly cultural. If we had complete sexual equality you'd still end up with men doing more violent and criminal acts than women. If we saw men and women committing equally violent and aggressive acts I would suggest that it would be because men have been repressed by being forced to take hormonal therapy to reduce the testosterone balance. Ideally it would be fitting to find a better outlet for aggression (this is where sports come into play.)
There is also the difference in physical strength to consider against this point. If I punch a woman hard enough I could kill her, but if she punched me it would take an extraordinarily strong women to kill me. The most prominent differences between men and women are physiological strength and size. It is not "sexist" to be taller than women, nor is it "sexist" to be stronger or more aggressive than women - not that I am saying you are saying this, just emphasizing what we mean when we talk about "equality."
I am still waiting for what "species" you were comparing the human species to? If you were comparing humans to our closest relatives you are very, very wrong and you'd not be able to find any behavioral biologist to back up such a claim. Compared to species of fish, birds, or spiders and you'd be correct ... but we're hardly comparable to those species. The animal kingdom is full of interesting nuances. Here is an extremely interesting talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En26p6GvtHw
Don't go conflating my criticism of your points to me making some sweeping statement in order to give weight to some negative view of the feminist movement. I see the movement as a fraction of a greater political attitude brought about by a whole cacophony of different interlaced pieces - the main clash being (as far as I can tell) being science and technology and the dissolution of religious doctrine ... I believe the whole "religious" area, or what I would more broadly call religiosity, has yet to balance out properly and mesh back into the current technological information age.
What changed was people's understanding that equality does not create disorder. Looking at society in, say, the 19th century, you would naturally conclude that the most glaring inequality was between men and women. As equality progressed, so progressed democracy, peaceful global intercourse, individual rights and feminism.
If you're looking to push an ideological stance then of course you'll only see equality as a factor that fits your purpose. I would say economic equality was a huge problem, race relations, and education would also be drastically disproportional. Just because we are addressing feminism we should perhaps not make out that sexual inequality is the only significant inequality.
Equality means EQUAL opportunities. What people do not like is when they have equal chances and equal opportunities, but then lack the abilities to be successful as others with more talent in certain areas. To force your own idea of what "equality" is means to force inequality. This is where a large proportion of the feminists in the west find themselves. They want protection and safety and uninhibited freedoms with leg ups in certain areas of employment where they are employed even if there are better men for the job simply to meet the targets of "equality." Such a position will end very, very badly.
There's no question who would, because the experiment has been run thousands of times, every time there was a major war. It's even referred to in the Old Testament. Of course we know that women would be happier and more productive. How many college sororities do you see getting closed and kicked off campus?
Is this meant to be funny?US culture is US culture, it is not a global phenomenon. The alcohol laws are ridiculous (see Camille Paglia for her thoughts there.) You think the Old Testament is evidence for what would happen if a group of men and a group of women were left on the island to fend for themselves? When it comes to basic survival physical strength makes a HUGE difference; women in a basic survival situation simply don't measure up. The biggest physiological differences between men and women give one a larger advantage in such areas. In an arm wrestle women will lose. There is no denying this.
I agree with Greta. Together men and women work better together than apart. Both compliment each other well enough to have kept the species going this long.