No, this is a serious post and analysis, and consists of ideas I have developed and ruminated upon at length.

As such, I must issue a very severe TW of the contents herein discussed, many of which are of a deeply distressing nature, as they even are to myself.

Preface

I cannot go any longer without offering my views for the consideration of the public. I do not write this for the detriment of men; rather, for their security and advancement.

Let me begin by saying that I want it to be that we (that is, we men) are oppressed merely because of social stigma. Such would be a sweeter, kinder world. I have tried, again and again, to rationalise it under a constructivist worldview; but it doesn't work. It always provides an incomplete picture. Such questions always remain, as: "what was the original source of our oppression, before the myriad of dialectical interactions between the preexisting societal conditions? What was the original thesis and antithesis of it all?"

Take the question: "why is man and woman brought up differently?" You can attribute it to social prejudices, but at the end of the day, where do those social traditions come from?

1. The Basis of Society and Social Norm

The only way I have found to be able to reconcile this question is with the simple truth that society and its customs are ultimately created by human instincts. Where else do we get our general conceptions of "good" and "evil", many of which are so universal among us and inherent in human society that they cross cultural difference? I do not challenge that external conditions play a role in the creation of the general ideas and morality of society, as human instinct also interacts with those external conditions to give rise to society; but, ultimately, it is the modification of these external conditions by human instincts that create society; ultimately, human instincts still plays the dominant and active role, and constructs notions of right and wrong from external experience under its distorting perception - under its innate bias - that it has learnt from thousands of years of wild and uncontrolled evolution.

tl;dr 1, if we take that material conditions themselves are the sole determinant of society, then there would be no society; it takes the interpretation of material conditions by innate instinct to give rise to society. In other words, both constructivism and essentialism must be taken into consideration when analysing phenomena within society.

2A. Nature and Inequality

Let me emphasise that I do not want it to be this way. These ideas are the source of so much immitigable suffering; but how am I to deceive myself of the truth?

Nature is not perfect; nature does not care about equality, like our human faculties of reasoning and logic do. EQUALITY IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT THAT WE ASPIRE TOWARDS; AND THE NATURAL STATE OF ALL THINGS IS INEQUALITY. Whatever works for nature is only that which is most expedient, which has proven to be such through the brute force of natural selection. Therefore, almost all things in nature are unequal, because entities in nature specialise for the sake of evolutionary efficiency. If nature were equal, then why is it that human beings are composed of a myriad of different types of cells? If equality were the most conducive state towards natural evolution, how come we are not a great assemblage of the same type of cell? And let us not mention the anatomy of cells themselves, whose unequal and disparate portions all work towards the maintenance of a greater entity; or, the constitution of organelles and proteins. It's the same whether the sphere of nature we are looking at is microscopic or macroscopic - INEQUALITY REIGNS AND IS SUCCESSFUL.

tl;dr 2A, Nature does not care about equality. Nature is naturally unequal.

2B. The Meaning of Equality

Perhaps you should point out that this argument is fallacious because two different things can still possess equal relationships whilst being dramatically disparate, such as in a symbiotic relationship of mutualism. Take the bee and flower - are they not equals, in that they both benefit?

NO. They may both benefit, but mutual benefit is not equality. One might still suffer more than the other, or be more disadvantaged.

In truth, there is no such thing as equality without sameness. Equality is the concept that this and that are of the same inherent value. But how can two different things have the same inherent value? Two different things necessarily possess dissimilar properties; and those different properties, depending on the context and circumstance, would interact with their environment differently and thereby produce different results; and as such, would be unequal.

One might, idealistically, hold that two different things have "equal souls", or "equal consciousness". But the fact remains: in reality, they will never be physical equals, nor interact with their environment in the same way.

tl;dr 2B, Two things cannot be truly equal without being the same. We can only consider them as equal, or treat them as equal, but the reality will remain that they still aren't.

3. The Evolution of Society and its Obsoletion of the Biological Specialisations of Men

Society is not to be taken as being something artificial insofar as it has developed in accordance to the uninterrupted interaction of human instinct with the external environment. Society is a part of nature.

Human society has existed since the first relations between communicating hominids arose. The interconnectedness and macroscopic scale of the society we today think about is an extremely modern phenomenon. Before the dawn of modern society, the majority of us lived in relatively small social circles, where our laws and customs were closer to those of our evolved nature, and consisted less of logic and reasoned ethics and more of instinctive and emotional morality. However, society has provided for the exchange and furtherance of far more complex ideas wherewith to govern ourselves than those we had formulated when we all lived in small tribes, or in villages of five hundred farmhands. The present discourse is an example of this; I doubt I would have had the leisure to reflect upon or write these observations in the sphere of a rural farming village, or - evidently - before the dawn of writing, as a member of a familial tribe of nomadic hunter gatherers.

However, at its core, the majority of society remains the same as that society of instinctive laws that had once existed amongst those villages of five hundred. The only difference lies in those of changed material conditions - technology has allowed us to augment greatly the size and interconnectedness of what we today deem as "society", as well as furnished new facts wherewith to base our opinions. YET THE HUMAN ASPECT OF INSTINCT REMAINS WITHIN SOCIETY, JUST AS IT HAD FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO IN A RURAL FRENCH PEASANT'S VILLAGE. We will return to this very important point later.

One of the most important contributions of technology is in changing the external conditions of humanity. Greater living standards then contribute to the liberation of individuals from the hierarchical roles they had been assigned to by nature. Here we concern ourselves with women. No more were they required to be the homemakers, or to tend to their family's young; these roles were rendered obsolete by a greater need to participate in the industrial workforce, and increased access to education; less of a burden on needing to ensure that one's fourteen children made it through the dangerous maladies of childhood.

However, the liberation of individuals through greater living standards supplied by technology also renders obsolete the services of others. What remains the point in greater strength when the hydraulic arm can manufacture and fashion objects at such greater efficiency? What remains the point in our naturally more dominant, aggressive, and assertive propensities, when we are now governed by codified laws, protected by specialised peoples, and the noxiousness and harm of such activity now outweighs its benefits? What point is there still in our resilience, our greater capacity for pain, in our greater capacity for suffering, but to be our own torture? None empathise with us because the instinct to empathise with women is naturally stronger in both men and women (for in nature they are our childbearers whom we must protect and provide for) - and such instincts precisely play to the advantage of the woman in modern society, a society which has been rendered passive instead of brutal; and results in our own silencing. This is but one of a myriad of instinctual advantages of women, which have been carried over from more primitive society to the modern day; whilst all our advantages, the advantages of men, have been rendered utterly obsolete or are in the course of becoming such.

We have no place in a society whose individuals aspire, instead of for bountiful harvests, love, care, harmony, and joy, for which we were not evolved to receive**. The place for our contributions have been entirely uprooted. The core of society has become female, instead of equal parts male and female.**

We must recognise, as much as it pains me, that the future is indeed female. There is nothing we can do about it directly that would not hinder the progress of society in favour of reactionaryism, but I shall soon provide a few options.

tl;dr 3, The development of modern society has rendered it so that the natural advantages of women have taken first importance, whereas the natural advantages of men have become obsolete or looked down upon as being detriments.

4. Human Nature's Incongruency and Conflict with Modern Society - The Core of Feminism

Let us, for a moment, return back to the station of women. Despite women having risen from their original estates - they, like ourselves, are endowed with the same faults of instinct and fallacies in reasoning that we are. They too have a tendency towards tribalism, and are not perfect arbiters of truth and logic, and thus are prone to making the same logical fallacies we are in the oversimplification of problems.

Hence does the modern western woman, now occupying the station that man once had, blame the problems of the world upon man. But do not damn them for it, because we would have done the same, blinded by our own self-interests as they are.

It has been well documented that women think themselves superior to us (one needs only to search that study up on this sub) whereas the contrary is becoming less and less prevalent. The most miserable part, however, is that they do not pity us, despite thinking us disgusting Neanderthal bog monsters; they do not empathise with our biological shortcomings that are so ill-adapted for the modern society. And again, can we truly blame them, when they think themselves our victims? In truth the answer to this question consists largely of instinctual and biological privileges that render us unequal, as the ones previously observed.

Recall the observation that the human aspect of instinct still remains in society now, as it did five hundred years ago in a French peasant's village. This instinct is precisely what gives rise to feminism - those innate, and unequal instinctual morals such as the greater biological value women possess, that they are innocent and pure victims and never the sources of immorality, that the problems of men are not to be considered because they are the hardy workers of societal maintenance. I could remain here and list out all these innate prejudices - but that is besides the point. The point is to illustrate how feminism comes, ultimately, not from a more evolved and rational view - that is, true progress - but the regurgitation of those innate, unequal prejudices, amidst different material conditions than those that had been in a tribal or rural society.

tl;dr 4, The position of women is no more valid or rational than those of men; they still come, ultimately, from faulty instinctual stereotype-morals, and hence feminism.

5. What is to be done?

Throughout this dissertation we have established that nature is inherently unequal, and society - merely being an ascended part of nature - is likewise unequal. We have shown that it is impossible to strive towards equality between man and woman, except in an idealistic way, unless we become the same as them. We have examined the modern man and woman, and the sources of their advantages and disadvantages; as well as the ways in which modern society have contributed to them.

Now comes the normative question. How are we to rectify this seemingly insurmountable problem? How are we to actually address the kernel of the quandary, instead of superficially hiding the real inequalities between man and woman simply by writing laws that treat us equally, while in reality inequality will forevermore lurk beneath them and affect society, simply on account of our differences?

I propose that we should not merely erase gender, but we should do away entirely with biological sex through scientific advancements. To design a new, sexless frame for the human consciousness to inhabit, unburdened by our hunter-gatherer evolutionary instincts, which are no longer harmonious with our present modern society. The merits of an individual ought to be entirely dictated by their minds and character, and not affected by the physical influences thereupon, which we had no choice in possessing. This would once and for all solve the problems posed by biological inequality by embracing physical sameness between all human beings.

I recognise that this design cannot be achieved until far into the future. But is it not a beautiful ideal to strive towards?

CONCLUSION.

We must accept that we are inherently different to women, both physically and mentally (as, physical difference plays into mental difference - production of different hormones, which gives way to thoughts, temperament, and emotion of a different nature), and thus, because we are possessed of different properties, we are not equal and can never truly be till we eliminate those inherent biological differences within us. We must also - and this is of the utmost importance - recognise that it is largely these differences that lead to conflict between men and women in modern society - such conflict would not have existed ten thousand years ago, in our hunter gatherer lifestyle, for which our instincts were initially evolved. It takes dozens of thousands of years for evolution to profoundly change a species, and we do not have that sort of time. WE MUST THEREFORE TAKE EVOLUTION INTO OUR OWN HANDS IN ORDER TO EQUALISE SOCIETY.