In one-hundred years women have moved from being a minority in the 19th century to being in equality between the 1970s and the 1990s to being a majority today - in banking, law, psychology, media, literature, teaching, academic qualifications, medical schools - feminism never says "alright in this specific domain it's enough", but rather after reaching supremacy of 75% (psychology) or 87% (literature) it continues with "women need a push, men need pushing out", and in addition to that, once supremacy forms and men become a minority without an equal opportunity (due to the "men need pushing out") it is forbidden for men to protest as feminism will tag them as "misogynists, against women's equality". This creates a widening of a gap where the widening has no saturation point because it is forbidden to protest against it - this dynamics reaches in some fields such as literature complete and utter exclusion of men (one woman explicitly wrote in an article in a mainstream magazine that the goal should be no male authors at all; no criticism was voiced).

Feminism took over once-liberal, once-democratic cultural institutions, such as newspapers and governmental and inter-governmental offices, and uses them for pushing the propaganda that "women in liberal societies are the ones in position of inferiority, and men need to be pushed out", but when women in such liberal societies are already in a position of superiority this only means widening an existing gap.

One percent of men are at the top of business and politics, feminism focuses only on them and defines equality as all women being equal to those 1%, but this focus on a 1% is the result of women being able to see only successful men while the rest are transparent to them. This is not an aspiration for equality: if 100% of women are equal to the top 1% of men and the other 99% of men are beneath all - is this equality? In England of the 1980s, at the top there was a woman as a queen and a woman as a prime-minister - did that mean that "all other women are strong enough" only because those few at the very top were women? A layered society where 100% of one sex are equal to 1% of the other sex while 99% of that other sex, are blow everybody - without the same rights and human dignity, the same norms don't apply to them, they do not receive the same equal opportunity or cultivation, a sub-human - is not a society of equality. And this is what feminism has been generating and continues to generate and this is the reality it gradually but persistently is forming. Opposing this is supporting equality; opposing feminism due to feminism's clear inability to announce "in this domain it's enough" which causes it to become supremacy and not equality, and opposing this because of one's support of the equality of BOTH women AND men, is not "being against women's equality". It is being against women's supremacy and men's sub-humanity. Right now and for several years, opposing Western feminism is supporting equality - for all, with no exceptions.