In this post
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4pu86q/anyone_notice_how_if_a_biological_aspect_is_found/
CWBeck and Azazel put their fingers upon a core technique of feminism - inconsistent reasoning with only "male bad; female good" as the guiding principle. Thus, much of feminism can be disproved simply by showing the contradiction, similar to the mathematical technique of reductio ad absurdum.

All of feminism reeks of this inconsistency:

*If veterinarians are 80% female, it's because women are more empathetic, and government intervention is not needed. If STEM is 80% male, it's because women are discriminated against, and government, academia, and corporations must intervene against men.

*If women choose higher-paying law and medicine over STEM, it's because they're more practical, not because they lack intellectual curiosity or intellectual commitment.

*If men misbehave (DV, crime), it's because of toxic masculinity. If women misbehave (DV, burning bed, Bobbit, welfare queens), it's because of patriarchy.

*If a man holds a door for a woman, he's sexist. If a man doesn't hold a door for a woman, he's rude.

*If women earn more uni degrees than men, it's because they work harder. If men earn more income than women, it's not because they work harder; it's because of patriarchy.

*If a man happens to be "in the mood" when his mate is not, it's because men are Neanderthal, sexist misogynists who think of only one thing. If a woman happens to be "in the mood" when her mate is not, it's because men are losers and latent rapists who aren't aroused unless they can dominate a woman.

*If a drunk male performs a sex act on a passed-out female (Turner), we need to destroy his life, destroy the judge's life, and even revise the law to abrogate centuries-old legal principles. If a sober female performs a sex act on a passed-out male (Amherst), we still need to destroy his life (expelled, transcript noted, etc).

*A divorced woman has a right to be supported in the style to which she's been accustomed; a divorced man does not have the right to a family and sexual servicing in the style to which he's been accustomed.

*If a harried female parent puts off medical checkups, it's because she selflessly sacrifices herself to her family. If a harried male parent puts off medical checkups, it's because men are selfish, irresponsible children, etc.

*In the initial revelation of symmetric DV by Steinmetz circa 1978, the very same Victimology publication had a rebuttal "study" claiming DV against men less serious because it ostensibly affected their self-esteem less. Thus, feminism will always find a pretext for double standards which dehumanise men.

Ellen Klein, in one of her books, mentioned that feminism's only consistent principle seems to be: Women good, men bad. In this, it fits exactly the pattern of every other supremacy and hate movement.

Be on the lookout for this inconsistency in every aspect of feminism. It's sometimes simpler, more effective and more succinct to argue the inconsistency, than to argue the actual facts (which feminism often manages to fabricate).