Interesting thought experiment. I would like to preface this with the fact that I don't necessarily condone this idea, only that it's interesting to consider.

Feminists demand equality. And rightfully so, no citizen should ever be unrepresented or denied rights.

But something feminism has been doing lately isn't pushing for equal rights, but instead pushing for better representation of women in society over men. (In theory until they're equal, but some want more )

So, based on feminisms view, being under-represented as a class is still an equality issue, irrespective of numbers.

For instance, women are voting more than men, and are therefore the vote is more representative of women, moreso than the actual demographics which show a ratio of 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)

So the question is: If feminists truly believe that beyond the right to vote, and beyond the rights to freedom and pursue happiness, women should also be at least equally represented, then their view must therefore reflect that men must also be equally represented.

If this is true, why wouldn't we break down the vote by gender, and scale the vote?

For instance, if 100% of women voted for the Democrat, would we not therefore prefer that to count for 50% of the national vote? Or should women have more representation than men? (inequality).

But that's ridiculous!

Ah, yes, because we'd have to explore other classes, and how to make them equal. Should the black vote have equal weight of whites? How would we calculate the black vote vs women's vote?

It's an interesting thought experiment because it seems to break down. Except with men and women, they're the two groups that are almost roughly equal and transcend all classes.

So the question is this: If feminists are not interested in this setup, then are they truly not interested in equal representation?

And if not- then what are they really fighting for right now?

Edit: Downvotes only make me stronger. I dare you to discuss what you disagree with instead of using cowardly downvotes.