A reasonable discussion?
A reasonable discussion on whether we ned feminism by its very nature must include a reasonable number of women. Which you certainly don't have in this thread. Without that, it's just men imagining that they can understand issues facing women, and that therefore they can determine whether or not feminism is still needed - ie men imagining that they can determine what women need.
Quoting questionable studies and using approximations of logic does not a reasonable discussion make.
It's not about evidence. It's about lack of perspective. Even with all the evidence in the world, you'll be coming at the whole problem from the angles you learned as a male child, and developped as a male teenager, and often strengthened as a male adult, and interpreting the evidence within that framework. But with the kind of social discrimination, the framework itself is often the problem, and if the framework is the problem, then any interpretation of data you make based on that framework is going to be a problem in and of itself.
Empathy does exist, and some people can emphathize past the framework (and even use empathy to spot the flaws in their own frame of reference). But it's a very difficult thing to do, stepping outside a framework that's been ingrained into you since childhood.
There are a lot of issues which can be understood regardless of gender or whatnot. Health issues and the like fall easily in that category.
But when it comes to social issues, especially social issues related to long-standing discriminatory practice (hereafter "minority", even though in the case of women they're not a minority in sheer numbers, just in term of their historical place in society), it's extremely difficult to learn to put yourself in someone's shoes. The assumption that you can have a serious reasonable discussion of the right and needs of a minority without members of that minority present to share and explain the difficulties they face is ludicrous, and smack of arrogance.
If you're not part of a minority, you don't know discrimination. Even if you're part of *a* minority, if it's another minority you don't know what discrimination *they* face.
Male arrogance in thinking they know better than women what society need (and whether it needs feminism) is male chauvinism.
Firstly, in terms of domsetic violence it pretty much is men and women trading blows in equal numbers.
Secondly, even if you were right, so what? Men can't be considered victims of other men, because they're all men so all equally to blame?! If I get mugged and stabbed and left for dead with my face beaten in, it's only an atrocity if a woman did it to me?
Historically, women have been relegated to a minority position (outside the public view, outside the public sphere, outside power) throughout history. In the spheres of power, where the decisiosn are made, they are still a minority.
Second thing (yes my first thing was a little long, sorry): as far as discussing social policy, domestic violence and sexual assault have a variety of very different ramifications, root causes, and solutions versus random violence like burglary. It's why a man robbing a woman's purse on the street and does not get lumped in with domestic violence stats, and is considered a different crime. Even though in my opinion domestic violence breeds violent people, I think bringing random street crime into a discussion about domestic violence or sexual assault is more of a red herring than anything else; where is the connection between the two?
This is nonsense. Women are not and never have been a "minority". They have occupied a different place and role in society compared to men, but it has always been fully integrated within that society and open to many priveliges as well as restrictions, just as men have (different) priveliges and restrictions.
And I think with that simple sentence you just lost all right to claim you're not a male chauvinist.
Fully integrated? Do you even have an idea what you're talking about? Not having the right to vote, not having the right to own property, being treated as equivalent to children and mentally incapable people? THAT'S your definition of fully integrated?
By that standard, slaves were fully integrated, too! What kind of idiotic talk is this?
After the male cannon fodder were dead and their side had lost what do you suppose happened to their women?
I also quibble with your history of female employment. Women have traditionally toiled in the fields, factories and coal mines along with their male counterparts.
His point was that historically, most men didn't vote either. Or held any meaningful power. And while women had even less power than men, they were also spared the worst of the terrible fate that awaited most men throughout history, like being used as cannon fodder in wars or toiling under back breaking conditions.
After the male cannon fodder were dead and their side had lost what do you suppose happened to their women?