I meant "natural advantage" as perceived 50 years ago. What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago. (i.e. today's father has as many parent rights in the courts as he had 100 years ago. Which are much less/worse than mothers rights).
"What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago"
You seem to perceive this as a zero-sum game. Raising the status of women means that guys' strict gender roles are weakened. Which is an objective good thing. Be a good person, don't lower the status of women because you're confused and frightened with yourself when you can be a stay-at-home-dad and not be a social pariah. Or you can be approached by a woman in a bar and not think she's a slut. Or, your wife can (gods!) make more money than you and not have you be an emasculated pantywaist.
Your problem is with your perspective, not the state of women worldwide.
None of this has changed due to gains in womens' rights, so using them as an example to rail against the pursuance of womens' rights makes you appear more of a crank than interested in any amount of equality.
Asking for both of those to be examined? Fine!
Spitting venom towards gender equality because your pet causes aren't given enough interest? That reflects poorly on you.
