Pissing off Feminists is a New Hobby of Mine

Context matters as well as definition. The proposition of equality for both sexes--by the way, seekers of liberation should NEVER seek "equality"--is based on the false narrative that women as a sex were disenfranchised from, lack of a better term--"essential" functions of society--most notably from positions of so-called "power." Of course when "power" is equal, there's no power, or more to the point, there's no need for power. If feminism sought to balance the scales, they would seek to DISEMPOWER the very mechanism they claim has oppressed them, and the designated sex, on behalf of whom, they claim to advocate. In contrast, feminists are seeking positions in this very mechanism, because the exercise of unjust authority wasn't the problem; it was those who were exercising it. The patriarchy, which feminists condemn, manifested to PROTECT women, not oppress them. Any rudimentary research into the subject of sex-based laws would reveal that women were the primary beneficiaries--especially women with families. And even if she was unmarried, she can apply for "femme-sole" status which permitted her to hold property in her own name--a custom which spans back to Norman Feudalism. In the Western Territories, women were allowed to vote long before the passing of the 19th amendment; it wasn't until the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, that women lost the right to vote--and even then, it wasn't even about them--women, that is; it was more a campaign against the Mormons in the area.

True Feminism has always been based on a lie--especially since political participation among the masses is a fairly RECENT phenomena (even "men" in large number didn't have the right to vote, for example, especially considering it was privilege sanctioned for just nobility.) But even if if we were to accept the definition of feminism without context, I would still oppose it. Because Feminism isn't liberation--quite the opposite actually. Equality necessarily undermines freedom, so any philosophy, political ideology, trend, etc. which advocates for equality would necessarily attempt to reduce freedom.

Well stated.

If women were being paid less for "the same work," then women would have priced-out men in the labor market. One example that could be used to illustrate this was the prominent political narrative in the 2000's that Mexicans were "taking all the jobs." This had quite a bit of merit to it since Mexican immigrants who performed low-skilled (Economic term) work provided a cheaper alternative, especially considering the minimum wage. So why were women not "talking all the jobs," especially if it was cheaper to hire them? Corporate employers can overlook their usually connoted "racist" attitudes for profit, but not their supposed "sexist" attitudes? It makes no sense. There is indeed a wage-gap, but this can simply be explained. If you want references, I'd personally recommend Thomas Sowell's Discrimination & Disparities. If you're looking for a female perspective, I'd recommend Claudia Goldin's Hours Flexibility and the Gender Gap in Pay.

Yes, and in many cases, this favors women, i.e. they're the ones who get more than the men.

Context matters, and this almost never happens.

Actually it does.

Of course it is.

Equality necessarily reduces freedom.

But people are naturally treated differently based on differences. Why should the convention change on the basis of sex? I would assume that if you were in the company of a person you found attractive, you'd treat them "differently" than one whom you don't find attractive, correct?

And feminists have never been able to substantiate how social, economic, political conventions up until now have reflected a chauvinistic view towards women, especially considering that historically, the safety of women and children have always been prioritized.

The problem, in my estimation at least, is that feminists have little to no understanding of that which they intend to pathologize--i.e. inequality.

Women are already out-pricing men in the labor market....in all the fields I listed as dominated by women workers.

Women get paid less to be a Nurse than what a Man would demand for the same work, which is the ONLY reason why most nurses are women.

No sane employer will hire a man as a Nurse if the Man expects to get paid more than a woman for the same work. The pay may be equal among the 2 genders for the same work, but the value of that work is vastly divergent within each gender. If you as a man struggle to meet the demands of Nurse work, you will most definitely value your time and efforts than a woman who has a much easier time preforming the duties comparatively. That increased value will require higher wages which most employers will not meet unless they specifically need a man for a certain gender role or to meet a gender quota.