Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.
Speaking of books/papers:
The Privileged Sex
The Myth of Male Power
Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance
Favored or Oppressed?
The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)
The Boy Crisis
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men
Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men
The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys
Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?
Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective
Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions
Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism
The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality
Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.
Another recent study (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.
The privileged sex
The gender sentencing gap is six times larger than the racial sentencing gap. A study in the UK determined that if men were treated like women by the criminal justice system, 60 percent of imprisoned males would not be there. And it didn't even take into account arrest rates.
Instead of trying to eliminate this institutional oppression against males, feminists are trying to privilege females still further. Some are even writing editorials in major newspapers arguing that only males should be imprisoned.
This should put to rest the notion that feminists care about "gender equality", assuming anyone is still suffering under that delusion.
I have zero faith that Bernie or any other candidate will pursue real gender equality. Neither the right nor the left seems remotely interested in addressing the male side of the equation. Ultimately this will harm women and girls as well, since you can't harm one sex without harming the other.
First and second wave feminists had some legitimate complaints. However they failed to recognize that men also had legitimate complaints (Earnest Bax wrote about this in the early 20th century). From the very beginning they approached the issue of gender in entirely the wrong way -- painting women as helpless victims of male coercion and "oppression."
Ironically, the reason they have been so successful is because men, far from wanting to oppress women, have a biological drive to protect them. This is arguably where most patriarchal traditions came from. When a feminist looks at the chaperone system in Saudi Arabia, for example, they conclude that men want to "control" women. The more likely explanation is that men want to protect women. It is also likely (given that eg in France, feminists are trying to turn the state into one big mega chaperone, making it a crime to engage in "unwanted speech" toward women) that women were initially complicit in this arrangement. Only a few decades ago Saudi Arabia consisted of warring clans, and women may well have preferred safety over individual liberty. Indeed studies and policy proposals show that this remains true. For example feminists value "feeling safe" on the Internet over free speech.
I'm not saying that women have never been subject to oppressive laws. Men are only human, and individual men in power have indeed, over the course of history, sometimes passed laws that were unfair to women; they have also passed laws that were unfair to men, and to the extent that one sex was ever privileged over the other you can make a good argument that it has always been females.
Because feminists radically misdiagnosed the problem, almost every "solution" they have offered has only increased hostility between the sexes and harmed society overall. The best example of this is shared parenting. Feminists assumed that fathers wanted to control and oppress their wives and children and were only needed for their wallets. In fact, we now know that fathers are crucial for child rearing, that women are just as likely to engage in domestic violence, and that children from single mother homes fair much worse in life. We even know that mothers are better off in shared parenting arrangements. Yet feminists continue to oppose shared parenting.
There are several hurdles involved in defeating feminism.
Feminism is now a multi billion dollar industry. Tens of thousands of people make their living on pushing feminist propaganda. More insidiously, we have a "divorce industry" with huge payouts for lawyers and judges.
Elites must recognize that they have a good thing in feminism and identity politics. You can view this from both a right and left wing perspective. A righty might argue that elites want to destroy the family so people become more reliant on the state. A lefty might argue that the excessive focus on gender and race has largely replaced traditional class analysis; it serves as a divide and conquer strategy to prevent unity among the working class. As an anarchist I find merit in both the left and right wing critiques. It is probable that elites recognized the utility of feminism much earlier than most people think. In the 60's, for example, the head of the FBI field office in San Francisco wrote in a memo stating that the "women's liberation movement" may be seen as "counter-revolutionary" to the "new left" because it "has proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor." Whether one takes the right or left wing view or some combination of both, it is a known fact that the Ford and Rockefeller foundations pumped lots of money into second wave feminism, and the CIA even got in on the action by funding Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine. Today feminism is being promoted by most power centers, from corporate America to international bodies like the UN. While Republicans claim to oppose feminism, they are remarkably ineffective in actually changing the laws, and often work hand in glove with feminists on specific policies. To the extent that they try to change the laws they spend most of their time trying to reverse some rights or entitlements for women rather than leveling the playing field by supporting men's rights.
Feminists (especially the older ones) are emotionally attached to the ideology, almost like devoted religious acolytes. Imagine if you had spent your whole life pushing some ideology only to find it was 99 percent bullshit. People have a tendency not to change wrong-headed views when introduced to new information. Disturbingly, there is even a tendency to double-down on the fallacy and become more radical.
Feminism feels good. Women like to view themselves as victims in need of help and men like to engage in white knighting. This was necessary in the jungle. It is now a maladaptive trait for both sexes. Consider the hapless bastards at R/MensLib. They are the biggest white knights I've ever seen, yet they claim to be "fighting traditional gender roles."
I've painted a pretty bleak picture but I don't think these problems are insurmountable.
When enough women realize that feminism is not in their own best interests, or see how feminism is harming their male loved ones, they may decide to act. Right now, most female anti-feminists seem content to virtue signal on Youtube. Hopefully they will start to actually organize into effective lobby groups.
As for men, every animal has its breaking point, and I think we are fast reaching it. The MGTOW phenomenon may well explode in a very short amount of time. Often the greatest changes in history are not well anticipated. The MRM may also force feminists to modify their positions. Eg It was only a few years ago that feminists refused to acknowledge male victims of domestic violence at all. The Internet is really helping us, because we have the facts on our side and men are sharing their stories in a way that previously wasn't possible.
So to summarize: feminism is far from dead. They are actually more powerful then ever. But we may have already passed the point of no return, where it is almost inevitable that feminism will die.
Well, one could make an argument for example that females are the privileged sex , and that since males fair far worse on most quality of life indicators, they are "oppressed".
However I don't think it helps to simply label women de facto "privileged." Poor women (including white women) don't live a privileged existence. They live brutal lives just like their male counterparts.
Moreover, claiming that someone is privileged suggests (whether it's intended that way or not) that a person has all sorts of unearned luxuries, when in reality most people work very hard in life and (in today's society) aren't very happy. It comes across like an accusation, and therefore causes hostility. If the goal is to bring more attention to the plight of a legitimately disadvantaged group, it is a terrible strategy. I personally don't think that is the actual goal. SJW's are simply trying to create new social dominance hierarchies and abuse people.
The "old left" understood that we should be trying to overcome artificial differences and encourage working class unity. The "new left" are mostly useful idiots for the billionaire class.
> I don’t know the averages between race and gender in homelessness but using this as proof that privilege doesn’t exist isn’t helping anything.
Men make up 90 percent of rough sleepers.
The concept of "male privilege" is idiotic . They are now the hyper-privileged sex. Strangely that's not making them happy, and female unhappiness rates are at an all time high.
The concept of "white privilege" may have been applicable at certain times and places in history, but even then, the word "privilege" denotes some sort of unearned luxury. Everyone should be treated with dignity and fairness. The concept of current "white male privilege" is silly, since white men are the only group for whom it is socially acceptable to attack and discriminate against. In Britain, poor white males are now the most disadvantaged group.
When you find yourself arguing about the "privilege" of a homeless man you should probably recognize that (a) your worldview is insane and (b) you have become fundamentally anti-human.