I’m sorry, but the logic you follow to come to this conclusion is incredibly and unbelievably twisted. Aside from reading feminist theory, have you followed the achievements of feminism or of feminist activists?
By definition, feminism is a social and political movement. This implies that it is designed and intended to affect social realities, that is, realities in a society made by humans. So firstly, the fact that women outlive men, all by themselves (without accounting for investment in medical research) is a biological reality. Even if it were true there is nothing about it that women or men can change. It is as much an unchangeable reality as pregnancy is. I’m not sure why this makes an argument for how women are better off than men in a society. So firstly, let’s skip over the biological aspects. It’s not women’s fault that apparently they live longer as much as it is not men’s fault that they are muscular.
Most of us don’t want to pay half the bill on dates, we don’t want to work dirty and dangerous jobs, we don’t want to be drafted if there was a war, we don’t have to prove to a court that our children need us after divorce, and we don’t want to serve as unpaid bodyguard or be the first one to go downstairs when we hear a strange noise… and luckily for us, we don’t have to!
I must ask you to speak for yourself here. At no point, ever, has feminism demanded that women be equal in the air conditioned desk jobs, while leaving all the dirty and dangerous jobs to men. Women have, throughout history, done the dirty work that gender roles assigned them to. They have cleaned crud from the streets, buried corpses, and skinned animals to feed their families. They have carried water and firewood, and bled while harvesting crops. I think if you were to leave the confines of the city even today, you will find women with the capacity to milk cows and corral herds. In modern, urban ‘feminism’ which is what your logic applies to, there are many women (I am one) who insist on paying our half during dates, we would be willing to follow our brothers and fathers if there was a draft, and if there is a danger, our instinct is to just protect the weaker among us, whether it be a younger boy, a child, or an old man. We are perfectly willing to stand in front of them and take the hit. There have been many women who have chafed at all of these controls, who have pretended to be men to go to war. The main reason we are controlled from doing many of these? The risk of rape. So while the men of our family and our community may be protecting us, the only reason we need protection is from other males not of our tribe. Otherwise, the danger would just be to life and limb, and there would be no reason to stop women from these activities (since those dangers are equally applicable to men). But, it is because (as it was believed) sexual violence could be perpetrated only upon women that women were more protected. I’m not sure how this proves that women don’t want equality. The same goes for all dangerous jobs such as mining, construction work etc.
All of the consequences on professional choices, that apparently explain the pay gap are choices made because of the conditions existent social norms imposed upon us. Women chose and still choose less demanding fields because they are expected to be mothers first, professionals second. Aside from the 3–6 month maternity gap that we must take, (courtesy biology), in 2017, women still feel indescribably more guilty if they fail on their obligations as mothers. Paternal time, or responsibility towards the children aside from being a provider has always been completely sidelined and is now changing. If women were guaranteed equal support from a partner, I wonder how their professional choices would change. If women were not implicitly encouraged in the humanities and instead explicitly pushed toward STEM, and measures taken to overcome the instinctive social conditioning, I wonder what choices they would make.
The only valid point was the bias in medical research towards prostate cancer and breast cancer, and if that is true, then by all means, that imbalance should be corrected and investment made towards curing prostate cancer as well. As to all of the problems you mentioned with boys still feeling like they need to earn more, and the social perception if men aren’t primary providers it is another consequence of a society with rigidly defined gender roles that feminists fight. What does this prove? That society is still sabotaging both males and females with these roles. Why shouldn’t a father be a stay at home dad if he wants? Why mustn’t a man pursue arts if he so desires? Who gains? Who loses? Why is any of this anti thetical to a progressive and humane society?