A lot of problems with this post.
“One of the reasons why women can get less punishment is because of the “halo effect” — we look more innocent and are perceived as less threatening. For example, people with softer faces are less likely to be found guilty of intentional crimes, but more likely to be found guilty of negligence.”
This paragraph assumed that women are better looking, or have softer faces than men — this is not true. Women can be down right ugly, and more so than men. Most children stories mentioned ugly witches, but not ugly old men. Also, men were historically averse to women in power too — many were specifically targeted and burnt at stake for being witches, with Joan D’Arc of France was one such example. I don’t see any such leniency there.
Many of the cited studies have been misleadingly used — for example, this paragraph “Other studies have revealed that men are more likely than women to reconcile with their opponent after conflict [..]” cited this study, in which I quote the author, Prof. Benenson: “What we’re talking about is women having a harder time when they have to compete with other women,” she said. “Studies have shown that when two females compete in the workplace, they feel much more damaged afterward”. In other words, women are less capable to reconcile as a result of having to compete more for the same job as men, not the other way around.
I’d advise the author of this post to read more, best beyond the eye-catching headline, into the studies they cited — or he/she would be at risk of misleading his/her readers.
The author also have some of his/her logic backward. For example, this paragraph: “While it’s true that male risk-taking leads to men comprising the vast majority of serial killers, bank robbers and school shooters, male risk-taking leads to the vast majority of our inventors, explorers, jazz musicians, and CEOs. Male risk-taking also gives us heroes who risk their lives saving others, such as firefighters — 96 percent of whom are male and 7 out of 10 of which are volunteers (yet we can’t acknowledge them as firemen), police officers — 7 out of 8 of whom are male (not policemen), and military service members — 5 out of 6 Soldiers are male and, until recently, men filled 100 percent of combat roles.”. That’s because until very recently, women seeking to participate in many such roles are routinely denied — such as in combat, or discriminated against, such as in law enforcement, or overlooked by recruiters, such as in firefighting. Women are underrepresented minorities in those groups was due to the fact that the institutionally established odds are staked against them, not because of something wrong with women.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
In summary, while I agree that modern feminism, as a reactionary backlash to a male dominated society, has simply taken the concept too far, and deserves to be looked at with more than a critical eye, I however do believe that there’s a need for a corrective effort to bring women to their deserved place in society — that is, one that is equal to that of men.