@Purplelibraryguy
Got a few days without being able to use the PC so a late reply here.
I will go through each of your "arguments" to show how you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
No group in history has ever dominated society for the benefit of some other group.
There is a lot so I'm not even going to explain this and just tell you one thing: Children.
Nobles didn't dominate society for the benefit of peasants, theocratic priests didn't dominate society for the benefit of the worshippers, and corporate bigwigs don't dominate society for the benefit of all the little people on minimum wage. That's not how it works.
No one works for the benefit of others without a reason and even then a competent ruler will make the lives of all the "peasants" better while ruling for it's own benefit, by the basic fact that health, happy workers produce more than unhappy, famished ones, and that will return making the life of the ruler better. Bad rulers end up with broken societies or being expelled from their position at some point. That was a very ignorant statement.
It was not so long ago that it was legal for husbands to beat their wives with sticks
Here you get thinks out of context trying to make they be worse than they look. Parents could "beat" their children as a way to discipline them, that is because parents have responsibility for the children and the same was true in this case. There was never a point in time when it was "legal to beat" a wife, what was allowed was for the husband to use physical acts to discipline his wife and those were very controlled and specific and were in place because if the women were to commit a crime or do something that would require a repercussion her husband (or whatever men were responsible for her at the time, like her father) were the one to suffer the consequences of it, be it go to jail or pay something. Men had the burden of responsibility for their wife and as such were given the authority necessary to discipline them. You accused someone of needing to learn history but you are clearly not in the clear on that.
In Canada, we honour a group of women who successfully fought, in the 20th century, for the law to deem women "persons"; it took years and they had to fight all the way to the Privy Council in Britain, but in 1929 they made it.
Congratulations, you honor a group of women for making it that women have to take responsibility for their acts, which they still don`t do but let's pretend.
In India it still seems to be effectively legal for men to burn their wives alive or splash them with acid.
Either you know or you don't, you are in the internet look up your information before trying to use it. Also you are wrong as it is not.
Tell me about how often it's been the case that women were allowed to beat their husbands, or men were not deemed "persons" before the law.
"In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78)"
That's and historical account BTW, so legally the wife could beat their husband and the husband would be the one to be punished for it afterwards, so yeah history.
About not being "persons" that would apply to any men younger than 14 that were not working as they were not "people" but possessions of their fathers. Funny enough there were legal protections for daughters, don't matter the age, but not for sons. Cool, huh?
Nowadays men can't even be victims of domestic violence by word of law in Australia. In most occidental countries there is a thing called "Duluth Model" which automatically assumes that the men is the abuser and will arrest and remove the men from the house even if he was the one to call because of a abusive wife. More recently there is the case of Jonh Deppy, who was being abused by his wife (who confessed to it) and still lost the case because "he must have abused her at some point too".
Here how people react to abuse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM&ab_channel=TheMankindInitiative. Funny huh?
Tell me about times and places where women have made more than men in the same job.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/google-found-its-underpaying-some-men-as-it-studies-wage-equity.html
Some years ago there has been a push by feminists that corporations pay women less, from the study made on those corporations it was found that no corporations were underpaying their female workers but some were underpaying their male workers. So there, I presented to you "one" place, Google, as asked.
Tell me about the history of "wizard burnings", where midwives successfully mounted campaigns to have male doctors vilified as satanic to get rid of the competition--oh, hang on, no that was witch burnings and it was the other way around.
Historically inaccurate, again. While the "witch hunts" did happen and being burned at the stake was the punishment for anyone found to be a "witch" there are no register nor anything that suggest that anyone was actually burned on the stack because of being a witch. Another point is that "witch" were not only women as there is registers of people that were gone to "trial" for being accused of being witches and from the accounts 15 died in prison, 19 were hanged and 1 was squished to death and the one that was squished to death was a male (though I do not have the information on the other 34 people). So the accusation of "witchcraft" were about someone having "magical powers" and it doesn't mattered if they were male or female.
Tell me about how women aren't doctors because that's just not how their minds work--oh wait, the barriers got removed and suddenly half the women are doctors, when before they'd been systematically stopped and men pretended it was because they couldn't do it.
No comment on this as I don't know about "doctors" itself but I will say that most of those that worked in healthcare were always women so it is not a surprise that most doctors would be female as females are more likely to want to work in places where they can "care" for people and there are female doctors dating from the 17 century so I can't actually talk about it.
Tell me about all the single fathers in poverty because women can get away with skipping out on supporting the kids.
Single mothers are the result of increased social welfare by the societies they live in coupled with the "liberation" of women. As such single motherhood is the result of poor choices made by the women as she should have thought ahead instead of "going with the flow", unless you are of the idea that women are not responsible for their choices. Yes it takes two to make a child but it is the women that decides who and when the sex will happen and it is on her to make sure she doesn't get pregnant as the men don't has to worry about that.
There is also that many women look to become single mothers for the welfare benefits that it bring as well as social credit that is gained by being a single mother, even if it does have negative impact on finding a job. Most cases the men don't even know he has a child.
With that notion you are also supporting the social norm that men have to take responsibility for the child, which is a gender role, while not taking into account that the women failed her responsibility, given that almost all contraceptive methods are for the women.
There is also research on single parenthood that found that men are able to raise the children without falling into the problems women seen to have and that is without governmental help as there are no support for single fathers. Children raised by a single mother are also more likely to become criminals than those raised by couples, another thing that does not happen when they are raised by single fathers. Though I couldn't find the study as the last I saw it being mentioned was in 2017.
Anyway saying that single mothers are in bad situation because of the non-presence of a men means that you don't believe they have the capacity to raise the children by themselves. You are not wrong on that it just don't see to align with what you believe.
I almost dislike honest male chauvinists less than the type who want to have their cake and eat it too by taking all the benefits and then pretending to be victims so they don't have to admit to themselves that they have advantages. That's such a morally weak, whiney, hypocritical approach.
