With respect to YAC's (tired) list:
Far more men are murdered than women, so even if women are murdered because they are women, you're still worse off murderwise if you're a guy.
Men suffer far more destructive "objectification" in the media than women - women are objectified as being required to be thin and beautiful, whereas men are (at least in commercials) stupid, lazy and evil, and always need to be rescued by women. One is a positive (though destructive to try to obtain) model, the other is purely negative: simply that men are bad.
Men suffer far more violence than women generally. They are also verbally abused more than women though we entirely ignore that.
It IS true that women suffer more trafficking. Period. Absolutely inarguable.
More women live in poverty but the VAST majority of homeless are men. The majority of savings and trusts are controlled by women, which is to say that with the exception of the 1%, women are on average richer than men.
Women earn less because they do less billable work as defined in a capitalist society. Sure, sometimes they face discrimination, but men face MORE discrimination. The .77 cents on the dollar is based on the career decisions that women make, choosing parenting over career, eldercare over career, etc.
Yes, women CHOOSE to do the lion's share of unpaid word in our society. However, most of this unpaid word tends to be the types of work that women are more likely to want to do (service). In the cases where the unpaid work is construction etc, surprise, men tend to do it. In any case, it's a CHOICE.
Yes, if you make the choice of motherhood and negotiate with your partner to spend a huge amount of time taking care of children, you will definitely pay for it with a lower end salary, less social security, etc.
Mothers RIGHTFULLY suffer discrimination from employers. That is, employers are entitled to protect themselves from likely scheduling issues with their employees. Since having children is a choice, since it is not society's obligation to fund a family's choice, the idea that employers should bend over backwards for employees to have children is a non-starter unless we've decided that they are a protected class. That is, they provide less service and need more resources. You can't have it both ways.
Granted companies get good things by having women around, including pregnant women, but surely that's the company's call.
Women are still being restricted in private and religious areas - true. So are men. There are far more "perks" (scholarships, programs) available to women than men.
Millions of boys have been deprived of access to sports resources as a result of Title IX, while women have more access to resources than their proportional due to things like Yoga and Aerobics being considered for both genders. Feminists complain about the lack of funding for women's sports resources coming from private funding or for-pay funding, but the reality is simply that people prefer to watch men's sports, at least for most sports. The only way to fix this is to give them something they want to watch.
It is true that lots of things haven't been well tested on women (usually because of the complicating factor of hormones or because of societal's preference for keeping women safe). Before we get too enraptured with this, however, I would ask what the damage here is? Remember, that most of these drugs have been in the market for decades and we have no reason to believe that gender has caused any problem.
Women are indeed under-represented in politics and business, but with the current crisis in boys education, there simply won't be enough boys and men in a few generations to handle these jobs. This is self correcting.
I would also argue, as Sheryl Sandberg has in "Lean In", that a huge part of that problem lies with women themselves: You actually have to grab the brass ring. Nobody is going to put it in your hands. Nobody is going to make sure that once it is in your hands, you keep hold of it.