Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
Patriarchy?
First and foremost, I don't use the word "patriarchy" very often. While I agree men have generally been in power in agricultural history, often at the expense of women, the term is rather ambiguous and colors the lens through which gender issues are viewed.
When we name an oppressor and a victim, we create a narrative that obscures a great deal of the picture. Look at movies, for example. Once you have named a hero and a villain, the hero can literally get away with murder to the sound of fanfare trumpets, while any good deed by the villain is simply more suspicious. In the case of Twilight or 50 Shades, not only can the protagonist get away with predatory behavior or even rape (!), but these are even painted as romantic gestures.
Another issue pops up mostly in men's issues: When men are victims to other men. From a neutral perspective, you see an aggressor and his victim. But when you involve words such as "patriarchy" and "privilege", suddenly it is the man being "oppressed by his privilege", almost as though the man shot himself in the foot. This also goes for things like the draft, where old men send young men to die in their wars. It's an issue that targets men and is essentially unique to men, yet isn't viewed as a men's issue because "men caused it".
(As one person said. "If men were in power and hated women so much, would we not send them off to war?" In almost every circumstance, the idea of forcing women to die in combat is seen as morally reprehensible, yet it is seen as morally reprehensible for a man to avoid a call to fight.)
Agency
If there is a particular over-looming narrative that I can think of it is the perception of "Female Hypo-Agency" and "Male Hyper-Agency". Agency, in short, is the ability to affect the situation around you. Percieved agency is how much people believe you affect your surroundings.
Female Hypo-Agency
In Female Hypo-Agency, women are percieved to be almost purely products of environmental influence. While the more radical feminists claim that women were treated as total slaves, it's more accurate to say they were treated as children.
At the top of society, this disadvantages women. Until recently, and still to some extent, people are reluctant to believe that a woman earned a position of power, fame, or wealth on her own merit. As such, people are less comfortable seeing women in positions of power. The "Glass Ceiling" if you will.
At the bottom of society is where we see this attitude benefit women. While the vast majority of the homeless are men, the vast majority of sheltered homeless are women. When we see a woman on the streets, we think "society is cruel that a woman is thrown to the streets". While it is a regular occurrance for a homeless man to hear "should have gotten a job, hobo."
Male Hyper-Agency
In Male Hyper-Agency, men are percieved to be almost purely products of their own making and abilities.
At the top of society, this advantages men. Men who are rich, famous, or powerful are often percieved to have gotten there themselves. This is often a good thing, helping them climb the ladder to an extent. ("Glass Elevator?")
However, even at the top, this isn't always an advantage. People jump more quickly to "That man is evil" than "That man just made mistakes", which is part of why it is so easy to create male villains. When a woman is a villain, people are often searching for the man who made her that way.
At the bottom of society is where the issue is at its worst. I have already mentioned homelessness, but another example is in the perception of criminals. There has been a lot of talk about the growing population of women in prisons. Discussions usually include "No woman should be exposed those abusive environments" or "those women just made mistakes. They should not be abused for it." In the UK, there is (was?) a plan to close all women's prisons because "women only turn to crime due to the social pressures of being a woman"
It's interesting, because men are the vast majority of inmates, yet it's very rare to hear "men turn to crime because of the stresses of being a man". Instead we are usually told that it is because of testosterone and inherent male violence.
Peter Marin has one of my favorite quotes on the subject of homelessness and men:
"To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it."
In this narrative, feminists will often mention how some 190+ of the 200 richest people are all men. MRA's mostly look at the millions of homeless and imprisoned who are also male. Both of these aspects need to be included in our overall gender picture before we can really understand what is going on.
What Girls & Guys Said
1 2Though I commented in 4, on a theoretical level this is the most interesting part of your series.
I foresee the fewest comments.
Yeah, It hasn't built up a ton of momentum. Maybe I should have titled it like media click-bait: "Busty Blonde with Big Boobs Blows Black Bimbo" "My date with Ryan Gosling..."
I'm not sure people are ready for this story yet. They need a smoother transition. They are coaxed into believing that Feminism can do no wrong because that's our culture. I mean I somewhat bought into it. I thought it was the norm and the way it was meant to be. Also, you have to keep in mind that people have very short attention spans.
Very insightful take!
Throwing selective facts at each other is not a dialogue. It seems many males and females are unwilling to have a dialogue on this platform or even admit that the other gender got dealt the asscard for one certain topic.
They will either just throw the towel when they have to think about a fact that is mostly hindering or hurting the other gender or respond with a fact about another topic completely unrelated to the question or take at hand to force the QA or take owner to sympathise with them when they are not even capable of sympathising with the topic at hand first.
This is INCREDIBLY well written and insightful. I think the problem why this message not being well received is just that... it isn't easily digestible for the masses. You're too smart for your own good.
Women, especially, are creatures of their emotions. You have to tap into how they feel and that should be the focus, as far as I can tell. You have to tap into their beliefs rather than their sense of reason. This is not intended to be sexist it is merely my observation.
I don't say this for any other reason than because I'm around them A LOT and I have spent A LOT of time talking with them. And whether they are college educated or not makes little if any difference. Even the ones in STEM programs are still women and most of them think largely with their emotions. Such is life.
So in a way... dumb it down and condense it if you want to hit the masses. You have the foundation of an incredible book, in my opinion. You might need someone to help make it accessible though.
Also people in general are creatures of their emotions not just women. I was just speaking in generalities. The idea is that men are typically more rational and women are more emotional... but in reality people, for the most part, who think mostly rationally are in the minority with the ratio probably skewing in the direction of men. But that's difficult to say for certain for obvious reasons.
There's actually a reason for this. Women generally have a larger Corpus Callosum, which connects the two hemispheres of the brain. When boys are born, our corpus callosum is already slightly smaller, but because we are undergoing a "gender transition" after we are born, it is also more fragile, where it is further shunken by how boys are raised, where we kiss girls and tell boys to man up. (Not so much these days.) However, we are still much more connected than, say, chimpanzees. And this connection between emotion and logic is very imporant in learning and cooperation. For instance, Chimps and Bonobos don't understand pointing gestures. But dogs do, despite being less intelligent. This is because the logic they do have is also bound to emotion to a certain extent. I think when it comes to separating the two, it has more to to with practice. Women generally have less of a reason to keep logic and emotion separate. Guys almost have to sometimes.
See, my point again. I, mostly, get what you're saying because I (to a certain degree) think like you do. It's in the crossing of that barrier that this message will find its root. Find a way to make this information easily understood and it will probably spread like wildfire! Again great take. I enjoyed it.