We may need female domination and female privilege in order to achieve equality, as weird as that sounds.

I disagree. Even if that were feasible (which, given the world’s history I don’t think it is) it doesn’t address the problem, which is privilege itself. Changing who holds the reins isn’t going to do anything except prolong the reliance on constructed hierarchies that split people into “haves” and “have nots”.

Equality can only be achieved through questioning the necessity of hierarchy and challenging privilege — both our own privilege and that of others. Only until we understand the dynamics that those two things play in our lives can we ever hope to begin to understand how to achieve real equality.

If there could be a new Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion movement (Maximum Female Freedom, Minimum Abortion)?

It might take another 10 to 50 years before society is built on Female Privilege (equal laws and rights, but women naturally succeeding more often in life). Male Privilege is still here, but it seems to be on a decline.

For example, in the Government of Canada, there are 65 female MPs out of 308. Maybe if we had 225 female MPs, in this example, would it work out better? I know the mathematical equality would be 154, but you need to aim above the mark to hit the mark. We may need female domination and female privilege in order to achieve equality, as weird as that sounds.

That’s the key, aiming above the mark to hit the mark. I don’t think feminists will achieve their goal(s) unless we have female domination/female privilege in our society, where we’re all considered equals, but women would have more predisposition towards success.

I hope this all seems kind of sensible.