I'm sorry, MIT, but I have to politely say that this is nonsense. If male 'sexual confidence' is so fragile that it needs to be constantly propped up with images of male dominance of women, then men are not 'naturally' dominant, but only culturally so, in which case there's no real grounds for claiming that women ought to be sexually submissive to men. Additionally, given the enormous numbers of submissive men out there (in the gay community, the majority of men interested in d/s play are submissive, not dominant; virtually all professional hetero dominants are women, indicating an enormous market of men who crave domination and the near complete non-existence of a parallel market of submissive women), I challenge your claim that the majority of the male population craves a dominant role.
Furthermore, in saying that women ought not to have an equal role sexually, you've essentially asserted that women ought not to have a choice to be equal or dominant partners in their relationships. In essence, you're saying that no woman has a right to be dominant unless her partner explicitly craves submission, in which case her sexuality is being determined by the man anyway. Leaving aside the considerable sexism of such a claim, how do you propose to orchestrate a situation in which women are permitted to be economically and legally equal, but required to be sexually submissive?
Additionally, your claims that our society systematically favors women over men are simply false. Only 17% of Congress is female (the same percentage in both houses, actually), and only 12% of state governors are female. (This means that the government is overwhelming male-dominated, so why would it decide to cater to the interests of women rather than men?) Only 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 2.5% of Fortune 1000 CEOS are women, despite women making up more than 50% of the national workforce. Women workers make only 78% of what comparably-trained men in the same position make. Choosing to have children still has a devastating effect on a woman's lifetime earning potential. Studies have shown that women with children are hired at lower rates, given lower positions and paid less than men with children; a man whose resume includes references to parenting (being a member of the PTA, for example) is often considered a good father and ideal employee, whereas a woman whose resume includes such references is often considered a poor worker and an employment risk. Social Security still bases a woman's benefits on her economic productivity and does not take years off for parenting into consideration, with the result that she will have less income in retirement. In all ethnic categories, women are more likely to be poor than men. Divorce still plunges women into poverty at much higher rates than men. And until you can provide some hard evidence of corporations being required to choose less skilled women over men, I will not believe that claim--no law has ever been passed mandating such a thing. If a corporation chooses to advance a woman over a man for public relations purposes, that is a strategic choice that it may make. But given that women are routinely passed over in hiring, promotion, and pay increase decisions, the fact that an occasional woman is promoted over a man means nothing. The fact that men are not respected when they choose to work in day-care positions owes nothing to hostility to men; it is due to the fact that daycare work is considered women's work and therefore beneath men.
I continue to maintain that feminism has done vastly more benefit for women than it has harmed men. Women have not obtained anything like equality with men in this or any other country. Women have every right to be sexually dominant or submissive as they desire, just as men do. If a woman craves a 'traditional' marriage in which her husband wields the majority of power, that's great. But don't claim that woman have to accept such a relationship when they neither want nor are tempermentally suited for it.
