It's communism has never happened, and the regimes that people call communists themselves didn't even say that they were communist. The parties were called communist because they claimed to be the vanguard party that would lead to communism, not that they were communist.

This is one of the lame excuses every new communist regime used just to become even worse than the ones that preceded it. The other excuses were that things were going bad due to reactionary and counter-revolutionary saboteurs, to blame and kill innocent scapegoats for the regimes' errors, incompetence and inefficiency.
If no revolution ever achieved this mythical "true communism", maybe it just doesn't exist, or maybe the only one coming close is that of communes, monasteries and other communities, religious or not.
BTW, even Lenin understood that attempts to establish "true communism" were taking USSR to disaster and he launched the NEP, but regrettably he saw too late, when he was ill and going to die, the true nature of Stalin and he couldn't stop him.

I'll tell you one area where females have an advantage. Divorce court. If I was ever to get married I'd demand a prenup just to avoid all the bullshit courts and lawyers if the marriage didn't work out.

How is that a lame excuse? It's a common misconception that the regimes claimed to have been communist, when that was not the case. Instead they "claimed" that their goal was to eventually reach communism (a claim that I don't believe myself).

I don't think feminists are inherently evil (and I've never heard that expression from the OP). What I highly dislike, though, is when radical feminists twist statistics to suit their purpose or simply make up false claims which then get repeated by the (in most cases well-intentioned) mass media for everyone to see.

I criticise stuff like this:

- The Gender Wage Gap, which is a myth (men and women earn the same money for the same work - the statistics cited are simply the average earning of all male and female incomes and don't adjust for different career choices or hours worked - and there *are* statistics that adjust for this, they just don't get cited!)
- Domestic violence as a "Gender problem" (50% of all victims of domestic violence are male and 50% of the abusers are female... and everyone knows this!)
- "Inequality" as defined by the Human Development Index (take average Life Expectancy: The HDI defines "Equality" as women having a 5 year longer life-span! If country X has an average life expectancy of women that is only 4 years higher than men's that counts as inequality. It's insane.)
- "Underrepresentation" of women in political parties and parliaments (in Europe, women are actually overrepresented here. Why? Women show much less interest in politics in general. In Germany, 40% of males but only 20% of females are "highly interested" in politics, but 36% of MP's are women. Women don't care as much for politics - so what? That's neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact.)
- "There are no gender differences other than genitalia" (which is a total lie. Newborn babies already show gender differences in behaviour: girls look at faces a lot longer than boys and boys look longer at inanimate objects. Nine month old toddlers show a strong preference for "gendered" toys - boys like cars, girls like dolls. That's not nurture, that's nature.)

What I would like to see is equal representation of men's and women's hardships in media and politics. What about those 75% of homeless people who are male? 9 of 10 workplace deaths are men. Men's average life expectancy is 5 years below women's. Men are more likely to die of cancer and 75% of all suicides are men. The 15 most dangerous jobs in society are mostly male (80%+). Victims of domestic violence are 50% male.
Why can't we talk about these numbers as much as we do about "the glass ceiling"? Real equality is when men and women are equally heard and equally taken care of. And that is just not the case right now.

Oh and if someone is actually interested in the stuff I said: I can give solid sources for each and every number in this post (some are german though) but I will only do so if someone really wants to dig deeper into the topic. And just as a disclaimer: I don't think men are at a general disadvantage in society. But those feminists who consciously make up false claims? They know exactly what they are doing and they only fight for themselves and for selfish reasons.

Not exactly.

The report most of these outlets base their numbers on is the "Gender Equality Index"  of the Human Development Report. But the variables in the gender equality index are extremely biased and not objective at all. Just look at the data points being used! 

http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII

Maternal Mortality Ratio - this figure is being used to show that women are at a disatvantage but there is no equivalent data point for men. What the Index does is look at maternal death ratio in a country and, as long as that number is higher than zero, take that as proof that women are being discriminated against. Again: As long as one woman in 100k dies in childbed they say it's discrimination. But men die from stuff, too! If I want to compare the GDP of Great Britain and France I can't just say "Great Britain has a GDP of X" and... done! I have to compare it to the other countrie's GDP. In this case, there is nothing to compare because men don't die in childbirth and the fact that women give birth is not discrimination at all. It's a biological fact. Why don't we look at life expectancy instead, which is a data point you can actually use to see who's at an advantage? Because women live five years longer than men on average. So the number used here is just rubbish and they know it! Click on the "frequently asked questions" section in my link and they'll basically admit the number is biased "but in an ideal world it would be zero". Well, in an ideal world no man and no woman would die from cancer, but we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, men die five years earlier than women. What the index does is this: No woman dies from prostate cancer! Discrimination against men confirmed! (Same goes for the WEF link you privded: One of their data points is "Health and Survival Index". But if women live longer than men, then how can the number be skewed in favor of men? Because often these indexes define "equality" as "women living five years longer than men").

Adolescent Birth Rate - Same as above. As long as the number of pregnant women aged 19 or younger is above zero that is taken as proof that women are at a disatvantage. But men can't get pregnant. There is nothing to compare it with. Also, more than 80% of those young mothers are 18 years or older! They are grown adults and are free to live their life as they want! It is hardly discrimination against women if an adult woman gets pregnant and it's not the result of mysoginy. 

Population with at least some degree of secondary education - This point is huge spin. Again, look at the explanations given in the link. This data point does not look at secondary education at all. It's the number of people who *attempt* / start some sort oft secondary education. If you look at the number of people who actually *finish* their secondary education, the number of women is higher in most western countries! 

The Gender Equality Index was made up by feminists to prove a point. It is not unbiased at all. Why don't we look at stuff where we can actually compare men and women like average life expectancy? Because the numbers would favor women in a lot of cases, that's why. 

Edit: I don't think women in arab countries of Africa are being treated equally, by the way. But these reports are definitely not objective. 

I think it's the other way around. Its SOME feminists that like to make gamers the enemy.

Never, ever, heard this idea that "The opposite of a gamer is a feminist." Have heard a lot of angry feminists say that gamers should die though, and Feminist Frequency certainly supported that and joined in on the bashing of gamers. Ofc, plenty of angry gamers threw a lot of hate back.

Its not that people "confuse" feminism for female supremecy, its that a lot of loud selfproclaimed feminists use that label to legitimize female supremecy.
Are all feminists like that? Obviously not.
I'm not an activist. I'd define my views as egalitarian, but they don't mean much since I'm not doing anything for the "cause". I would argue that a lot of armchair feminists (or any other label) are the same. Just proudly assigning yourself a label doesn't mean jack shit, unless you do something with it. Not saying that you in particular are better/worse than anyone else, just giving my opinion on labels.

The "evil" gaming industry "panders" to their main market. Its not some illuminati conspiracy to opress women. They just want money.
Pushing agendas in your games, for people who don't play games and certainly aren't interested in buying games, is dumb. And yes, a lot of ppl take issue with this. Saying that "feminists just want all games to pander to women or whatever bullshit like that" is a supersimplification that completely misses the point and only slanders the ppl who protest. Anyone can be a content creator these days. If you're not satisfied with the current market of games, then make your own. Don't try to force the rest of the industry to change according to your worldview.

I don't think more than a handful of ppl here actually think that feminists can't be real gamers... You're not doing either side much justice, IMO.

@bolded: Excellent, and sorry for having misunderstood you on this. About what happened in "real socialisms", if they never achieved "true communism", probably it's because it's not possible, due to the human nature, they all give too much power to apparatchik, and too many of them, even when not wanting to abuse of that power, become greedy for it.
BTW, politics isn't an exact science, but even if it were, if observed results deny the theory, there must be something wrong in the theory, or maybe theories just don't apply because they were based on ill-posed problems (two examples are Marx wrongly presuming capitalists won't evolve and adapt quicker than their counterparts and underestimating the growing role of the middle classes and their importance in economy, the latter a mistake that utopian socialists and social democrats, that he and Lenin liked to mock, didn't commit, and this better grasp of reality allowed them to lay the bases of more than decently working northern social democracies).

What did I just read? This deserves the award for oddest topic. Makes zero sense.