Not being a woman myself, my ability to comment on their wellbeing is limited to what I hear from my female friends, colleagues, and family, and what I observe for myself, which will obviously constitute a mere sliver of the lived experience of being female here.

In my area, (autism advocacy) one big problem faced by women is that females on the spectrum are much less likely to get diagnosed than their male counterparts, or to get diagnosed at a later age, due to the difference in how the condition presents itself in women versus men.

This leads to autistic women having to endure more confusion, psychological distress, and misdiagnosis with other conditions; one of my ex girlfriends was misdiagnosed with bipolar and schizophrenia before they finally worked out in her 20s that she was just autistic.

Due to men being more widely diagnosed than women, my field is also highly male-dominated at present, though thankfully this is starting to change as I am seeing a generation of autistic women my age and younger who are joining the advocacy movement pushing for greater awareness and acceptance of autistic women. It's an exciting and encouraging change to watch.

I actually think its worse in china.
Russians arn't really racist from what I can see tbh. Their country is huge (in land size, and borders many countries), and they have alot of mixed in population (usually from asian countries).

Like in china I've seen pictures of show owners that put out boards saying "we dont serve foreginers, or not blacks allowed" and such.
They have a really negative attitude, towards otherness in china (mind you, I havnt been, just saying from what Ive read and seen online).

I take questions literally.

Here is a study that compiles other more legit studies.

https://www.academia.edu/27607213/Happiness_and_Life_Satisfaction_in_Japan_by_Gender

Some quotes to reinforce my point.

"

”

So in terms of gender equality Japan is close to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. In terms of happiness though, women win by larger degree than most countries.

I would like that, as I love kids and staying home. But I don't have a spouse or kids. I have taken extended breaks from work to stay at home though when needed. Either way in this country it wouldn't work due to the aforementioned gender pay gap and biases.

The only meaningful difference between men and women in today's society is how they are brought up, which has everything to do with their gender. If there was no gender, then feminine or masculine traits would not exist, hence nobody would discriminate based on them. Women are treated differently because people are taught to believe that they are different. People expect different behavior from different genders and that is the core of the problem.

If you remove gender, people will be treated based on their actual behavior and not their expected behavior because there is no expected behavior. Separating genders has no basis in reality anymore and should be abolished. You cannot discriminate based on gender when gender doesn't exist.

Differences are important on a physiological level, not on a psychological level, gender discrimination happens only on the basis of the latter.

I've found this to be easily the most interesting reply so far because I actually learned something from it! Don't have much to add to it as someone who isn't on the autism spectrum myself, but just wanted to formally thank you for posting it.

Since this was among the most up-voted replies (tied for the most), I figured I'd focus on responding to this for now, as it seems to concentrate a lot of people's opinions. I'll go through this in a paragraph-by-paragraph way:

First, let's dispense with the annoying part. You claim here and in your follow-up post on abortion, that women in the tens of millions go around casually 'murdering giggling babies' just for the fun of it so they can have more sex, cue witch cackle. Yet you claim that I'm the sexist here because, oddly, I felt intimidated about dedicating a whole topic to women's issues on an otherwise all-male forum. ...Well just to trying to help you put matters back in perspective.

Concerning your belief that this site "is significantly left leaning politically", two things:

1) The existence of self-described conservative feminists ought to show that you don't actually have to be left-leaning to be a feminist. I mean the survey on feminism I linked you to in the OP (which was the second link) indicated that even 42% of Republican women in this country describe themselves as feminists today! AND...

2) It's interesting that you perceive VGC's political lean as leftist because I perceive it as more right-leaning than my country overall is, particularly when it comes to topics like feminism, women's issues, women's interests, that sort of thing. Unlike you though, I've got actual evidence to support my opinion. For example, when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court came up and blew up in controversy mainly because he had been credibly accused of sexual assault, 47% of VGC users felt that he deserved to be confirmed anyway, as compared with barely a third of the overall U.S. population contemporaneously. Or something else that's stuck out to me has been the sort of opinions that are given an official platform on the main page. Here for instance is the most popular article I've seen posted thereto to judge by the number of views it got. Also, check out the comment section because the most up-voted entries are exactly the sort you'd think they'd be; exactly the reaction the article, and by implication the site management, intended to elicit. But maybe that's just me and a more typical woman would feel differently. Maybe.

Finally, concerning feminist waves, I think you've grossly oversimplified the contours thereof such as to follow the narrative of the conservative "difference" feminists. For example, I consider myself to be a second wave feminist ideologically, yet my views on women's issues are clearly pro-choice and seem to skew well to the left of yours on balance. Also, the contents of the current (fourth) feminist wave are not uniform; they have differed by country and region of the world and this is especially true when you take into account the starkly different example of South Korea where lesbian feminism (a school that barely exists anymore in the Western world) is far more common than intersectional feminism.

You said stuff before starting 1. So I'll respond to each thought in order:

1) My original response wasn't written to tick you off, but simply point out how some of the language you used could be interpreted as sexist. That wasn't mean shouting at you, or calling you a sexist for the rest of your life. I was simply pointing out something I thought would be helpful for you to see, another perspective. If you don't want to change your OP language that is fine and your right.

2) I never said women murder babies for the fun of it. Women are extremely stressed before, during, and especially after the procedure. Nothing about it is fun and I never suggested women enjoy it, so please don't slander me.

3) Regarding giggling, that isn't subjective. Babies giggle in the womb, and hiccup, and jump and do all sorts of other fun things. They are figuring out life in there and all the fun little things they can do. And sadly, despite all those wonderful indications that they are human, the needle still comes.

4) Regarding the 42% that are conservative feminists... But what does that mean? My wife is a 1/2nd wave feminist, but not a 3rd wave feminist. She hates abortion as much as I do. So again, what do those 42% even mean? I read a poll recently that indicated men are, by a majority, supportive of abortion. That same poll indicated women, by a majority, aren't supportive of abortion rights. Does that mean the majority of women aren't feminists simply because they don't adhere to 3rd wave ideology? Feminism is an unclear term in today's society as to what it means.

5) I never claimed to have evidence that this site was left leaning. It's just the feel I get when reading and making posts. I could absolutely be wrong here, but it is my opinion nonetheless. And Super Court Justices aren't the best proof of a sites political leaning. The electorate are usually okay with whoever a SC nominee is, as they aren't as politically charged as Congress or Executive members. That hearing was about personal stuff, and hardly about political issues or prior court cases, so people had to make a gut decision about who to believe. One side had no witnesses or evidence. It's innocent until proven guilty here, thankfully.

6) I won't pretend to know anything about waves of feminism in other countries. I speak purely on an American perspective.

Gender stems from sex, of which there are two. Biological differences create different societal differences and the way people relate to to these differences is their gender identity. The problem is you seem to see gender as something inherently bad. But removing someone's gender is like saying we should do away with the concept of race (in which case I'm talking about the biological difference of skin color and nothing more). You could say we should do away with the concept to quell racism.

The only thing you'll achieve is that racism would be unquantifiable and you will have hampered attempts to quell racism. If you want to solve problems faced by black people, you need to be able to quantify that community. If you want to solve issues women are facing, you need to point out who the people are who are facing that problem, and who the people are that cause.

Getting rid of the concept of gender is not only pointless, it's also simply impossible.

People need to stop seeing it as "people, including women, did not want to see a woman president" and accept the fact that "people, including women, did not want to see Hillary Clinton as president".  

Exactly! I'm extremely excited for Nikki Haley to run for President, but that's because she has similar values and political thoughts to me. I legit think she is the most qualified to be President for the next Republican. She was a hawk at the UN. Sarah Palin though? No way. She is not qualified.

The idea that people vote for people just because of their gender or race is incomprehensible to me. Vote for who would get the job done the best you'd want it to be done. I knew a conservative girl in high school who wanted Hillary to win the nomination and election in 2008 just because she's a woman. Why? She's gonna do a whole bunch of stuff you don't agree with, why vote for her?

I also knew a girl back than who wanted McCain to lose to Obama simply because he was older. That similarly makes no sense, unless you think he doesn't have the mental capacity to run a country anymore (that wasn't her argument).