I guess when you read the world "feminism" you read something very different from what most people today read. You (actually we) have lived the XXth century, have read about it, so feminism to you surely means all those just social struggles, those names of women who were brave and strong, and helped change the course of history. Sadly, however, the world spins and so do movements and meanings of words. Nowadays, when people write the word "feminism", they mostly don't really have a clue about what it meant 50 years ago. This article is about that feminism. You obviously know all that, but it is better to leave it clear anyway.
Having said that, you know that I think that ALL media outlets are propaganda rags. I follow a few of them, in different extremes, and I can safely, calmly say that RT is no more propaganda than any other media outlet, including, for example, BBC (to avoid quoting an American one). Take it as a compliment to RT, or an offense to the others... regarding RT at least is easier to identify the propaganda part and the selection bias (which is smaller than what you might think). And they publish their sources with higher frequency than most (as crazy as it sounds). But, this is an op-ed anyway. (and yes, I know which cords they are trying to play here).
I might not co-sign all the language the guy uses or every possible underlying idea, but it is obvious that he raises some flagrant uncoherences of extreme "modern social/mass media feminism". But I am "Freudian" to a big extent, so, yes, I do agree that men and women are fundamentally different.
The point is, if you start from the premise (that the world is unwelcoming to girls), you not only see evidence of it in every corner that you look, but you can also discredit any conflicting view as part of the problem (Federberg will probably recognize the Poperian argument here). So in that case it is better not to quote or refer to any statistic, any supposedly real fact, because just about everything will corroborate your premise. This approach is not a good one in a lot of ways, but ironically is particularly inefficient to recognize whichever underlying issues are actually behind of what you call an unwelcoming world.
P.S. (As you know I like to put everything in my own words, I would hardly co-sign anything).
However, I believe there is also room for discussion when the playing field is not level. Remember the old saw about being born on 3rd base and believing that you hit a triple? I hope that seems reasonable for discussion.
