How feminists can claim men have had it better historically is a joke: men have traditionally been canon fodder, have had really hard, shit jobs...

...have been sent away from their family, etc. For example, the other day, I was watching a documentary on the Great Wall of China. Effectively every man in the army was drafted to build it. How many hours per day they worked, I have no idea, though you can imagine it's gonna be at least 12. The fucked-up thing though? These men were forced to stay there, work, no days off and were 1000s of miles from their families. Many soldiers had wives & kids (I guess people died by mid 30s then...so even a 20 year old soldier, would often have a couple of kids, probably), who they were forcefully separated from for an indefinite period of time. Allegedly the thing took 200 years to build - imagine that: you live in the south, are taken by the army, moved 1000s of miles North, working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, until you die, never seeing your family again. And women want to argue that they have had it hard?

In reality, it did get better, since apparently when the general saw the moral of the men dropping, he allowed the wives and kids to move from their hometowns to where the wall was being constructed, effectively building villages along the route to accommodate the workers.

Likewise, look at human history - it's been nothing but fighting the entire time. Men would be sent out into the battlefield, outnumbered, knowing full well they were about to be slaughtered. They were literally worthless...nothing more than canon fodder...

In contrast, I wonder how women would react if they were conscripted and about to be sent into battle, sent over the top of the trenches, knowing they would be gunned down by the enemy? Would they want this form of equality?