So. many. words.
Personally, i think all of these things tend to be connected in one way or another; that's part of why it's called a "system".However, now in days, particularly in the western world, feminism has more to do with social identity politics. Feminists might ask themselves if women have fair representation in science, or politics, religion, or whatever. Eventually, it looks slightly goofy; but I think the primary concern is economics.
In the past you've had more men encouraged to have jobs than women. Inevitably a lot of those jobs are going to involve marketing, mass media, legislation, etc. If men are more represented in these jobs, you're going to have a man's spin on things. This in and of itself is not a problem, but if you ask the question "where are the women?" you might see where the problem lies. If you have a predominantly male (and, arguably, straight and white) spin on things, you're missing out on a lot of other interpretations on life experiences...especially if they are being interpreted by people who do not actually LIVE those experiences. All walks of life are equally important. This is my main gripe with the system; i tend to focus more on mass media because that's a facet that interests me, but this can be applied to politics, religion, science, etc. as well
Generally speaking, from my experience, the big question feminists ask is simply "where are the women"? For example, one semester i did a study of gender representations in video games throughout the years; it was interesting to note that the more women you had involved in the creation process, the more "empowering" i found the female character representations to be (and even the male ones, IMO)
These are good points; i'm really in the camp of "neither are better or worse off as a whole". By making it a "men v. women" argument on either side turning it into a fight between them is diverting the blame from a complex system to simply the individuals (as well as adhering to a gender binary, thus excluding potential self-identified "others" from the discussion) and i'm not inclined to think that's going to solve anything. Neither sex is the "enemy" of the other.It's difficult to say which camp is worse off - men or women, simply because men are often subjugated to things like war, and many times more likely to be murdered. Of course, they are also more likely to be murderers. I think onemoretime addressed this when he/she said that women are generally protected because they are seen as equivalent to the livelihood of the family, and the family is equivalent to the livelihood of society.
Mothers can have influence yes; however there are a lot more prevalent and powerful societal forces involved than the parents. You cannot completely remove outside influences from reaching a child, it's just not that simple.My friend once said that women are trained to communicate about their problems more, while men are more stoic and less complaining. If this is true, then wouldn't mothers train their sons to be less patriarchal and oppressive?
What you describe is a problem but there's a lot more to it than this facet. Condeming an entire social movement because one find the tactics of some thoughts of feminism oppressive isn't a good idea. feminists themselves are constantly critiquing such schools of thought and various opinions exist on the subject. Like you pointed out earlier, there are many schools of thought on "feminism"; it's not a one dimensional way of thinking, as you can see in this thread. Why some people seem to be so stuck on that one dimension and ignoring thoughtful responses to such problems when, as far as I can tell, no one has been identifying with them or incorporating them into their own definition of feminism is beyond me.I'm basically a humanist, so I support feminism as long as it's under the categorization of egalitarianism. However, when the arguments of feminists devolve into something that's just as oppressive as the patriarchy they're fighting against, I can't say I agree.