Pelican:"This article happens to be about women"

Yes, they always are. That's the only game in town with any money available for the taking.

Pelican:"in those countries men wield a lot more power and have more choices than women in heavilty patriarchal societies"

They also die a lot younger, sometimes in their childhood as boy soldiers. They suffer the same diseases, they endure the same privations of diet, the same lack of opportunity in the vast majority of cases. If you cut them, they bleed just like women do, yet according to you and this author they're "privileged" and a "patriarchy". What malarkey. By all means feel sorry for people in underprivileged environments, but don't try to pretend that only women suffer.

What this article and you do is to try to compare the worst-off women with the best-off men. It's dishonest and self-serving and it's endemic in feminist discourse. As I said, I reject it utterly. If I were to compare myself to Gina Rinehart or Julia Gillard or Julie Bishop or Anna Bligh or Tanya Plibersek or Gail Kelly or... I'd be looking pretty underprivileged too.

Moreover, it has very little to do with Australia, although I'm sure the author makes a nice bit of coin out of her gig. It's surprising you fell for it though.