Part two:

Yes, these traditional gender roles favour men over women.

...They also favor women over men. BOTH. Simultaneously. Men are given more freedom. Women are given more sympathy. A woman's humanity and worth are automatic; a man must earn his by showing he is useful. And if he shows weakness, we grind him out like a cigarette butt. We spend less on his health issues, we deny him entry to violence shelters, we punish his female attacker less harshly than the reverse, and we do nothing but mock him if he is raped. Sure, life is great for men, so long as you never show weakness.

Women are seen as incomplete or "deformed" men, considered less smart, less capable, excluded from many areas of life such as music, sport and new technologies, not suited in positions of leadership and whose sole purpose in life is to serve a male.

'Men are seen as incomplete or "deformed" women, considered less caring, more violent, emotionally-stunted, excluded from many areas of life such as childcare, socialization and household spending, not suited in positions of vulnerability and whose sole purpose in life is to provide for a woman and her children.'

If you're a part of the working class, this means performing intensive menial jobs for extremely long hours in poor and outright dangerous conditions (admittedly, not always as dangerous as jobs for working class men)

That's a pretty big admittedly.

with the additional responsibility of performing all the housework and cooking and being the primary child-rearer and answering every command your man gives.

I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with the idea of 'If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy'. "Answering every command your man gives"? Please. That's the nostalgic fantasy chauvinists view the past with. Was that what some households were like? Absolutely. But the "henpecked husband" was just as much a reality in others.

Further, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution making that link. Shows why this claim is only ever stated and never sourced, otherwise the evidence would be obvious and preeminent.

Allright, I will concede this point. You got me dead to rights here.

That said though, even if voting was not tied to conscription, it's not as if the suffragettes had never heard of the idea. And whether the draft was enforced by the government or not, that didn't change the societal pressure on males only to go overseas and fight.

Then you're a historical revisionist who has done no research. Women were literally paid considerably less for the exact same labour, regardless of marital status.

Maybe this was related to husbands being financially responsible for their wives' taxes, as shown in the reddit post you linked?

To be clear: I am not defending wage inequality. Just that, whenever it is brought up, there is never any mentions of the ways the inequalities are counterbalanced. Women as a whole were shielded/barred from most of the worst work men did, and while they were not financially independent, they were also not financially responsible. These systems were immoral, but not as simplistic as they're almost always described.

It is recognised today as a crime. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise.

...WHAT? It is NOT recognized as a crime! Please, show me any examples of American wives being prosecuted and convicted for raping their husbands. And not some lower charge: RAPE. I have never seen one example. And a crime which is never punished is, in all practical ways, not illegal.

Rape historically and to today has been a crime overwhelmingly committed by men to women, and other men in the case of prison rape.

We cannot possibly say that with certainty, because we have historically never researched rape without bias. You cannot possibly claim that more women than raped than men, if you only count it as rape when a man does it to a woman. Researchers are only just now beginning to ask men and women neutral questions about sexual violence. Before, it was asking women only questions about victimization, and asking men questions about perpetration. This is like if the term "murder" was only ever applied when blacks killed whites, and then we had the gall to claim that whites never murder blacks. Look at the CDC's 2010 National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey, where equal numbers of men and women reported forced sex, then they based their conclusions as not counting it as rape when it happened to men. Just read this.

Further, feminists were the group who successfully campaigned to broaden its definition to include men to begin with

Show me, because I do not believe you. What I've seen instead is feminists raising rape awareness by showing exclusively a portrayal of rape with a male rapist and female victim. I do not count as equal the efforts of a few recent bloggers, versus six decades of biased studies that are rooted in the prejudice that it's not the same crime when a woman does it to a man.

Being raped by a women is seen as emasculating, and in a patriarchal society where masculinity is privileged over femininity, the most damaging thing you can do to a man is associate him with femininity.

Then explain why these patriarchal societies don't punish female rapists more. You would think, if things were as simple as you say, that it would be an unspeakable crime to harm a man's masculinity, and any woman cruel enough to dishonor him thus would be clapped in irons. And if a man did the same to a woman, there's no crime there! The little cocktease probably wanted it! That's the kind of victim-blaming rape culture feminists insist we live in. So why then is it not reflected in our laws?

Now I want to go over some of the things I brought up that I felt you didn't respond to.

I made the point that female infanticide is counterbalanced by the male draft. Both are the selective killing of one gender, just at different ages. The reson for making this point was to illustrate how we will typically look only at something bad happening to females, and not even try to compare and contrast it with bad things happening to males, then blithely declare women are worse off.

I made the point that you attach great importance to the disproportionate amount of men in leadership positions, but do not also factor in the disproportionate amount of men in prisons, in the worst employment possible, and in graves. Why are these not equally important to consider?

I made the point that the wives of powerful men share that power and privilege. (Exemplified by Tipper Gore, an unelected housewife, deciding on a whim that popular music is too obscene, and using her husband's power to form the PMRC.)

I made the point that I think it is unconscionable for you to claim that men are never oppressed on behalf of their gender, in a country where men are discriminated against by the police and courts, and where men are socially pressured to give their lives for the greater good. I linked you specifically to a picture of the Vietnam memorial for a reason. Most of those dead men were drafted. They were forced against their will and under false pretenses into combat. And this only happened to one gender. Despite the government being so desperate for warm bodies to fight the Viet Cong, they never considered forcing women to fight the same as men. I ask you: how is that not gendered oppression?