Comparing False Beliefs
Atheism as the absence of a belief in a god is the rational baseline.
Equality as the absence of any discrimination of women is the rational baseline.
The primary belief in the existence of a god is irrational and a mental defect.
The primary belief in the superiority of men is irrational and a mental defect.
The secondary belief in the power of prayer, the afterlife and such are also irrational and a mental defect.
The secondary belief in the male entitlement of reducing women to used as bodies as in domination, pornography, prostitution and promiscuity is also irrational and a mental defect.
Both false beliefs, the one in a god and the other in male superiority enhance, support and reinforce each other.
To free the world from false beliefs, it is not enough to remove the false belief in a god, the false belief in male superiority and entitlement needs also to be removed.
Well, your point is crap.
I sense the "morality" police at work here. Women must be monogamous, whether they personally want to or not. Women must refrain from being a sex worker, whether they want to or not. And why? Because "someone" knows what's best for them. Talk about personal restriction of other people's freedom!
I'll grant you that many women working as prostitutes are slaves, who are bought and sold by despicable, immoral bastards, and that should be stopped. I blame a lot of that however, on phony moralizers who wish to turn a blind eye to the reality of the sex trade. And, in so doing, make it more difficult for governments to regulate the industry and protect the workers, i.e. collective bargaining, recognition of unions, health and safety laws, and a willingness of law enforcement to do their job. And, before I get comments about "protecting" the women by male dominated governments, I would point out that in many western nations, we have similar safety protections in place for industrial workers and those engaged in high risk occupations (nuclear power industry, chemical manufacturing, etc.).
As to the comment Animals lack cognition and complex emotions, I don't buy that for one second. Familiarize yourself with research being done on our nearest relatives, the great apes. Chimpanzees make and use tools, form social groups, cooperate to hunt, make war on other social groups, protect their territory, and show evidence of what we would describe as "mourning" over the death of a parent or child.
If a female and male, willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily agree to enter a contract for the purpose of engaging in a sexual relation, without coercion, duress, or undue influence on either person, what business is it of anyone else? Or, for that matter, if a female chooses to have multiple sex partners for her own enjoyment, other than foisting your own personal squeamishness on them, who gives a damn?
Reminds me of the joke about the woman complaining of a nudist resort behind her house. She calls the police complaining about all the naked people. The police tell her that there are 3 acres of forest between her and the resort, and they can's see a thing. She tells them that she can see them from her 2nd floor bedroom. They go upstairs, look out the window, and still can't see anything. She tells them to get on the step ladder. They still can't see anything. "Well dammit, you've got to use the telescope."
One more clarification for the attention of any decent guy reading this.
There is a big difference between the worst jerks, who are mainly animals using women, and the most evolved decent nice guys, who are able to consider women as equal partners and companions.
Innately decent guys are only a precious minority, but they do exist. They know, that women have dignity, they are not driven to use women. There are a few high quality man, who are not attracted to pornography and who are innately monogamous. I am looking for one of them as a mindmate. I do not want any of them to feel offended by my aversion against two legged animals and jerks. The jerks' dislike of my scorn does not bother me. But I do not want to discourage any decent guy from contacting me.
Oh, dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear! It is not at all clear to me what makes the parallel you seem to be drawing legitimate. Nonbelief in God is the default position simply because one requires reason to think it is true that a thing exists before he is justified in believing that that thing exists. Nonbelief in male superiority, while a position I endorse, seems to be a moral position, justified by a value judgment. The two are really not the same.
Moreover, it is not at all clear to me that a belief in the moral equality of the sexes leads to a belief in the wrongness of men's or women's using other men's or women's bodies for their own--and each other's--pleasure, or in the wrongness of the creation of images some people find sexually stimulating (or merely like to see), or in the wrongness of multiple sexual partners, or even in the wrongness of bdsm or of prostitution.
What *is* clear to me is that if one believes in the moral equality of the sexes, then he will want there to be ethical considerations guiding the implementation of the use of each other's bodies for personal pleasure, the creation of sexual images, and so on. I do not think that belief in the equality of the sexes automatically makes those things wrong, however. To convince me of their wrongness, I think you'll have to do more than just point to the moral equality of the sexes.