Some quotes from the links: This is, at least, open: The aim is not a society of equality, but one with masters and supplicants - only with the roles reversed, and the men as the supplicants. No problem with this, except that this is usually hidden behind equality talk. This is even worse. Politeness is part of culture. A simple exchange of roles would not necessarily destroy culture - it would only revert the roles. The new masters and the new supplicants could continue to follow cultural norms. But what is this? Politeness, culture itself, will be destroyed. Why? What could be the aim? Culture gives some safety. The polite guy is safe. Not safe against violence, but against moral condemnation. So, a modern man, who does not want to be a sexist or so, may think that if he behaves in a polite way, he will be safe from such accusations. Not so. He is a sexist too. Every man is a sexist, always. There is no way for men to be safe from accusations of sexism. And this is worse than the reverted master/supplicant relation, because the supplicant is also safe if he submits to the master and follows the established rules of politeness and so on. For a society without such security for the lower class, where it is unclear what you have to do if you don't want to become tomorrow an enemy of the people, or a sexist, or whatever, there is another name: totalitarism. Of course, there is yet a big difference between all this and a really totalitarian society - where I could no write such texts - but we already have a society where one thinks twice before writing them.