There's nothing makes me respect someone more than when they make counter-points, I have to concede some of them :)
First of all, I don't really disagree with anything you said. I make this disclaimer cause I know that sometimes the way I frame discussions comes across as argumentative. I mean it more as dialogue - its just that the most interesting and useful revelations generally come from hashing out the details of conflict. Where two people agree, there isn't much more to talk about.
You can see this sexist assumption in the genre of femdom porm. Instead of the dominate female tying the guy down, blindfold and gagging him, and riding him for her own enjoyment, she invariably dons a strap-on and gives him anal. In other words, the actual physical act of "penetration" is taken as default interchangeable with "dominant". But this comes from culture, not from biology.
Re: women being valued - I wasn't saying that society does value women. I was saying society doesn't value men either. I was saying no individual is valued by "society". In the big picture we are all expendable. When people say society doesn't value women, the fact of specifying, of saying it that way, implies that society does value men, so that's where I point out that every able bodied man is potential cannon fodder as soon as a country or kingdom is threatened. Men are expected to work at jobs they hate for the vast majority of hours they are awake in their lifetime to take care of their families - it was always a source of social stigma if they didn't, but now that we have the means it is legally enforced. Just as easily as one can say (as they often do) that women are only "valued" for their role in making and raising babies, so too could you assert that men are only valued for their role in impregnating women and providing for offspring. After all, at least as many women want children and grandchildren as men do.
I try to take that into account, to an extent, and what I say in the moment, in person, with a person who is going through something is different from what I will say in a theoretical political conversation. As far as what I write in my blog, I'm not good at being manipulative, and since nobody at all is saying some of the stuff I'm saying, or even anything similar, I feel like my best role is to just put the ideas out there, direct and complete as possible. Many people will be offended, and/or will ignore it. Hell, most won't read it to begin with. And maybe now and then someone open-minded will stumble across it, and even if they don't accept it at first, maybe the seeds have been planted, and maybe they will look at things differently, if only a little. That's the most I dream of accomplishing. I have gotten a comment that I have completely changed someone's view on capitalism. I am getting more and more hits from google from the keywords "femdom" and "feminism". And occasionally people even read all 5 parts of my essay on societies perception of rape and its implications for societies view of female agency. I don't know who, and no one comments, but I can see in the back-end data that some people read it to the end. The people who would object most strongly would never read to the end - if they did I'd be getting hate mail. So I think I may well be influencing people, even though my style is direct and harsh and unapologetic.
But don't get me wrong - your words gave me pause. I need to remember and keep in mind, and tweak where I can, to stay direct but be less harsh, to acknowledge emotions, in all their illogical power. Its hard to do, and reminders are good for me.