As far as feminism is concerned, it is a wholly important issue, the idea that, in this day and age, we are not judged by our ability, rather than having our options limited because we do not meet a certain criteria, be is race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is interesting.
Feminism as it is understood by the general public, is the idea that females wish to be treated the same as males. With that basic line of logic as a starting point, if not a base definition to work off of, it might be valuable to really examine what we're seeing here, as well as examining the myth of male superiority from both sides.
The idea of equality between genders has some of the largest hurdles to overcome, those in particular being: basic genetic characteristics, human nature, human history/origins, and sociological standards. To start, it is a well-known fact that the human male has more upper body strength than a human female. In terms of relevance to feminism, it can be linked to human history, as well as basic natural (if you will call it God-given) gender roles. The male is expendable, they are hunters, fighters, and defenders of their territory, by nature, they are angry, always on the lookout to defend what they say is theirs; their religion, their country, their home, and their wife. Feminists have said that males are misogynists all, who wish to see women submitted to a sexual slave role in life. This is untrue by those with happy marriages, and, also in defiance of the base genetic role of the female, which, in terms of Darwinism, is perhaps the greater role than males: birth. Birth is a specifically-female role, and it is due to them that we have survived as a species up until this point. Were it not for the female's ability to give birth, we would have died off as a species long before now. (NOTE: Arguments against the above statement citing the male seahorses ability to give birth should not be considered, as male seahorses incubate the young, they do not have the proper organs to be come pregnant on their own, the female will transfer care of the fertilized eggs to the male after a certain time after their conception)
Human History also plays an important role in where we are now. Due to the gender roles in terms of basic human survival, females would stay in the camps, or established communities, caves, what have you, and generally try to stay out of sight to avoid predators, other tribes or rival clans, to ensure the survival of the group. The males would act as soldiers as they would with hunting, because they were, as stated before, expendable. Were they to die, a child may still grow up to replace him and have children of their own. The clan would be safe, sans the dead male. Over time, as humanity established themselves, the gender roles remained, but were largely the same. However, during the Roman Empire (in theory), the idea of male-female inequality could perhaps have been reduced there, or at least starting there, since gender roles are more important in dire survival situations. The Pleistocene Era was far more rugged than the Bronze Age, and the Modern Era less so than that. During the years that followed, females were still confined to the house, not forcefully, but their roles in life were to provide offspring (still a necessary part of survival of the species, and to a smaller part, the nation they male and female belonged to). Males would hunt, females would cook, however, with the introduction of perhaps-superfluous activities such as a bureaucratic society provides, women's roles as a general caretaker were expanded, and their ability to integrate into a human-made system was perhaps far more viable an option than sitting at home, I'm sad to say we missed that opportunity as a species, to our detriment, to be sure.
One statement to take from the previous paragraph is the phrase "general caregivers". The idea that women are better suited to give care to a community is not a new notion, and is certainly not an insult (although it may be depending on who you ask), it is also known scientifically, that males and females think differently. Males tend to think more logically, closer to a problem solving standpoint, while females, as may not be surprising based on their naturally established role in the human species, think more about community, emotions, and feelings. Males are logical, females are nurturers. This is not meant to sound demeaning, and should not be seen as such, the female has an important role in society for which their body and mind are equipped to act a certain way to protect the young and ensure the survival of the species, where as men have that same drive, to find food, one must know how to approach it, how to gather it, and how to use it.
All in all, feminism didn't emerge until the 1960's, as an after-effect of the WW2 drives to get females to take the manufacturing jobs that men were forced to leave in order to fight. Now, with technical issues like wage differences, it is important to note which jobs females are left out of. Manufacturing positions are dangerous, with the natural bias towards trying to keep women safe, perhaps THAT is a reason why Sally didn't get the job for welding plates onto submarine hulls. Why did Joshua not get a nursing position? Because Sally has inborn natural skills with dealing with the sick and young.
Feminism is not a bad thing, there are many ideas that are brought up that can make our species stronger, but the prevailing sentiment that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" only serves to widen the gap between to sides of the same coin, one cannot have a heads without a tail, and even as that phrase may not directly point out, a head and a tail are important parts of the body, and both might not survive without the other.