I think I've found the way. I think sex-dominance is based on the average sizes of each sex. Males are generally larger than females in most mammal species (and possibly without exception among primates), and thus, most mammal species have male-dominant societies, primates especially, because their size simply makes it easier to push around the physically smaller sex. Compare this to the varieties of spiders and insects in which females are larger enough than males to dine upon them once fertilization occurs, or the angler fish, whose male is simply a glorified testicle that melds with the vastly more giant female and exchanges spermatozoa for food.
Anyway, so our species has larger males, a trait that through the millennia has grown to marginalize women through just about all avenues. If women and men were of more equal size, the sexes would enjoy more equal power, is my theory. And so I entreat those women who wish to reproduce to choose small men, and men to choose large women. If this catches on, and our species begins to select naturally for these traits, the sexes will, in time, balance in size, and then equalize in dominance.
Of course, I do not suggest that the current strategies for women's liberation be abandoned, because for my bullshit theory to actually work, there need to be changes in attitudes about gender and sex at once, so men and women stop selecting for the mate-sizes they do now, which are based on obsolete gender roles that still take saber-tooth tiger attacks into consideration. Clearly these current selections are getting us nowhere. So here's my boiled-down advice: if you want to have babies, do so with a small man or a giant woman. You'll thank me in a million years.
Other Methods Of Gradual Universe-Improvement