Men objectively have less rights in Western legislative systems, so I don't see what's so controversial about acknowledging it.

I don't agree with this premise. It seems a selective perception to me. It is possible to create opposing, yet consistent worldviews, but only to the extent one exercises selective reading and attributes unequal weight to supporting or opposing evidence.

Even if men do have less rights than women in an objective sense (say, by number), their social situation still might be significantly more advantageous, (which might be why so many folk talk past each other on this topic). This might actually be the case, and could result from a legal framework reflecting an effort to guarantee the rights of those that have been at a disadvantage. In short, less rights objectively might not put men at a disadvantage, even if they are less by number. In my experience, I operate at an advantage as compared to women in the US. That might not be your experience, but it is mine.

As far as feminism is concerned, I don't think it can be so easily pegged with consistent motivations or effects. Feminism is a social movement with many facets, contributors, and histories, some which have worked in opposition to each other.

At any rate, thanks for taking the time to answer. I disagree, but it's worth knowing where you are coming from.