Your thesis then, is "the very existence of religion is an affront to womens' progress", correct? IronLDS
Talk about misinterpreting a post and fighting a strawman! But to respond to the strawman, religious influence in Western society is an affront to women's progress, as it is the source of the property status of women and the concept that women should STFU and stay home. All the talk of separate but equal roles is just more religious BS to justify keeping women barefoot, uneducated and pregnant.
As noted earlier humanist men support women in all roles totally ignoring their haughty status as made in the image of God. I even know of humanist men who assume the role of househusband to provide their children with proper nurturing while their wives work full+ time at their economic comparative advantage role in society. She may well be a better mom than he is but her overall worth to society is higher as a medical professional e.g. than his as contract laborer. More commonly they share both roles usually to the detriment of their careers, more so for the woman, due to the fact that she is working above her station, but both chose children and careers, rather than not having children. Which by the way is a common choice for humanists as their service to their society as full+ time professionals may be more important to them than raising cannon fodder. Their legacy is their social service rather than another mouth for the world to feed.