"Many men do either hate women or at best are scared of them."
None that I know of do either. I certainly don't know of any men that hate women. Some I know - and I think I fit into this category - are not fond of some individual women (as they are not fond of some individual men) but I don't know any that hate all women regardless.
Anyway, back to the question. I haven't read all the answers so forgive me if it's been covered, but in the question of equal pay it is not necessarily so that the work done must be identical. The first big test of this came when sewing machinists working for the Ford Motor Company making car seat covers had their skills downgraded in a regrading exercise in 1968. They were considered "less skilled" than their male counterparts working in other areas of production (e.g. blokes screwing doors onto cars or fitting windows). They went on strike (causing production to grind to a halt) and the intervention of Barbara Castle, MP, saw them restored to parity in two stages. However a court case later failed to find in their favour and the issue staggered on until 1984 when a second strike saw them restored to full parity. The issue demonstrated that work does not have to be identical for equal pay to be warranted.
I can clearly remember adverts on London buses for bus conductors (where the work was indeed absolutely identical) where the rates offered to men were a tidy bit more than the rates for women. The accompanying advert for drivers was for men only as women were not recruited as drivers at that that time. The first female bus driver in London - Jill Viner - started work in 1974.