"Much of this is motivated by congressional defensiveness in the face of fierce feminist lobbying that is largely unopposed."

I read a short book from Encounter Books today entitled How Obama's Gender Policies Undermine America. The book highlights how women are doing much better than men in today's America. They live longer, face a significantly lower unemployment rate, are awarded substantially more BAs, and MAs and have lower rates of incarceration, alcoholism, and drug abuse. Career feminists constantly harp on how women need government intervention and hand-holding because they are treated unfairly. For the most part, however, women in the academic world are treated better than men. The author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, makes an important point:

...in some cases, women are treated better than men when it comes to academic tenure positions. Between 1999 and 2003, according to the National Academy of Sciences, although women only represented 11 percent of tenure-track job applicants in electrical engineering and 12 percent of applicants in physics, they received 32 percent and 20 percent of the job offers in these fields, respectively.

Not that it would help, but maybe some of these "feminists" (more like female-privilege specialists) who insist on more and more affirmative action for women in the academic world should read a book that tells a more realistic account of what is really happening with many males in our society: Boys in Poverty: A Framework for Understanding Dropout. I doubt it would help however, because boys--and thus, men-- in poverty is probably their goal.

My question is, why are "fierce feminist lobbyists" largely unopposed?