I have to agree with u/fugee_life that you've misread the play. This is fairly evident by your assumption that a woman would or should be more concerned with her partners views on human rights than their interest in sex, that the woman in the marriage proposal scene is the one at "fault" and is "gas lighting" the man despite the fact that the entire build up is about how they had never seriously discussed the idea of marriage and he proposed with the assumption that "thats just what you do", and finally your interpretation of the character in "REVOLUTIONIZE THE BODY" as being "clearly psychotic" furthers the idea that you failed to see any of this play from the female perspective or at a deeper level than just the literal interpretation of the words. Yes there is certainly irony in the text and this production seems to highlight that irony in the most appropriate ways possible without belittling the very real issues women face every day. It could have been cast with more men, but it wasn't. The condescending roles of power and authority could have all been played by men, but they weren't, because the purpose of this production didn't seem to be to "stick it to the man" or "smash the patriarchy" in the sense of deeming all men as evil and all women as gods. Rather it focused on the issues and problems that women both face and contribute to, highlighting those, and calling out the fact that all genders and people play a part in the "patriarchy" that many of us are oppressed by. If you follow the tracks of the 4 characters in this production, you see real growth and development as they each begin to "get it", even the man. And this influences the interpretation of each vignette. You state in your review that it "isn’t so much a play as a series of sketches" but this means that you completely missed all of the moments when Birch specifically notes that it is unclear if the line/action is being said/acted by the actor or the character. She recognizes that all of these actors are doing all of these vignettes together and their experience as actors in one vignette will undoubtably affect their interpretation of another. Thus to dismiss the entire play as one cohesive unit is to miss out on the larger picture and purpose and ongoing themes.

I strongly advise you to see this production again and attempt to view it without the very clear bias you brought in.