>

There are two things I have to say about this view. 
First, it seems to me like you're way over-emphasizing the social utility of strength. Being physically strong is really useful in a lot of domains, but it's not the only way an individual can be useful to a society or group, and it's definitely not a great way to determine whether any particular individual or group is categorically "superior" to another. If we took your logic to its extreme, humans would be inferior to just about every other ape, and not even in the top 10% of mammals. Even the most chauvinistic, racist, sexist, Nazi doesn't make that argument. 
I actually strongly recommend you check out the work of Frans de Waal. He studies chimpanzees and monkeys, and writes quite beautifully about what chimp society might have to say about how humans organize ourselves. One thing I took away from his work is that chimps have countless ways to acquire power and status, and physical strength is just one of them and not the most important. The most important is the ability to build stable coalitions of support amongst other members of the group--and both males and females have the ability to build said coalitions. 
For my second point about your view, one relevant quote that comes to mind that I'll paraphrase is from the book Factfulness. He says, basically, that we frequently believe overly-dramatic and overly-pessimistic narratives about what's going on in the world that aren't held up by statistics. Believing in these overly-dramatic narratives then causes people to favor radical solutions, when there are much more effective, boring solutions to the problem that have been shown to work already. His personal bugaboos are things like poverty, disease, and violence--all of which have reduced dramatically over the past fifty years. 
In my opinion, your view of the war of the sexes is overly-dramatic and overly-pessimistic. I'll focus on one statement: 

the best we as a society can collectively hope for is for men, as violent and narcissistic as the majority of them tend to be, to begin practicing noblesse oblige toward women 

(Emphasis added, of course). The majority of men are neither narcissistic nor violent. The highest number I could find a from a study in a cursory google search was here, and it's roughly 7.2%. Other studies estimate the prevalence to be about as low as 1 in 200. The number of men who are physically violent--towards women or men--is similarly low, maxing out at 1 in 10.
Not only is that not a majority, that's not even a plurality. 
Now, if you switch the wording around, and instead of saying "a majority of men are narcissistic and violent" you said "a majority of violent and narcissistic people are men," that would be undeniably true on both counts. 
But the reality is that if you select a man completely at random from a group and guess that he's not going to harm you or anyone, you're going to be right 9 out of 10 times. 
To me this means that a radical solution to the problem of violence against women isn't really required--certainly not as radical a solution as the one you're proposing here. It could be something as simple as more street lights, or better social services, or more screening for dark triad personality traits in court proceedings, and so on.
/u/ILikeMistborn (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I don't think that would help, because I don't think sexism has a strong rational basis.
If somebody is sexist against women, and the difference in strength between the two groups is part of the reason, I doubt they would be compelled by genetic modification. I think it's more likely they would say "you only match men's strength because of technology, you are still naturally inferior."
While the reasons for sexism against women are complicated, I don't think they are particularly logical or factual.
Also note, not everybody would want this modification. In fact, it is my wild speculation that a majority wouldn't. >

That is built on the assumption that there is an inherent conflict between men and women and that we are trying to oppress each other. In reality men and women work together and complement each other. Pointing out that certain players on the same team are better suited for certain roles isn't oppression, it is good resource management.