Earlier you posted that you were tempted to respond, “Read a history book.” Perhaps you’ve spent too much time reading biased history text books and not enough reading what actually happened with the people of those times, including women and pacifists.

I think these sort of rules based systems do work, for men who are into just getting lucky and more power to them. But do they themselves undertand that they are only getting one part of the whole human relationship total. Other parts that they are missing out on are of course, committment, long term friendship, for the lucky few a soul mate…of course they do avoid pain, separation and divorce.

Where it’s a problem(if problem is the right word, maybe issue) is when younger men think that the true judge of a man is his sucess under such systems. I mean this view point is reinforced by media personalities, the music industry and even sports stars…beauty, enjoyment and easy divorce take precedance over those who work through lifes problems. Plus I guess there is all that sex and let’s face it, that’s a hard sell to beat.

Redefinition of power.. I’ll come back and give ya some examples of feminist theory in this regard. But to say that the bottom line isn’t a replication of the existing power structure - on the run!

Joseph - wow. I’m pretty sure there isn’t much point in me addressing your comments… wow.

Well, yes. To a limited degree our lives change. But in the overall scheme of things, changes in our power structure rarely benefit us little people more than peripherally.

Similar to Republicans and Democrats. Other than haggling on TV about their different ideologies, how much real tangible differences do you see in your personal life when you see a regime change. Yeah, lots of talk, but does your overall quality of life change? Do your taxes drastically change? Does your civil rights situation improve? Does social justice improve? Does society really reflect the change more than peripherally?

The object of Feminism, is definately not to ’seize’ power - if anything it is to difuse and in large part to redefine what “power” means.

And how does it accomplish this? What is Feminism’s redefinition of ‘power’? If it is redefining power by changing who wields it, then what have they accomplished other than to simply change the victims? Where is the altruism in that?

Post #1: The Civil Rights movement was part of a much larger radical movement which openly confronted the police, advocated violent revolution, and used terrorism.
Post #2: The reaction to Lawrence Summer’s words is somehow equivalent to the way that women in some Muslim societies face lethal consequences for their words.
Post #3: When confronted with “rape”, feminists demand more laws and more indoctrination, rather than simply picking up guns to defend themselves.
Post #4: If you do not believe in violence, then why not repeal all laws against “date rape” and simply rely on persuasion to end rape?
Post #5: He was told that if he asked out a woman and she said “no,” it would not be “appropriate” for him to later drive by her house. If he were to do so, he could be sued for sexual harassment. This is feminists attempting to regulate the most minute aspects of people’s lives. You now can not drive down a street without feminists subjecting you to a lawsuit.
Post #6: On a designated day, women walk out of churches, law firms, police departments, etc. That would bring the entire system of Patriarchy down in 24 hours.
Post #7:. Feminists will FORCE us to engage in an economic transaction which we both do not want.
Post #8: Women just do not struggle as well as men.
Post #9: How can you say you are against oppression when you favor government intervention in everything?
Post #11: The Zionist Conspiracy is equivalent to The Patriarchy… thus MRAs can rightly claim that feminism is a hate movement

I’d especially like to hear another MRAs response to his armed uprising argument…

To go on with your armed uprising example: Armed uprisings are a part of our global history of rebellion against oppression- no doubt about it.

But you bring up a specific issue within a specific religious/cultural setting, the oppression of women in Afghanistan, and throw out insinuations about the reality of their suffering because it doesn’t fit into your remarkably simplistic view of the situation. “There is no shortage of anything from AK-47s to Stinger missiles in Afghanistan”, you point out, so if they were serious about getting their jobs back and education for their daughters, they’d be “picking up weapons and demanding their rights”.

1. There are guns in Afghanistan
2. Guns=power (a leap I am making based on your following comments)
3. If Afghan women want power, they should use guns.

I posted this this link- to a BBC News story on “honor killings” - to point out that women in many of these oppressive Muslim societies are murdered, not by criminals or even by a hostile, oppressive government, but by their families - by brothers or fathers - for daring to seek their own way against the gender norms of their traditional societies.

In this sort of authoritiarian society, women have no economic or political support system if they resist the status quo. Worse, in an honor/shame bound culture, any disagreement can be seen as a threat to their entire family, putting all of their loved ones at risk for social/economic/political retribution. You say Afghan men faced danger when they faught the Soviets, but they were supported in their goals by their society. This is an entirely different situation.

If I were to say, “The Zionist Conspiracy, obviously, is not one Jew with ‘evil’ intentions – but a system that was managed in such a way as to add to the class structure, an anti-Christian bias. I think we would all recognize this as a horribly paranoid and bigoted statement.

This is why MRAs can rightly claim that feminism is a hate movement.

You might have to raise the cost of childcare to cover the higher wages, but I am sure all those feminist women and men out there would have no problem paying more.

Of course, this would all be done voluntarily. You would not have the government using FORCE to make people pay higher prices for services.

Seriously, why don’t you do just what I have described?

Seriously, how can you say you are against oppression when you favor government intervention in everything?