@ JKJ - "How is that different from the quintessential democratic rationale?" -- it is indeed fundamentally different. Your Feminists use the democratic process to change perceptions and shift values. Islam (ab)uses the democratic process to replace democracy and liberty with a feudal theocracy.

Study the fundamental scriptures of Islam, read up on the history of the vanquished and enslaved people who stood in the way of Islamic supremacy and jihad, and then read this:

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Muslim%20Brotherhood%20Project.pdf

Putting Feminism on equal footing with Islam is a serious fallacy of moral relativism.

I am aware of the history and theology of Islam; as well as feminist theory and polemics; and the theory and practice of democracy. But that’s not the point.

The question is, is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?

If it is, then it’s okay for the Muslims to do it; and if it' s not, then it’s not okay for the feminists to do it. I think it’s you caught in a serious fallacy of moral relativism.

@ JKJ - Our Feministas have no intention to get rid of democracy and replace our open and free society with something else. They don't seek to kill the cow that gives the milk.

In contrast the declared aim of Islam is to replace any man-made state and any man-made law with what observant Muslim perceive as "perfect" state of humankind - the sharia and the global ummah. Observing Muslims on their grand jihad want to slaughter our holy cow 'democracy' and raise a very different animal in its place: theocracy.

The end result, if both movements would succeed, is distinctly different: Cow dead vs. cow milked.

If aligning both at the same level is not a prime example for nihilistic moral relativism, what is?

Feminists, to the extent of their political program, do want to replace our free society with an unfree society. For example they want to criminalise the freedom of association, so far as it conflicts with their moral opinions. They want the compulsory indoctrination of children to inculcate the value of their own belief system to the exclusion of belief systems they disagree with. They want your infringement of their precepts to be punished, precisely so that people are not free to choose anything that they don't agree with. Feminism is intolerant in exactly the same way that religions are, and which was the reason for enacting laws of religious toleration.

And to the extent they are prepared to leave people alone as not offending their opinions, that is no more to their credit than it is to the religious fundamentalists. Some tolerance that is! We don't owe our liberties to either creed but to the extent people fundamentally disagree with their illiberal opinions.

Democracy is only self-evidently preferable, IMO, to the extent that it does promote a free society. But a majority is just as capable of being wrong, and intolerant, and oppressive, as a minority.

And if the reason why democracy is preferable is because it protects our individual freedoms, then that justification does not apply to feminism to the extent of its political program, does it?

As a non-Muslim and non-feminist, why should I be threatened into compliance with either? What is it to me that a majority are in favour of violating my liberties?

@ JKJ - what you describe in your last post has nothing to do with feminism as it is commonly defined. You describe anarchy and social terrorism. I'm not sure where you would pick up this definition of feminism. Here's what most seem to understand when talking about feminism:

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

You still want to equate this with Islam?

Raoul.
Islam is radical egalitarianism in one form, Feminism is radical egalitarianism in another, there's no structural difference, both are utopian, paranoid and authoritarian and the typical rhetoric against unbelievers is just as harsh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhvM3BKuWvg
Note the "constant threat" narrative?
Now observe the radical Muslim:
Coca Cola Muslim Generation by Abdur Raheem Green
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-lZ7BDrqAs