FrankGol, you misunderstood. I was describing the internal logic of patriarchy theory, not my own views.

It is feminists who argued themselves into the position that gender difference made women inferior. They did so by accepting the idea that our humanity is contingent and that we only become human through an act of creating who we are through our own reason and will.

Since the female role was seen to be more based on the emotions rather than reason, and since women had less formal economic and political power, feminists then thought that women were less human as things stood.

Hence the determination to believe that traditional gender qualities and roles were oppressive social constructs which could be overturned.

My view is that feminists were wrong to accept the initial assumption about what makes us human. They were wrong to see our humanity as being contingent on acts of power or on an autonomous reason unimpeded by biology or the emotions.

What if, for instance, our particular loves and attachments helped to define our humanity? Then men and women could be distinct in their gender qualities and social roles, but still consider themselves to be equal in their human status and their participation in the essential human experiences.

FrankGol, it's inadequate to dismiss a complaint about a lost generation as "masculine sour grapes". Something like 30 to 40% of tertiary educated women have ended up childless. That adds up to a lot of feminine misery. We ought to care about such things as they are what really matter most to people and cut most deeply at a personal level.

So what are the feminists with hairy armpits and chips
on their shoulders then ? :)

Simcox tries to 'spin' that feminists are rather safe protagonists.

Suffragettes existed long before modern day hairy armed feminist's.

Christine Stolba in 'Lying In a Room of Ones Own' categorised three areas where feminist textbooks miseducate students."Errors of Interpretation," "Errors of Fact," and "Sins of Omission."

During the 'Burning times' where witches were burnt at the stake, it comes as a surprise to find that it was not only women who were murdered this way.

"The Malleus Maleficarum" It served as a guidebook for Inquisitors during the Inquisition, and was designed to aid them in the identification, prosecution, and dispatching of Witches.

During this time, a glance, a gesture taken the wrong way could result in an accusation of witchcraft. The modern day version is a look or gesture results in accusations of sexual harrasement.

"The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault"

"I have witnessed liberal totalitarianism on many fronts as both a lawyer and a judge, but it is fair to say that I probably would not have written this book if I had not had my own, very direct run-in with the tyrants of tolerance."

In fact rather than conducting their war in the public sphere, many feminists have become much more active in covert operations. Researchers into domestic violence have had threats of having their funding cut because they are not toeing the party line.

"The feminist movement started as a political society based on humanism."

Humanism did predate the current feminist movement. However humanism did not build it's house of cards on vilifying men and many of the earlier feminists based feminism on Marxism.

For men who struggle to understand feminists and their writing (usually sweet and nice), and then struggle to try and match that with their acts (usually disruptive to destructive)... a understanding of the fundamental nature of women is needed... and I am talking of what is common and usual, and accept that variations in smaller percentages exist.

A women needs to see herself as a member of a group of women... and this need goes into psychosomatic level too eg... a group of women together will start synchronizing their periods if they live together. Its important feature to understand as the group she relies on will determine what she will think, say and act...
- eg what one of them thinks is not valid until she has discussed with the group and been validated...
- security is important and it comes from being an accepted member of the group, so even if she disagrees with the group she will abide, as being rejected by the group is like death itself...
- common behaviour is another one, they are more comfortable with following the usual 'female created plan' than a original path of their choice, eg having the so called 'family and home'... comes with intrinsic details of how to behave and treat the 'made depended ones' including us men etc

Feminism was an attempt to unify mass numbers of women into one group and to a large extent succeeded until they became 'the pigs in animal farm' and in 'more equal', and now facing the rejection...

Now as men you will note how dramatically this contrasts with us, so message is if you want to understand a women you need to understand her group, and dont compare them to yourself, but as a unique entity by itself...

Sam
Ps~Cornflower is excluded, if she is a woman, she has shown admirable strength to fight to be a balanced individual, which is very hard thing to do and survive among women, and a feature of an evolved soul

Indeed. Cornflower is a credit to womanhood and humanity in general. Pity we are in such short supply of role models like her. Nothing but respect and admiration from me.

Happy Australia Day.

Trouble is the article auther used a definition of convenience and revised history and made a groupist statement in implyng that all feminists "don’t believe that all men are violent ... Neither do they believe that the way to correct the wrongs in a patriarchal society is to turn it into a matriarchal one" ect. What about the feminist Marilyn French who said "All men are rapists and thats all they are"? A major sector of the feminist movment took this up.