Why do women still line up in droves to enter beauty contests, women’s liberation targeted this for extinction back in the 1970’s. They said that these contests were about valuing women for their physical attractiveness and not their value as intelligent human beings. This indicates to me that girls will be girls and that biology will never be overcome because some group of humans or feminist says right, this is how it will be from now on. Nature rules on this planet and we dance to it’s dictates all the while thinking we are directing and controlling things.

Cosmopolitan etc. are just full to the brim with ways for women to beautify themselves and articles about what men think about sex and relationships. (Pleasing men .)
This stuff is multi-million dollar business, the women can’t get enough of it. What was that about not being valued for your looks and not trying to please men girls?

The pill and contraception is the main reason that women can go to wars these days because normally they were usually pregnant . Again it is nature’s law of survival (biology) that laid down the ground rules for who fought wars before contraception.

If all the pregnant and fertile women of the tribe were to be almost wiped out the tribe would become extinct. If however, the women were protected and say half to 3/4s of the men were killed the remaining men would be enough to repopulate the tribe back to its original numbers. It is the number of fertile women who keep tribal numbers at survival levels . . It is also why in overpopulated societies like China, women and girl babies became undesirable because they needed to depopulate. It was well known that a lot of girl babies were killed in China.

SJF "The men in the anecdote in question were deliberately planning their meetings in the urinal, with the full intention of excluding the women. I would have thought that this was obvious from my use of the words 'exclusionary tactic'."

Why would men meet at a urinal to exclude women? There are plenty of alternative venues expressly designed for people to meet, relax and enjoy themselves.

This is just another of those stories cooked up by radical feminists to make some point that has a significance only for them. Why was it important to the storytelling that the man had to be humiliated in a men's toilet?

Again I ask, what is it with feminists of your persuasion and men's urinals? Can't you see why women (and men!) would cringe and be grossed-out by this story - which you obviously get a buzz out of re-telling?

No wonder young women run screaming from feminists.

This is such an interesting discussion, and rather enlightening for me. I live in a world where it is taken for granted that I will exercise my right to work and contribute in ways best suited to my talents, and this doesn't need to be defended. The men in my life, whom I adore, don't feel the need to dictate what I can and can't do. For them, women's freedom has been a positive and natural development. The whole burden of Hasbeen's contribution, and indeed runner's and others on this thread, has been to make it clear that they disapprove of women having such choices. Runner set up a false dichotomy between the faithful woman in the kitchen and the only other possibility, the slut in the bar. Hasbeen derided the ghastly career types. These attitudes are on the wrong side of history and it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to point that out.
It is the oldest trick in the book to accuse people you disagree with of having no sense of humour. It works because it immediately puts people on the defensive and fills them with self doubt. But it is nothing more than a strategic tactic and should be recognised as such - it has nothing to do with the substance of the argument. Wrong-footing people is the last refuge of the person with a weak argument.
There is no real war between the sexes, except out on the periphery where the dinosaurs live. I do feel some sympathy for the the women who live out there with them. And I can muster some sympathy for the dinosaurean men too, who are missing out on some fun times with interesting and lively people.

Very well said indeed, Miranda Suzanne. I couldn't agree more.

Miranda Suzanne:"I live in a world where it is taken for granted that I will exercise my right to work and contribute in ways best suited to my talents, and this doesn't need to be defended."

That is precisely the point. Feminism has achieved the goal of parity of opportunity in Western civilisationand those who claim to be feminists are now seeking to extend their gains to the point of dominance. That is why I oppose them.

If it was wrong to limit the opportunity of women solely based on their gender, it is equally as wrong to do so for men. It constantly saddens me to see negative portrayals of men being men, often produced by the State in the form of "behavioural modification" commercials, designed to make men feel bad about some aspect of their behaviour, yet we very rarely see anything similar for women.

Men are expected to conform to what is expected by women, IOW, while men are constantly being told that they must never impose their own expectations on the women in their lives. This is offensive to any concept of egalitarianism and is at the heart of feminism as it is enacted in legislation.

This whole topic is about the differences between the genders, of which there are many, yet it has fallen into the predictable mould of women complaining that men don't do enough to make them happy and men saying the same about women. It seems that

FWIW, I feel sorry for the hairy-legged trolls who want to be men, just as you feel sorry for the "dinosaurs". They're missing out on an opportunity to have a satisfying relationship with someone who genuinely believes his life should be devoted to their happiness. I guess they're so devoted to their own happiness they don't notice.

Let's not forget, either, that the "feminist revolution" has largely been the product of married male politicians. That may explain why so much legislation seems to pander to the demands of women: the missus rules the roost.

Antiseptic, of course I respect your point of view and I too am uncomfortable with any kind of gender stereotyping, whether it be of men or women. Life is too complicated, nuanced and varied to be reduced to stereotypes. But when you say "...and those who claim to be feminists are now seeking to extend their gains to the point of dominance." you do lose me. If such women exist, I have never met them and am certainly not like that myself. In the real world, most people just want to live their lives peacefully, extracting as much joy and satisfaction as they can along the way. Most of this joy and satisfaction derives from happy, healthy relationships. Dominance games are not the norm. If they exist, they do so among a small number of bitter and twisted people and they are certainly not limited to one gender or the other.
I love the fact that I am free and do not take it for granted. I am hardly a feminist campaigner, being way too busy with other things to take on that mantle. I just do what I do. Coming to this blog and seeing what some people have to say on this subject has made me realise that there are some who don't see things the same way, and that has been educative.