Hyerdahl wrote:
> MCP wrote:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism_rant
> >
> > Feminism is a Female Supremacist totalitarian social and political
> movement that has been called "the sexist notion that men are not
> people" (attributed to Peter Zohrab).
>
> What laws have been drafted by feminist organizations that do not
> include men?

None that I'm aware of, but that's not the focus.  For gender
feminists, the focus is on preferential treatment for women.

>
>  Note that by all but the most Dykist definitions, a
>  "feminist" need not be a woman - many men are proud to identify
> themselves> as (brainwashed) feminists.
>
> Not only do many men identify themselves as feminists, but those men
> have no need to CONTROL women; when you look up the words "real men"
> you will see a feminist man because he doesn't base his own
definition
> on the control of women.

Try asking him what *his* definition of a feminist is, and what *his*
idea of equal treatment and opportunity is.  I suspect, on the whole,
it differs quite a bit from yours and is actually more grounded in
fairness.

> >
> > Over the course of modern history, the immediate goals of feminists
> have changed to suit the times.
>
> The goals of feminism are like the goals of any other freedom loving
> organization; they grow with the needs arising.  That is why the
first
> goals of feminism was the right to own property, vote, and control
over
> their own bodies, and why that has evolved to make sure women have
> other equal rights.
>
> However, the overarching goal has always been the
>  promotion of supremacy for women over men, both legally and
socially,
> while claiming to be about "equality".
>
> If that's true, you would have to ask yourself the question, what is
it
> about equal rights for women that results in their supremacy?

That's the question that one attempting to dodge reality would ask.
The real question to be asked is, why do we as a society unevenly
enforce the law so heavily in women's favor?

>  AS to
> social choices, those are what they are and not relegated by law.

Nope, they're regulated by something sometimes more powerful than law,
which is custom.  Women simply have more socially acceptable options
than men.

>
> Feminists, having no regard for rationality, have claimed that women
> are a "minority", and have attempted to acquire the politically
correct
> equivalent of sainthood by allying
> > themselves with genuine minorities, as represented byw:Martin
Luther
> King> Jr. Feminists therefore usually support other movements such as
> the w:civil rights movement and the w:gay rights movement -- but not
> the Fetus Rights
> > movement or the Men's Rights movement, for obvious reasons.
> >
> A fetus has no more "rights" than a hemroid, but rant on if it makes
> you feel better.

There's no need to rant.  Your comparison of a fetus to a hemmorhoid
(sp?) just reveals your lack of depth, or the depth of where you're
lacking.  When a hemmorhoid has its own DNA, or can survive outside the
woman's body at 28 weeks as a human being, then you'll have a point.

>  As to men's rights, there are no EQUAL rights men
> don't already have.  The men's rights groups are hardly a "movement"
> but what they seek is SPECIAL RIGHTS.

They're seeking equal enforcement of rights.  I understand why that
would be anethema to you.

>
>  Feminism has effected many changes on society, including womens'
> suffrage, broad employment for women at equivalent wages (equal pay
for
> less-than-equal work),
>
> Nonsense.  Women get equal pay for equal work.  Sexist men just don't
> like women as bosses and peers.

According to some employment statistics I read, female engineers are
getting larger starting salaries than male engineers.

>
>  including the "right" to meet lower standards than men for entry to
> the military and police,
>
> Standards for women are the standards that meet the female physique,
> just like standards for men are the standards that meet the male
> physique.

For law enforcement, those standards indicate levels of fitness, and
does correspond to an ability to do the job under normal
circumstances--it's at the extremes where differences become
pronounced.  As far as the military goes, keeping women off the front
lines is just the smart way to do things.

>  No longer are women accepting penis standards.
>
>  the right to divorce?,
>
> Both women and men have the same right to divorce.

And women get preferential treatment.

>
> including the automatic presumption of female custody of children,
>
> There is no automatic presumption, save what the couple themselves
have
> put into action.  Judges tend to favor the maintenence of the child's
> intersts in primary care.

You've been babbling this for so long that I think you might actually
believe it.  There *is* a default position in family courts of woman as
primary parent.

>
>  the right to> w:abortion in total suppression of the rights of both
> the father
>
> Fathers can abort any fetus in their own bodies; so can mothers.

Now you're just being stupid.

> Fathers have no rights over mother's bodies.
>
>  and the> child, and many others. As Western society has become
> increasingly accepting of feminist principles, some of these are no
> longer seen as specifically
> feminist, because they have been adopted by all or most people.
>
> Yes, most people accept the notion that women are individuals with
> individual rights, just like men.

Most people do.  That's not the issue.

>  Western society accepts the equality
> of women, and now feminists are just busy implementing and enforcing
> existing law, and bitter boys are howling.

Feminists are busy seeking preferential enforcement of law in their
favor--that is, when they're not running shrieking in horror and
feeling faint over some mild speculation grounded in science, or trying
to trump up false discrimination cases on editorial pages and
attempting to extort the editor while making disparaging remarks about
his Parkinson's affecting his judgement.

Yep, they're class acts, them brave feminist gender warriors.   lolol.

>
>
> (edit)
>  Almost no one in Western societies today questions the right of
women
> to vote without being subject to the draft, a concept that
justifiably
> seemed quite strange 200 years ago.
>
> As long as women have fewer military rights they will have fewer
> military duties.

You've been challenged several times to show how they have fewer
military rights.  Ready to stop hiding yet?

>  The right to vote is not contingent on the duty to be
> drafted since women risk their lives giving birth while men do not.
> Women particiapte on that level, regarding sacrifice and yet, there
are
> women who do join the military.
> >
> >In most cases (notably equal pay for less-than-equal work) major
> feminist victories have been made, but feminists continue to play the
> victim, as new goals are constantly being dreamed up by the
> established, taxpayer-funded
> > feminist research industry.
>
> Feminism is just like any other societal institution, fighting for
> equal rights whenever and wherever those rights are being denied.
Did
> you really think that feminists would stop with the vote?  Every time
a
> woman is knowingly denied inclusion because she is a woman, feminists
> will fight.  Get used to it.

I like their style of "fighting"--it's damaging their credibility.  :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/5/05 12:57:42 PM ---