> 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.
No one said any thing about control of women, it is the other way around
women seek to control men's behaviours.

>
>>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.
>
Women have all the rights they could need and want - now the aim is
more, more, more without giving up anything.

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

You are bringing up another strawman - no one even mentioned abortion
rights - while important this rant deal with the roll back of men's
rights to accomodate women not the other way around.

>
>  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.

Maybe because their opinion of them in the workplace is based on women's
laziness, short temper, out-of-the-blue unpleasent behaviour, not on
some old fashion prejudice but from actual observations.
>
>  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.  No longer are women accepting penis standards.
>

That's mature. Some jobs don't have the option of lowering standards to
accomodate women's inferiority in some area. Women _are_ weaker
physically, they do have different weaknesses in the mental arena too.
Reality can't always be changed to suit women.

>  the right to divorce?,
>
> Both women and men have the same right to divorce.
>
> 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.
>
This is the combination of hiring and firing practices of judges in
family law. They will stream the system to encourage family law judges
to be women-friendly, then pass laws that are ball-busting - for example
SHARED PARENTING - a very progressive idea - but counter to the wishes
of feminist groups - they don't want a better system that has been
proven to be better for the children - they just want custody of
children period.

>  the right to> w:abortion in total suppression of the rights of both
> the father
>
I think on this issue, the father should at least know what has happened
to his offspring. Doing this without consulting the father is wrong.

> Fathers can abort any fetus in their own bodies; so can mothers.
> Fathers have no rights over mother's bodies.
>
The child is geneticly half from the father, is this something that you
conveniently have forgotten?

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

You are talking feminism from the 1920's, this about feminism going
overboard, and impinging on men's rights, ruining families, dropping the
birthrate.

> 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.

Well get used to a counter balancing men's movement then.

> Hahahahaha.  Ms. is not a term based on female violence while "gunman"
> and "manhunt" clearly is.  I mean what percentage of schoolhouse
> shooters are female?  Should we go on a womanhunt for them?  :-)
> You're funny.

I have noticed this lack of "PC thought-speach" on any negative
connotation of men as well. Just another proof that this is not trying
to provide a balanced system - it is just to promote women at the
expense of men.

>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/3/05 12:57:24 PM ---