Maybe but, as I've stated, I look to correct the situation through legislation and law. Not through a group that has an agenda. I think there's a sales job they've been good at, and a sympathy they've exploited, because I've never seen a group gain power and not go too far.

Individuals may think that but the organization will not stop at mere inclusion and fair opportunity. No org ever does. Did men? Well, there you go.

@rainmanjr What are you so afraid of, man?

@rainmanjr Not everyone takes things to extremes. You seem to have a dark view of human nature.

@snytiger6 Looking back over history I find no examples of a ruling power that didn't go to extremes. Billy Joel goes to extremes so it happens of its own accord. Not individuals but humans will never begin to check their appetites so groups don't have a sense of proportion. We are proving it now and you regularly post extremes.

@snytiger6, @TomMcGiverin I'm afraid of nothing, since I won't be around and am no longer working, but my Nephews and sons of friends, might like to not be shut out from work or other competitions. Pendulums always miss equilibrium and go too far. We have a chance to correct shutting out anyone but white men, on average, and do better but Feminism (as an organized group) won't do that. I favor Human Rights Org for one that will achieve the same thing but go too far for every identity group.

@rainmanjr Considering how in 50 years, misogynistic Christian males have been able to take away abortion rights from women, I wouldn't be too worried about losing my or your privilege as a white male. If anything, women are still way behind men in their individual rights.

@rainmanjr Sounds like you favor a very fuzzy, generic type of reform effort, and it also, to me, smacks of a Libertarian slant on being against regulation of centers of power, such as business or government intrusion into civil liberties. I find your viewpoint suspicious, like you are saying you are for equality for all, but you don't want any of the advocacy groups that history has proved are necessary in order to get reform or equal rights. Reminds me of business groups that Astro-Turf or Greenwash in their PR campaigns.

@TomMcGiverin Again, I'm unworried about losing my privilege. I'm damned near a Taoist Monk so of simple lifestyle and, being retired, not in the way. It seems to me that the winds of change have put the female empowerment in motion, they now hold most jobs outside of CEO's (though that's rapidly conforming to this sea change). The Tipping Point has been reached and the rest will occur as it does. I do not care what my words smack of or how they seem suspicious. History has proven nothing about advocacy groups being necessary beyond a contagion point. Then the tribal population, being much less than the total population for Human Rights, for an advocacy group actually begins to make poor use of funds and efforts. The larger umbrella, life the NFL as opposed to a team, begins to move the issues downfield. That's just basic Strategy 101.

Well, no, it's not. It's an organized attempt to gain power. That would be fine except that we know that when a group changes the dynamic and gains power they don't stop at equal opportunity and wealth for everyone. That is not even the stated goal. Their goal is elevation of women to control of power. Legislation tries to gain equal treatment for all people.

I just answered @Storm1752

@rainmanjr I have him blocked, so that comment is not available to me.

@TomMcGiverin Storm agrees with you, and so do I.

I do. I grew up in the 60’s so maybe have a negative view from the Feminism of those days and where I came from but I see it as a political org. We know that political power is about domination and wealth so I expect no less from a fully female dominated society. For me, equilibrium is best achieved through a new ERA or equal legislation.

@rainmanjr I think most feminists want equal rights, not to replace a patriarchy with a matriarchy, but if I had my choice, I'd rather women ran things. After all they couldn't possibly do a WORSE job. Matter of opinion. We'll never know.

@Storm1752 Women can be just as vicous as a man. NOT going on a rant but if you had experienced my supervisor Nancy you'd understand.
Given the long history in the U.S. of apparently needing to demonize someone for when shit happens I ain't holding my breath.
The arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday weigh very heavy on me today.

@silverotter11 Thank you for stating the real.

@silverotter11 Yes of course, but neither here or there, and it's not saying much, but who would you have rather seen elected in 2016, Hillary or...that other guy? That wouldn't have had anything to do with gender, or even policies (though that would've had a LOT to do with it), but temperament and basic allegiance to the truth and democratic ideals. BUT on the other hand, SOME women are more 'gentled' and collaborative than SOME men.
Say what you will about Hillary (and Bill), she at least is sane.
I just get the sense men are comparatively territorial and confrontational. It's just that men have a way of elbowing others, especially women, out of the way. The loudest voice/biggest dick usually wins out, pardon the expression.
(Yes, I feel the same way about the Supreme Court thing. I'm just sorry we didn't see this coming back in 1986 when Reagan threw the Fairness Doctrine out the window. That's about 35 years of AM radio, free propaganda in the books, and in the minds of primitive, simplistic minds everywhere.. Don't think for a second that hasn't had a huge impact.)