OK, I'll do one more, since you decided to react to my post to Parson Jim. Here I go:

"Parson Jim, you sound angry at something." TRANSLATION: You are a male. You have all the power. Therefore, you have no right to "feel" anything but privileged. Women own emotions. Only they can express those emotions without being put down. Were her critics right when they said, "Ms. Steinem, you sound hysterical"?

Nope. TRANSLATION: "Parson Jim, you sound angry at something." And maybe he has a reason to be angry, though he never stated it overtly. I presume he's had some bad experience with someone -- a feminist, or a woman, or both -- and still resents it. But I might be wrong. Of course he's entitled to his emotions. Why do you think I wouldn't allow him to have emotions? Where did I ever say that? You see, this looks like more evidence of bias from you. And what has the quote about Ms Steinem got to do with Parson Jim's emotions?

"I don't see why you don't use arguments...." TRANSLATION; "I disagree with your arguments."

Nope. TRANSLATION: "I don't see why you don't use arguments...." = I couldn't find any arguments in your posts. Other than the claims that feminists are bad, and that he has relatives in the Middle East, I didn't really find any. Did you? (He had a point, though, about Ms Clark-Flory overgeneralizing about Muslims. This is indeed correct. Just as my point -- that he overgeneralizes about feminists -- is also correct.)

" 'you can, if you want, just get angry...'" You mean like feminists "just got angry" for the past 50 years?

Hm, two things here. (a) No, I mean 'just get angry' in the sense of 'presenting no arguments'; I said nothing about feminists in the last 50 years; how did you see that in what I wrote? (bias again...) (b) it seems to me feminists did a lot more than get angry in the past 50 years, both good and bad.

"And the 'feminists' might cite other bad decisions that victimized women, then throw other overgeneraliztions and exaggerated accusations." And, of course, those female exaggerations regarding rape, domestic violence, short-changed girls in schools, etc. have had no impact on societies?

Yep, they have. Just like old generalizations about women being subordinated to their husbands, or belonging in the home, or being destined only to be mothers and have children, or not having rational minds... etc. also have had an impact on society. So? What's the point? That generalizations, if widely believed, can impact society? But we all know that, don't we?

"throwing in lots of anger anger on top of every case." Again, when feminists get angry they deem it "empowering," a motivating force for change. When men get angry, it's put down...like calling men whiners who express pain openly.

Why "again"? It's the first time you say this. Indeed, some feminists said that "anger" is empowering, but others deny that. And in a discussion, I think all rational people -- including all rational feminists -- agree that arguments, data and logics are what's necessary, not anger. (You want some examples of such feminists? I'd say Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Katie Roiphe... to mention only the women.)

"Anger blinds us," So, feminists finally admit they are blind! Praise be!

Hm, only when they're angry, like all humans. But why do you say 'feminists' here? Oh I see! You think I'm a feminist. Actually no, I'm not; despite admiring many feminists, I do refuse the label because I think it's nowadays too vague and can be associated with people and ideas that I totally disagree with (e.g. Andrea Dworkin, Catharine McKinnon...). I prefer to think I'm a person who doesn't believe in stereotypes.

"there apparently are also some people who became so offended with these fairy tales..." Ones like "Women can't do math" and "Blacks are lazy" and "Jews are cheap"?

Yep, exactly. What's the point?

"just like there are many men who are not oppressive rapists (in fact the overwhelming majority)...." How often has THAT been said during the past 5 decades?

Quite often, actually. Have you seen the works of the feminists I mentioned above? Say, Paglia's Sexual personae, Roiphe's The morning after, Hoff-Sommer's Who stole feminism? and The war against boys, McElroy's Sexual correctness, Young's Ceasefire? You'll see this claim repeated there again and again. Do a google search and you'll find some articles on these books (including negative reactions from other feminists, those who fit your criticism better -- you see, there are different kinds of feminists...)

"there are also many feminists who are indeed concerned with real-world questions and problems with bad consequences for real-world people..." No. Sorry. Those people are humans. Feminists, by definition, are concerned only about females.

Sorry too, but they describe themselves as feminists and they are also concerned with females (who, after all, are also real-world people). They wrote feminist literature, they use the word feminism, they go to feminist conferences... Obviously you have a biased definition of 'feminist'. More or less like saying something like 'men are only those people who have long beards and thick moustaches'... which would exclude a number of us from the team :-)

"But have you really missed all the places where more normal discussions can be had? There are many on the internet." None, sorry to say, are feminist forums.

Well, you're in one of them, actually. :-)