My point is: you're exaggerating. The situation is not as you describe, but much, much milder. Just like President Putin exaggerates about the danger represented by Georgia (Saakashivili is a new Hitler! etc.)

Policy in the United States is enacted ON BEHALF OF WOMEN by the political and social system AS IF the only female voice is the extreme radical anti-male voice, the one I challenge and try to counter, despite your best efforts to stop me.

By all means, please continue to challenge anything you think is wrong. You just have to use arguments instead of mere claims. I'm glad to see that you're now against only the most radical anti-male voice, not against all feminists--radicals are a group I'd have no problems fighting against, too.

Right, only the radicals are worth fighting. Until recently, I was staunchly feminist, in the traditional sense, and I still believe women should have equal pay, voting rights, etc. I also believe until men turn their backs against feminism, they will never get women to listen to them and their own grievances because there is nothing to compel women to return the favor.

But you claim policy is made as if the radical anti-male group were the only female voice. Now, I can think of at least one counter-example. One of the most critically anti-male voices I know in feminism is that of MacKinnon and Dworkin. They've tried to influence laws on pornography for quite a while. Yet, as far as I know, they got only one ordinance ever approved (their anti-pornography bid) in Indianapolis--but a US Court District Judge soon struck it down. (The Canadian Supreme Court gave it credence and approved it, which caused, curiously enough, Dworkin's very own books to be apprehended by the police... It seems now this ordinance is not really applied even in Canada).

This is an example in which the extreme right anti-male voice was successfully countered. Not only that: more moderate feminists played a crucial role in countering this ordinance. I hope this example is sufficient to show that not all policy in the US is enacted AS IF the only voice were that of radical anti-male groups. I'll be happy to consider any counter-examples you'd care to give.

This is one example. I can counter with numerous other examples that show how the radical feminist agenda is driving the buggy.

The violence against women act is one. Why not the Violence Against ALL Humans Act? Why are men worth less?

Abortion should be illegal after the halfway point. This is just common sense, but the radical agenda of feminists is now mainstream.

How radical would it be to force women to register for the draft? Or for the courts to award the kids to the dads HALF OF THE TIME? Or for courts to mandate that since men are at a disadvantage vis a vis women since they lack a womb, that therefore laws need to be put into place to place men on an equal footing with women in terms of reproductive rights.

Radical, huh?