AVERAGE men have less power in lots of ways than do AVERAGE women, and things are getting WORSE for the men. So even in a world with many types of people, policy is still enacted to reflect a deep, innate hatred of men and mankind by the power system, which consists of wealthy men and their feeder structure of ALL women.

Frankly, I don't see that. I see men employed in all kinds of jobs; I see men playing all kinds of roles, at all kinds of levels, in the administration of this country, in industry, in research... Where exactly do men have less power than women? In what areas? I can think of no area or profession anywhere where there are no men; and even those where men are fewer than women are usually the 'traditionally feminine' areas (nurses, schoolteachers, etc.) in which women were working long before feminism. So: where exactly do average men have less power than average women? In what jobs? In what area of society?

Work is not everything. You have been blinded by feminist arguments. The realm where things matter the MOST, the home, is still a woman's domain. Men are invisible there except at the invitation of women. Women like things the way they are in the home, they do not bring up the disadvantages men have in this realm, so it is invisible to you and to other men.

Think about it, then get back to me.

As far as the power system disregarding men, look at the laws that hand over power to women at the expense of men. I alluded to some above, there are more of them.

I am working on improved methods to describe this hatred of men, better examples, more detail. There is a ways to go.

Structuring your arguments better is always a good idea. Let me encourage you to do exactly that. (A book you may enjoy consulting, because it has many arguments that I think you would like to use, is Chirstina Hoff-Sommers' The War Against Boys. She also has a lot of documented evidence that you might want to cite, and attacks many pro-female "affirmative-act-like" education initiatives. I hope you don't mind that she's a feminist. Also, Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae has many admiring things to say about men and all the things they did for society; you may appreciate her psychological arguments. Plus, she's staunchly anti-Falludi. Of course, Paglia is also a feminist...)

I am a big supporter of Pags and have been since her first opus. she is to me the definition of a true feminist- one who believes in the strength and equality of women rather than one who seeks to cynically take advantage of gender loopholes.

I believe, that deep down men are selected by women to NOT be defensive or protective of their own gender but to serve women's whims. Unles a man drags a woman to the cave and rapes her, she has directed all his behaviors in the most selfish way possible towards her needs and whims (another thing feminism completely ignores).

I don't think so. Really, I've met many women--beginning with my mother and my two sisters--who actually told me to defend myself and not let other people, including other women, take advantage of me. And they were not the only ones: most of the lovers I had also said similar things to me.

I think I have noticed something like what you describe, except it cuts both ways, and is much wider in scope. In most relationships, partners are never really 'fully committed' to each other, despite claiming that they are: a lot of things must be negotiated because their interests do not always coincide. The man wants some things the woman doesn't want, and vice-versa. In the bad cases, they fight, or manipulate each other via feelings of guilt, etc., to do what the other wants. This is indeed a very frequent pattern, not only in man-women relations, but in man-man or woman-woman relations too (friendships). Actually, I've noticed that even between parents and children.

And men are typically at a disadvantage since women, from a young age, are taught social manipulation techniques. this is why the skunks and weasels are the only men who succeed with women, teh rest are playing catch up in their relationhips and lives.

[Many] women ADORE that men are at such a disadvantage.

More evidence that women hate men more than vice versa. But you won't hear it from feminists or from the media. Again, I am not talking all cases, but typical cases.

Wish I had more time at work to detail out answers to your interesting threads instead of merely glancing at them.

it needs to be pointed out how feminism has distorted things.

JH writes:

On one level, the haters have a point. Now that someone born a man can become a wo-man, it seems to damage women's rights for such a person to claim a spot presumably belonging to a biological female.

Now reverse the sexes...

On one level, the haters have a point. Now that someone born a WOMAN can become a MAN (presumably by taking a man's livelihood, for instance), it seems to damage MEN's rights for such a person to claim a spot presumably belonging to a biological MALE.

I suppose you can argue that there is no protection for men, what is women's is women's and what is men's is also women's, but it only lends strength to the argument that men are being marginalized when we have nothing unique to demonstrate our value to women, such as said livelihood.

On the other hand, is either example a zero sum game? Hannaham seems to assume so.