"If his true goal is equality between the sexes, doesn't that make him ... a feminist?"

No, it doesn't. Feminists promote a brand of "equality" that soley benefits women, on the theory that past discrimination warrant's preferential treatment, indefinately. Therefore, factions of the feminist movement feel comfortable minimizing the "boy crisis" because of the perception that helping boys hurts girls. Feminists defend "paternity fraud" statutes, like they did Califoria, without irony. NOW came out with a report (which could almost be characterized as fraudulent) stating that family courts are biased against women. Many feminists don't seem to think that a disproportionate number of women attending college is a problem. When women were treated unfairly in the educational system, we passed Title IX. When it is the guys, fuck 'em.

Maybe Hollander is a blustering baffoon. Maybe not. In any event, he represents a segment of society that feels slighted.

MILF's are generally well preserved, 30 something married women, and Cougars are middle-aged women who have thrown off the Victorianesqe morality that younger women can afford to have.

just saying.

But one has to ask oneself, "s there a group of women for which these rules work?" If so, why?

64% female

36% male

"...killing in response to words or conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged."

I find the aforementioned proposed language concerning. Furthermore, I want to see the data that shows that women are being ill served by the criminal justice system. For instance, here in the U.S., data shows that women who commit similar offenses to men are treated much more leniently.

The proposed regulation sounds like it was drafted by the purveyors of the theory that domestic abuse is an epidemic, and that all men are just one simple provocation away from battering.

"I put my wife through law school..."

- Gustatus Similis Pullus

_______________

There was this married women in my law school who's husband supported her. Within a few weeks of graduation...she filed for divorce.

of discressionary income, which has been described as, "a massive transfer of wealth from men to women," the fact that more women are willing to rail makes perfect sense.

please record your pieces in a room without bad accoustics. The echo rally detracts from your message, what ever it was you were trying to say.

for years. i would trade celibacy for the operation...since it costs like $50,000 to do everything right.

how a self described patriarchal religion came to be dominated by women? it seems antithetical to me. it would seem to me that guys would abandon religion if their lives become governed by the dictates of a demographic that wants to reign in masculine behavior using God as its moral authority.

Actually, that's why I don't understand why so many guys buy into Christianity. Like the Catholic Church. Even though the priesthood is male, the mainstay of Catholicism are by and large women (correct me if I am wrong). Why would any guy want to join an organization that says that even thinking of sex can lead to an eternity of skinny dipping in a lake of fire.

to girls determined to get pregnant is at issue at all? the girls didn't make a pact to go have sex, protected or unprotect, damn the consequences, but instead decided to get "PREGNANT." Offering birth control doesn't seem a reasonable argument in this situation.

you may not like it, but it is going to go mainstream soon. Look at San Francisco, and the Erotic Sex workers Provider's Union (ESPU), of which I am a member, is about to qualify to put a ballot measure on the November ballot in San Francisco to stop the enforcement of prostitution laws.

Women are happy to be single, and a new study was recently released which "set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage." It seems we want nothing to do with each other...and we're happy about it.

over 80% of America's disposable income has been known for a long time. If you look on what is on television, the medium is almost entirely geared toward women, because they are American's biggest consumers.

If you take the argument made recently by the AAUW regarding the "boy crisis," which is that there is not a boy crisis, there is a "some boy crisis," you could make the same argument the politics of gender and income. That is why the AAUW's argument will back-fire. When you do comparative disadvanage by measures more percise than gender, white women come out way ahead. It's enough to scare the bejesus out of any good feminist.

doesn't it? It's no more fun if you are a woman, than if you are a man. If a women is earning enough money that she is required to pay spousal support, then the argument that there is some amorphous, abstract sexism still at work that should preclude her from paying goes out the window.

33% of families have women who earn more? How does that comport with the 77 cents per dollar. I think there may be some cooking of the books here. Maybe politics is blurring reality.

It's about contacts and connections. Who inhabits your nepotistic universe? For instance, why is Billie Boy Kristol a columnist for the NYT? Nepotism. It has nothing to do with talent, competence or success. Just like compensation packages for CEO's have nothing to do with competence. Who you know, bro?

As once told to me:

"How long does it take a women to orgasm? Who cares."