"Have you noticed that as soon as a female moves into a particularly exclusive male domain, the men eventually leave that profession and find a new territory to dominate?"

Not really. Men go where the money is because money/power is what women seek in men. If hotties opened their legs to dirt farmers Wall Street boyos would become sharecroppers overnight.

Women who work less hours at less intense fields lessen the money paid them. When a zillion women become part-time mommy-lawyers they dilute the field. Men who commit to longer hours and uninterrupted years of service have better chances to make partner. Not all "men," of course. Just a few. For every man atop the pyramid there are a zillion at the base, ones women don't heed.

They are countered by females who claim kids post-divorce to "earn" half a man's assets. Paul McCartney had to actually work, make money, utilize his gifts. His ex just had to pop a kid out of a vagina-linked "oven" and hire nannies. No one expected her to actually earn her keep or do anything useful.

A woman who elects to be a brain surgeon will make as much as a man doing the same. If she chooses to be a vet working with doggy-woggs, she won't.

By the by: What would have happened if women kept the jobs they took over when men left to fight overseas? Would they have been happy with guys staying home, raising kids, watching war movies while tying fly-lures for fishing?

"Look at all the talking female heads holding down the desks on the cable news shows. But look at all the men with the special news segments that dominate the entire news channel."

How many of the women go to war zones or cover stories where weather is inclement and contacts/sources/informers sometimes sordid? The women want cushy jobs, not high-paying ones. They seek safety, not risk-taking.

"when he isn't trapsing off across the world..."

And just how often do the lasses traipse anywhere but the powder room?

"it's a man's world and...we'll just have to keep fighting them for a piece of the action."

You don't fight by bellyaching. You don't fight by clamoring for the same pay for different work. You don't fight by using different standards. You don't fight by saying what you want to, or will, do. You fight by doing. You fight by paying dues.

Stop being feminist and start playing fair. Equal is equal, not what feminists say/hope it is. Women will never get what they SAY they want by continuing to ignore men's real lives, either. Instead, they will continue to be seen as coddled, special-pleading, spoiled brats.

Finally, for those who pooh-pooh the idea of males alone having to register with Selective Service because there is currently no draft:

First, why is okay to penalize men now with threats of jail, no college loans, etc.? Shouldn't guys face the penalties women do (that is, none)?

Second, what happens when a draft IS imposed? Will feminists say they "would" go to war but, shucks, they can't since they aren't in draft registries?

Females again conveniently duck the hard stuff in peace and war (and in-between!). They really-really-really want to be treated equally...except when they don't.

The gender which claims to be more nurturing and empathetic is perfectly content to let men suffer and die unequally. No feminist will EVER complain that men are over-represented in national military cemeteries.

Yes, classical conductors may make good money, but not compared to CEOs of large corporations.

Still, they make much more than most 'real' men and women do. And I still stand by my point--to which you offered no contention (I suppose you agree with it?)--that feminism encouraged women to pursue their own dreams, not simply CEO careers. The pressure on women to do that was not more than on men.

I am not anti-feminist. I am anti-the automatic accusations of sexism that arise over the most trivial issues.

Good, that's some progress. So am I. We agree, then. Now, of course, you have to demonstrate that the accusation is not good. I've done a better job of that with my link to a website that lists about 400 women conductors--showing the problem is small or actually being solved--than you have with all your posts.

The very fact that many women in this country consider Sarah Palin a "feminist" is very telling about how virtually meaningless the term has become.

I beg to disagree. Gov. Palin belongs to an association called "Feminists for Life". That means she is a feminist, even a member of a feminist organization.

But, surprisingly, I do agree that the word "feminism" has so many meanings in today's world--like e.g. "socialism". This is the main reason why I do not call myself a feminist (or a socialist)--there are things going on in these two areas that I don't agree with.

Asephe stoops to personal attacks regarding my intelligence.

Hm, actually that's what you do. For example:

it was Asephe, being from another country (if not another planet)

Can you explain the parenthetical comment as anything but a personal attack? If taken literally, it would imply proof that your intelligence is not up to standard, since no sentient life capable of writing to a Salon letter thread has yet been found on other planets. (That, and, of course, the fact that you misspell my name, when all you'd need to do is copy and paste.)

As far as having facts at my disposal, I was under the impression that letters to the editors was a place for opinions not news reports.

Opinions need to be discussed and compared, hence the need for arguments and evidence. Look up serious discussions threads here, and you'll see serious people indicating links to sources of information: websites, books, newspaper articles, etc. I guess it all depends on how seriously you want to be taken.

it was Asephe [...] who did not realize that serious penalties await young men who do not register for the draft. (That's one I made sure to look up on the internet.) I believe he called my point "dull" since the draft was not active at the moment.

It is indeed dull, because these penalties can be easily circumvented by registering. Which makes your point moot. Unless of course McCain wins, makes the draft obligatory for some war or other, in which case your argument will get a few teeth. And that was not pointed out by me, it was pointed out by bigguns long ago in another thread. You should keep records. To summarize: registration simply implies that you have to sign a few documents, and then you're free to go. End of the question.

Now, what you fail to mention is that most feminists agree that the draft laws are discriminatory, and that it is non- or anti-feminists who are responsible for them, not feminists. Usually the reason given is that women 'are not good soldiers' or some other inane stupidity. These non- or anti-feminists are the ones in whose blogs you should be posting your questions, not here. You still have not responded to that.

And still, NO ONE (male or female) has been able to site ONE law that applies adversely to WOMEN only.

The abortion laws have already been mentioned by more than one person. You replied something insensitive about men not having wombs. Then you got a reply about this being the reason why it's so hard to have an abortion--if men could have it, it would be available in any 7-11. You still have not responded to that.

If "feminism" would, in fact, live up to its claim of wanting equal rights and opportunites for men and women, this wouldn't be an issue.

If the draft law--which feminists (no quotes) oppose--is the only example you can come up with, I fail to understand your outrage. Even I could come up with better examples (children custody laws, restraining orders, etc.)--especially in view of the fact that feminism agrees with you in condemning the draft laws. You still have not responded to that.

Thank you and bless your hearts.

Thank you and bless your heart! I hope it will answer! :D