Let's see... there's so much to comment on. I'll stick to basics.

Where are all the female grunts, roustabouts, tunnelers, Purple Heart winners, miners, high-iron workers, fishers, construction workers, fire jumpers, etc.?

Kept away by society. My mother-in-law was a high-iron worker for a while, and got so interested in metals she became a specialist, till her husband told her to stop. Then she became an aeronautical engineer and started building airplanes. But of course that was in the old USSR... so it doesn't count? You tell. Hey, MMM, you should be on the streets fighting for these rights.

Besides, when a man is denied access it's because he is, individually, "unworthy."

Catty, catty, catty. And soooo anti-feminist :-)

I hope you won't deny that you are predictable?

Ouch, Assheap. That smarts. How dare you compare me to that dead bimbo.

Actually, she's one of my favorite stars. And your own anagram looks funny. I'll change my name to it if you change yours accordingly! :-) I hope it doesn't smart too badly? It wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings. Yours was. I actually like Marilyn Monroe, do you like ass heaps (whatever they are)?

But so what, really. Her mommy was nuts. That explains all.

What? Are you implying something about yourself? I got confused!...

Yes, yes. Men aren't allowed feelings. Certainly not feelings that justify anything. It's okay for a pampered white woman in America to get "angry" about a Tibetan woman mugged in Nepal. No one asks HER if she was mugged.

Men are allowed feelings, but they're not arguments. You try to give arguments, which is a good point about you. But so much of what you write is just hurt feelings and the same same things repeated again and again, without any attention to the other side... You ignore everybody else's feelings too. Which does not bode well for your cause.

And let a man give money to a rape prevention group and no one will accuses HIM of being raped.

What?

In fact, when feminists WANT male support they say it's "everyone's" duty to get involved

If I were a feminist version of you, I'd say, with a typical attempt at sarcasm: "Yes? As in when they say men should get involved in preventing male rape in prisons? Oh Why do men always complain about feminism, and then let feminists do their activism work for them" or something like that. It would be exaggerated, but that's the hallmark of your style, so I'd say it would be good. Maybe I should do a few mock posts in your style for you to criticize.

But let a man critique anything about feminism and out come the putdowns, all attempting to silence him.

Hm, who exactly is trying to silence you? Your posts aren't even being deleted. I think you'll agree this is a textbook example of an unwarranted exaggeration. You sound here just like the 'crying feminists' you so vehemently oppose. Yet more evidence that the extremes resemble each other...

He must "hate all women" or his "mother wore (or did NOT!) combat boots," etc.

I don't think anybody here thinks you hate all women; only all feminists. It's simply that you don't have a logical reason for that. Instead of naming names, comparing ideas (feminism, as redshooz curiously pointed out, has so many different schools of thought, from Solanas to Palin...), you should repeat the same points in mock-revolutionary ideas, like a Che Guevara still looking for the Sierra Madre... but cite names? Discuss data? Ideas? No, that would be soooo feminist, right?

"I keep hoping these people will someday actually want to discuss points, rather than simply throwing little bombs." Feminists? Never. All they DO is thow bombs...even if most are duds and/or "stinkers."

See? I was talking about you, not feminists; but actually you're so similar to feminist extremists that it's easy to see how you could be confused. I must stress, however, that there is a difference between you and extreme feminists: the "wo" syllable. They hate men, you hate women. They want to debase men, you want to debase women. Etc. etc. etc.

Have I exaggerated? You don't really hate women? Just feminists? Ooohh... So you do understand what exaggeration is, right?

And still I keep hoping someday you will want to discuss points rather than simply "thow" little bombs. Why be so similar to extreme feminists? Are they your role models?

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.

I'm sure some would, but... Men like power, too, not only sex. Power is good for power's sake; sex is one of the perks, but hardly the only one. Besides, I'm sure most men are much deeper, more complicated beings than you imply with this blatantly anti-male claim! :-)

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.

A good point, and one that I'd like to see discussed. But, for right now: isn't Sarah Palin a counterexample?

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.

This kid is also a human being. And if McCartney was the father, shouldn't his money be used to support the child? Or do you think fathers have no obligations towards their children? Of course, this opens the door for exploitation by the mother. Maybe the solution would be to make the money be available only for the child's needs--school and nannies, not vacations in Acapulco.

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?

Since the women were forced back to their homes, we will never know the answer to your question. Their bosses and the government, so anxious to get their boys back, made it impossible. But it would be interesting to speculate how men would be now if that had actually happened. It might have been better for them.

How many 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.

Many do: Therese Bonney, Janet Flanner, Clare Boothe Luce... to cite a recent, non-WWII example, there's Anna Politkovskaya in Chechnya; she ended up dead, presumably because of her anti-Putin stance. And many men also want cushy jobs, not high-paying ones. They also seek safety, not risk-taking. As for the women who don't seek these jobs, are you sure they're doing this because it's their "female/feminist nature", or could it be that society around them still tells them that's what they should do? How about asking a few women, for a change? One might think they might have something relevant to say about that... (The same thing goes for the men who don't seek high-risk jobs--you would want to know their opinions, right?)

MMM, there is a good chance that the reason why there aren't many women doing these things is similar to the reason why there aren't many women conductors: not enough time has passed yet. The number of women war correspondents and women conductors has increased. If this goes on, we'll eventually have the parity you want.

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.

This sounds much like what feminists recommend. At least the ones I've talked to. Who exactly are you reacting against?

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.

Again, I'd rather you named names. Who exactly is ignoring men's real lives? As I keep saying, pretty much all feminists I've talked to in my life do not fit in this category.

(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)?

Sure. The law is discriminatory. The point is: the law was not made by feminists. It was actually made by anti-feminists who thought women weren't fit for being soldiers, so they shouldn't be recruited or drafted. These anti-feminists are the guys (yes, guys) you should be trying to fight against--if you really believe in equality.

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?

I can only speak for myself. But frankly, I would not at all be surprised if lots of feminists wanted to go. You see, the burden of the proof is on you: where have you found any feminist who says the draft law is as it should be, and that only men should fight for their country? (I've seen pacifist feminists who are against soldiers, period; but they're also against draft laws, because they think there shouldn't be any soldiers, male or female.)

MMM, unless you can show that feminists do want to maintain draft laws as they currently are, I think you're setting up a straw man (woman?) instead of looking at reality.

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.

Remember that all this 'nurturing' story started with men writing in these terms about women; it's part of a society that maybe still tends, as it used to, to discourage women from developing their non-nurturing and empathetic sides.

Also, considering how many women, feminists or not, protested against war, your statement is a clear exaggeration (another straw woman?). The female gender is clearly NOT perfectly content to let men suffer and die unequally. They fight for these men not to die and to come back home. After all, these men are their sons, husbands, fathers.