you must be leading a sheltered life.

I personally, if I had a choice, would like to know (or at least had some meaningful estimate) of the relevant numbers and percentages before I committed myself. Don't know where to get them though.

is enough to get more women to go conservative.

because if it is not you women defending your men and admitting that you women are also half of the decision makers on this planet, then your wish WILL come true, with men being ever more marginalized on this planet until someone DOES pull the trigger and launch a killer XY only disease on all men, just to finally 'satisfy' you women.

... do you think women would then be happy in this oppressor-free feminist paradise?

No way, even if they all become lesbian, they would be miserable about their jobs, about their bodies. They would criticize each other the same way they do it now for dressing this dress or this other dress (men don't do that). Stay-at-home mom would fight against working moms and single mom against lesbian marriage moms.

Married women are miserable, single women are miserable, divorced women are miserable. Which is the common term here? They have to rationalize their misery so they think this is because of men. But if the men were gone, they would find other thing to complain and whine about like spoiled children. So although men are useless bycicles for fishes, we at least serve as an useful excuse for rationalizing women's misery.

Hey, I DID get rid of ONE man ;-)

Dick, darlin',

it is simply not true that women (well... my straight friends) do not value men for the same carnal reasons you say 'men' [only] value women for. There are a few levels here

As I stated humourously to you in a previous related thread: were there fewer men, "they would take their rightful place as the playthings of women." There are some gender tweaks in the equation, though. One noteworthy item is the comparative value women place on style, wit, and charm. In such a 'man lite' Utopia (literally: 'nowhere land' - the absolutely intentional meaning of the word on Voltaire's part; the man was an übergenius), women would, of course, weight our male preferences just as we do now. I know (personally) very few women who would ever want to throw the intelligent, witty, charming guys out with the asshole bathwater. When we start eliminating you dudes (*smirk*) keep that in mind. Even YOU don't like assholes, so why would we? BTW, even I can get turned on by real charm. Why, just a couple weeks ago... [ehem]

Where was I? Quite the agent provocateur, aren't you Dick?

As far as valueing women only for their sexual desirability, that is as absurd as the converse. You can't be serious. My friends - man or woman, charming or sexy, all have got a helluva lot more going for them than just that. If I were setting the rules of Utopia, I would be sorely tempted to make it a Meritocracy. If you don't have something meaningful to contribute, then you're out

Good thing I'm not, though. I drive a 'Sped' (Special Ed) bus; I'd be out of a job; I'd lose my kids. Maybe this existing effed-up world the way it is isn't such a bad world

I don't see.... maybe I missed it... women here calling for the extermination of men. But we sure do see alot of boys calling for it in the letters section.

Isn't that odd? These "men" come here and stroke themselves while denouncing men, looking for some emotional brownie points from their surrogate mommies here at BS.

I've long said, it isn't women or feminists that men have to worry about in this day an age, its the fake man-boy who calls himself a feminist, who, incapable of actually ever becoming a man, spreads the most virulent misandry imaginable. They, of course, are exempt. They are virtuous, enlightened men- thus disproving the very points they are trying to make about all men. No matter, they go on, sensitive and enlightened, "nice guys"..not like all the rest of us war mongering, violent savages.

They, like feminists, decry the world that men died and suffered to make as best they could against the forces of nature. All the while enjoying the fruits of all those "savage" mens sacrifices and labors. They sit in the comfort of their air conditioned homes, in a free country, drive their cars down the roads and wake up every day safe and sound to sit in front of their computers to write about how horrible those men are who made it all possible to begin with are.

It was the "violent" "horrible" males who fought the savages, hunted the food, built the roads and building, died at sea... it was, and is, those horrible testosterone fueled men who made/make it all possible back when death and pain where the prices nature charged for exploration, food, safety. And so it will always be.

But these man-boys realize, deep down, that they lack the balls for any of it. So they hide behind womens skirts, kissing mommies asses and decrying the very men and testosterone they owe their pathetic lives to. Funny thing is, women see right through these ass kissing, nice guy wusses for what they are.

a woman just has to be a woman and can have all of the obnoxious characteristics that disqualify men and still have (some)opportunities. I doubt this will ever change, but it is interesting to wonder whether it could vary, somewhat, depending on the situation. As far as altering the gender balance of society it isn't a question of getting rid of men but of women choosing to have female children and in the case of lesbian couples that is the only kind they can have.

If men didn't like asshole women, or like them well enough, the population would be much smaller than it is.

that women, even AGAINST their better judgment, unconsciously choose the biggest asshole men over 'lesser' men because it helps to ensure brood survival against potential enemies.

In other words, nice guys HAVE NO HOPE.