Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am disgusted that such a sexist, homophobic, ignorant and misguided individual would call themself a feminist. A feminist is someone who beleives in social, political and economic equality of the sexes, not someone who puts on over the other.

Furthermore, evolution does not "teach" anything. It is a biological process, not the basis for a moral/ethical code.

And homosexuality is not a lifestyle, but a sexual orientation. Do some actual research before you condemn an entire group of people as inferior. You may also want to go and research the difference between sex and gender. Behavioral differences between the sexes are mostly social, not biological.

I will not accept your friend request. As a feminist, I beleive in EQUALITY, not the same bullshit structure where one gender is superior or the leader of the other. You are a manhater, you are ignorant, and you are sexist. You're everything that gives feminism a bad name.

Biological anthropologist Lionel Tiger, offers what he calls "a chronicle of the decline of men and the ascendancy of women." Profound social changes over the last several decades are rooted in reproductive technology, which "has given enormous general power to women that has been translated beyond the family sphere. The Decline of Males is a nonsexist brief on behalf of men, and it includes a number of interesting observations. As women play a larger role in public life, men are looking for new ways to be male in modern society .We cant ignore that males have declined since new and effective contraceptive technology, controlled by women and the new discourse of feminism have led to a pervasive social shift away from "male-centered production to female-centered reproduction

Evolutionary Feminism claims that only Darwinian biology can satisfactorily explain these changes .Matriarchal society is the best solution for the future . Over the past century, and especially in the past three decades, the feminist movement has intensively lobbied to secure women's reproductive rights. That battle has been won, but not simply due to political changes. The key reasons were technological: These technologies allowed women exclusively, and independently of their husbands, to control their reproduction. Reproductive power is no longer shared, albeit unconsciously, via the evolved desires and aversions of each sex. Today reproduction is controlled consciously and almost exclusively by women. So while women were gaining their own reproductive control, men were losing theirs. What reproductive rights do men have left today? So you cant say that woman and man are equal .
In addition, the resources that husbands traditionally have been able to contribute to reproduction and marriage -- financial support, protection, and socialization of their children -- have been supplanted, and sometimes replaced, by what Tiger terms government "bureaugamy" (women's dependency on the government, or the "government-as-husband"). What women historically relied on husbands to provide, now the state often antes up: child care, welfare, education, police protection, affirmative action and divorce laws that that favor women. The average female income is growing while average male income is declining. The majority of college undergraduates, 60%, are women. While female college enrollment continues to increase, male enrollment is decreasing… The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men. Instead of equitably quashing and working toward true mutual understanding and respect between the sexes, the feminist movement has succeeded in cheerleading a misandry that palpably permeates the culture.

With all that facts , we cant talk about equality in the terms of equal opportunity .Woman are simply, naturally better equipped for modern era . Our species has not evolved psychological adaptations to deal with modern reproductive technology -- what evolutionary psychologists call an "evolutionary mismatch, ,
Sorry , dear [My Myspace Name] , but third wave of feminism is gone .Fourth wave, Evolutionary Feminism just beginning.

The new feminism lead to matriarchal -
Natasha Walter is the author of The New Feminism and a columnist for the Independent.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/026-86
33077-1609222?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&fiel
d-author=Natasha Walter

"Im sorry for that .I respect your idea but equality between the sexes is a myth .
Equal opportunity- yes .But total equality is impossible, because woman are different biologically , and reproduction is controlled exclusively by women.
If we really wont to reach equality , we need to establish culture of matriarchal , and than we can provide equality for everyone .
"

That does not make any sense.

A matriarchy would be the same thing as a patriarchy, but the roles would be reversed. Women would hold most of the power, and men would hold very little power. That is not social, political, and economic equality, which, remember, is the goal of feminism.

Reproduction is not exclusively controlled by women. In the United States, women may legally have a right to abortion (in certain conditions) and the right to use birth control, but we still face many obstacles in actually obtaining these things. Furthermore, men are needed in reproduction. In the future, it may be possible to reproduce with only two females, but this would rely on a lot of technology and would probably not be very reliable. We would also be left with no way to reproduce if this technology failed. Besides: There is more to life than mindless reproduction. We are already overpopulated!

The biological differences between males and females, other than reproduction, are minimal. There are a few general differences, but the sexes share more similarities than differences. Most differences are social, not biologically programmed. Boys and girls are treated differently starting from birth, and this accounts for most of the differences between them. Remember: Sex is biological, but gender is a social construct.

Even if the sexes were inherently different, why should one be given any more rights or privledges than the other? Not long ago, people misused science to say that men should rule the world and that women are inferior and to justify taking away their rights. These were horrible times for women. Surely, you understand at least a little what it is like to be discriminated against because of your sex? Well, a matriarchy would do that to men. Men would be told that they are secondary, inferior, and need to stay "in their place", which would be under the control of a woman. They would suffer. Eventually, they would probably uprise and there would be a masculinist revolution.

Two wrongs do not make a right, as the saying goes.

"Patriarchal society not start oppress women only yesterday. They have been doing it since the dawn of time. In third countries lack of jobs and poor world economy excruciate the already depressive situation. Let's be realistic, were you expecting that that kind of culture to produce superheroes that respect women? The only way to change things is in societies that are controlled by women, that is, the matriarchal societies in the western democratic states ."

I don't know what you're talking about. In the United States, patriarchy is alive and well!

And Democracy and Matriarchy have nothing to do with one another. The reason women are doing so well in countries like the U.S. is because we have a high degree of equality. Legally, our rights are almost totally equal. But socially, we still have a lot of problems and it's still a patriarchy.

"Evolutionary Feminism claims that only Darwinian biology can satisfactorily explain these changes .Matriarchal society is the best solution for the future . "

You have a deep misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. I'm sorry, there's just not a nicer way to say it than that. The only thing I think might help is if you visit this site and read up a bit: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

It's not a moral or societal code, and should never be used as such. In the past, Herbert Spencer applied what he called "survival of the fittest" to people; specifically, poor people. It was used to justify leaving people to fend for themselves.

Social Darwinism is a perversion of evolutionary theory. It relies on the Naturalistic Fallacy, the idea that just because something is natural, it should be that way. For example, a broken arm should stay broken because it is naturally broken. Furthermore, humans are social animals. We imrprove our "fittness" by taking care of each other. Even if you do try to apply survival of the fittest to human behavior, you would end up realising that it is in our best interest to treat each other well.

"Over the past century, and especially in the past three decades, the feminist movement has intensively lobbied to secure women's reproductive rights. That battle has been won, but not simply due to political changes. "

As I said before, the battle for reproductive rights is not over. The Supreme Court just banned a procedure for late-term abortions even after being told by medical organizations and doctors that it was the safest and was often medically necessary. Young women are sometimes subject to parental consent laws that put the control of their bodies in the hands of their parents. Poor women often cannot afford reproductive healthcare. The "Pro-Life" (anti-abortion) movement in the U.S. is very strong, and often manipulates women into thinking they cannot abort or tries to shame them for doing so. There are pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control. In many ways, or reproductive rights are limited or threatened.

"So while women were gaining their own reproductive control, men were losing theirs. What reproductive rights do men have left today? So you cant say that woman and man are equal .
"

The only reproductive "rights" taken away from men are the rights to control or own a woman's body. He cannot force her to become pregnant, remain pregnant, or end a pregnancy. Men still have the right to reproduce or not, but since pregnancy happens inside a woman's body, he has no control over that. The woman must consent to pregnancy.

Nothing has been taken away from men in this area except the "right" to violate women's rights.

"In addition, the resources that husbands traditionally have been able to contribute to reproduction and marriage -- financial support, protection, and socialization of their children -- have been supplanted, and sometimes replaced, by what Tiger terms government "bureaugamy" (women's dependency on the government, or the "government-as-husband"). What women historically relied on husbands to provide, now the state often antes up: child care, welfare, education, police protection, affirmative action and divorce laws that that favor women."

A lot of the sources you're using are anti-feminist propaganda that plays on men's fears of losing dominance in society. Are you aware of that?

The sentiments expressed above are those of a frightened, bitter white male who has lost privledge.

What's more, they just don't make any sense!

"The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men. Instead of equitably quashing and working toward true mutual understanding and respect between the sexes, the feminist movement has succeeded in cheerleading a misandry that palpably permeates the culture."

This is another feminist-phobic piece of propaganda.

A true feminist does want equality and never bashes men just for being men. Most of the "male-bashing" you see in women--and I see more of it in women who are NOT feminists than women who are-- scoffs at male privledge and chauvanism. It's backlash. The feminists I associate with, and almost all feminists I know, do not bash men or seek female superiorty.

For someone who claims to be a feminist, you sure use a lot of anti-feminist stereotypes to make your points. ...But this may be because you're actually a misandrist and you have taken the stereotypes to be a positive thing.

"With all that facts , we cant talk about equality in the terms of equal opportunity .Woman are simply, naturally better equipped for modern era ."

"Better" is a subjective term. You can't prove that one sex is better than the other. Please stop pretending that your sexism is supported by scientific evidence.

"Sorry , dear [MYSPACE NAME] , but third wave of feminism is gone .Fourth wave, Evolutionary Feminism just beginning."

Gone? As far as I know, we're still in it. Evolutionary feminism makes no sense and is not scientifically supported.

And besides: We don't need another wave. We need a steady, unified flow. A river.

You sound like one of those neoliberal women that spouts off about how much you hate radical feminists, this goes with how much you love gay men but hate gay women, and all that other stuff.