Message for Mr Bad...

[MAUS]

re: MAUS -sure sounds like you've had some interesting life experiences. And, as far as I know, there IS no word for 'spinster' in French!?

Oh but there is "vieille fille" or "fileuse"...I learned more and better French in the first three months of actually living and working in Montreal than in eight years of taking it in school.

As to your question of wether or not MGTOW is a separatist group...not in the way that is taught in womyn's studies...sexual separatist groups always fade out without leaving any lasting imprint on society or on culture....MGTOW is grassroots and is setting in and growing at a rate that has even supprised me.

I will try to compose a parable that explains it.

A man is hungry and goes to an apple YOUPICK operation, now besides prefering organic, he is deathly allergic to what they spray on apples. So at the YOUPICK he gets into a heated arguement with the proprieter who is out spraying the apples.....

The proprietor assures him that if the apples were not sprayed, there would be a worm in every one of them.

The guy then pays his fee and asks to be directed to the part of the orchard that has not yet been sprayed.

There he selects an apple that has not been sprayed, but looks perfectly intact...upon picking it he notices a hole near the stem. By deft use of his pocket knife he pares the part of the apple that is edible and avoids and discards the rest.

Has this man committed any sort of wrong? No, he contracted for apple to fullfill his needs, he is not obliged to recieve under cohersion, duress, extortion, or shaming, any toxic pesticide or parasitic opportunist.

[Chris Key]

Hello Kate...Hugo and I were on Glenn Sacks radio show.....Hugo does not like me much I'm afraid....I am one of those evil masculinists who is a brother at MGTOW.

Hugo's main stance on the His Side show was based on a few feminist assertions that are yet to be validated.  It's why I don't take Hugo seriously.  He rarely has anything productive to say.  His arguments are merely assertions that are meant to incite hysteria among impressionable young women.  Based on this, I believe he's just an atention-seeker looking to impress young women.

Those type of men have always existed, as they know they can be successful with women by being pretentious and charming.  When I think about it, I cannot help but wonder what sort of damage those type of men and causing the young women in their lives, as it cannot be healthy for a young woman to view a pretentious charmer as an ally.

Does Hugo believe the propaganda that he spreads?  I seriously doubt it.

[Kate]

OK. I said I'd make a post on how and why I am a feminist, so I'm going to do that here. I'm not sure what 'category' of feminist I fall into, perhaps y'all will be able to discern it with the femdar: I used to be into queer theory rather than feminism, but I've come to appreciate that feminism has a lot of insights to offer, and whilst I don't agree with all of the conclusions that different feminists come to, I certainly don't see it as a 'failed philosophy.'

Before I do, I will make a small note on Hugo Schwyzer. As I've mentioned, I didn't come here to speculate on Hugo's character, motivations or blogging ethics. (For the record, I think he is an excellent blogger, who takes pains to analyse his own prejudices as he sees them and examines how they relate to his political philosophy - he's not forcing anyone to agree with him. To argue that he is censoring MRA arguments seems disingenuous - not only has he blogged extensively on the men's movement, but he has allowed MRAs to post for years, and their posts are archived for all to see).

If you want to discuss pro-feminist approaches to masculinity and debate the content of the arguments, that's a different matter.

So, why do I call myself a feminist? I will attempt to explain it as I see it. Feel free to question or disagree.

Partly, its out of recognition and respect for the many people - men and women - who have gone before me: I recognise that at no other time in history has a woman in my position had as many rights and priviledges as I do now. My life, my choices, my education - all would not have been possible without feminism and women's suffrage. I can compare my life to my mother's, my grand-mother's, my great-grandmother's. Without a doubt, I would choose my own - I have choices they never even dreamed of. Damn right it's a priviledge. However, my rights and priviledges are mine because I'm a human being, not a woman. All human beings should have them.

How did I come to recognise a need for feminism?

When I was younger, I had a great interest in philosophy. I remember one Christmas I got this book called "The History of Western Philosophy." I always wanted an answer to the question 'why are we here?' I still haven't found that answer, but its always interesting to ask the question and read about the great thinkers of humanity who have attempted to answer it.
As I got older, I started wondering why all the great philosophers seemed to be men. And all the great authors of literature. And painters. And polititians. And so on. I never really connected this to feminism at the time, since I was into reading the 'greats' who, on the whole, didn't tend to mention it. As far as I knew, feminism was just this thing that got women the vote, but it didn't really impact my life. I thought everyone was sort of equal on their own merits by the time I was born, and feminism was just this left-over, angry movement for women who liked to complain.
But still, the question of *why* all the books I liked to read were written by men continued to bug me. In my "History of Western Philosophy" men certainly outnumbered women. Here were philosophers attempting to answer the ultimate questions - the truth about human existence - and yet only one gender was expected to answer it. Humanity comprises at least two genders, I thought. And it seemed like I'd been born into the *wrong* one! What's more...it was quite clear that often, the author or philosopher was speaking, as it were, as a man to men. It wasn't just that I found this unfair to myself, and to all other women. I also considered that it was unfair to philosophy. How can we get at the truth if we only listen to one side of the story?

This was, I think, the seed of how I got started in feminism. I have come to realise now that my concerns were concerns of my time and place, and that, in a lot of ways, they were and are incredibly euro-centric and white-priviledged. I've come to realise that the questions I asked weren't as simple as they appeared, on the surface, to be.

What feminism means, for me, is the belief that the female experience deserves a voice - that women should be able to define themselves, and their position within society, and speak upon *all things*, and have equal authority with men, in deciding the meaning of their own lives, and the truth about human existence.
It also means that we should be able to investigate the female experience, and how and why it is similar between women, and how and why it is different.
Feminist analysis seeks to place women's experiences/women's voices at the centre of its discourse. It seeks to make women the subject rather than the object, and from there, investigate what it means to be a woman, from a female perspective. This is done because the prevailing, or dominant, social discourse is male.
This is not to say, in my view, that women's voices are more - or less - important than men's. It is to say, they are AS important.

One of the criticisms that feminists have levelled at male discourse is that it has tended to minimise, or ignore (intentionally or accidentally) women's experiences. This is why, I think, a lot of women who become feminists do so. To find a voice, voices, that speak specifically to them and of them.

Criticism of male discourse has indeed at times been angry. Where feminism has shown that some men have actively silenced/denied women a voice then feminists have rightfully become angry. Not angry at all men, but angry at some men (and indeed, some women who have supported this silencing). However, feminism is not just about anger, or destruction. If it was, I don't think it would have survived this long. It is also about hope, and using one's energy to find creative and effective solutions in fighting injustice and discrimination.

This is how *I* see feminism. I don't consider it non-debateable, nor do I think that men shouldn't be able to have opinions or criticise it. I am pretty much against censorship or prohibition-type legislation on most things, probably, since IMO they don't work. "A mind  changed against it's will is of the same opinion still" and all that. I'm not here to change YOUR mind, but to see whether my mind will be changed...

So with that in mind, I ask that anyone who is interested define the following: how do YOU define the men's movement? I know Gonzokid has his manifesto up here and it is put in the "what we are about" section. Do MRAs have to agree with this? Who gets to decide on the definition of YOUR movement? Must one hate feminism to be an MRA? Dr E seems to suggest not; in fact, by the dictionary definition many are feminists, apparently. So - who thinks feminism is something completely different from what I am saying? Am I just misguided as to it's true nature and intent? If so, then what or who do you blame for the perversion and misunderstanding of the 'dictionary definition.'?

BTW my next post, I will put my reply to the questions posed to me in the 'is feminism harming men and boys' thread. Dr E, I'll have to start a new thread to do that, unless you want to re-open the one there. I think there were some good and thoughtful questions asked so I want to reply.

[dr e]

Kate - Thanks for your response.  The "How Feminism has harmed" thread is open so feel free to post there. 

To argue that he (Hugo) is censoring MRA arguments seems disingenuous - not only has he blogged extensively on the men's movement, but he has allowed MRAs to post for years, and their posts are archived for all to see).

Firstly, your take on Hugo is off base.  Many here have been silenced by him for what seems to be ideological reasons.  I have been blocked from posting there as have many who are here.  If you think for one second that he is fair and impartial you are wearing very feminist colored glasses.  I am sure you will hear a chorus of folks here who will offer you a strikingly different view of Hugo than you seem to have.

I don't think you will find very many here who think that women should not have a voice.  Not a problem.  For myself I think that for centuries men and women have been limited in their actions based on mutually agreed upon rigid sex roles.  Women have been tied to the hearth as men have been tied to the plow, protection and administration of communities.  This has led to many instances where one sex has more opportunities than the other.  It is not proof of any sort of oppression or intentional mistreatment as the feminists will lead you to believe.  You mentioned the vote.  Did you know that men didn't get the vote in this country until the middle 19th centruty with the last state to allow men to vote being in the 1880s?  Our country was based on LAND OWNERSHIP as the variable that allowed only certain people to participate in government and governing.  Many men and women were excluded.  It resulted from long time agreements that people had worked out that by today's standards may not seem fair but looking at them from their time and place they made a great deal of sense.     Feminists now like to reframe history with women as innocent victims.  It is a tiresome propagandist's weaving in order to paint the desired picture.  I find it disgusting.  People are people, both men and women have had it tough and have had to sacrifice over the years.  Men have been excluded from the home, kept away from their children as they were growing up, forced to carry the burden of war by risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives for the common good.  Now I ask you, could we turn that on its head and easily make a case that it is men who have been oppressed?  Duh.  Forced to make money and provide and protect?  Ripped away from family life and forced to give their lives?  Who's oppressed?  LOL  Fortunately men don't frame their history in terms of oppression and I am glad we don't. 

My problem with feminism is not with giving women a voice or encouraging women to write or sing or administrate or whatever they want to do.  My problem with present day feminism is best described in the harm feminism has done thread and I will be curious to see your response there.

E

[Chris Key]

Kate,

Your argument that the rights and privileges you enjoy "would not have been possible without feminism and women's suffrage" [sic] is factually fallacious, as you're overlooking the fact that women have always been treated better than men in the Western world.  Women received a large amount of legal impunity under Old English Law.  The mantra was only those with rights were required to take full legal responsibility for their actions.  The legal impunity that women enjoyed under Old English Law isn't all that different to the way the sexes have been treated in Western world since.  For example, women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men under 19th Century Law.

Your mate Hugo won't tell you any one of this because it doesn't support his agenda.  Then again, he probably doesn't know much about the history of Old English Law, 19th Century law and feminism.  He's just a blowhard who incites hysteria over trivial issues that are meaningless in comparison to real issues such as paternity fraud and Family court bias against mathers.

When feminism diverged from socialism in 1848, the socialists who founded the movement wanted the same "rights" as men, but they also wanted to retain the legal impunity that was conferred on women.  As far as I am concerned, the 19th Century feminists were nothing but scheming parasites who were looking out for no one else but themselves.  They turned their backs on society and acted like petulent children, wanting everything without wanting to give anything in return.

Queen Victoria's stance on feminism was very astute.  All of the ills that she said would arise from feminism have come true.

Damn right it's a priviledge. However, my rights and priviledges are mine because I'm a human being, not a woman. All human beings should have them.

The privileges and rights that are conferred upon you are given to you because you'e a woman.  If you were a man then you wouldn't be given the legal impunity that is restricted for women.  Women who commit murder are given rather lenient punishments in comparison to what their male counterparts received.  According to the Battered Justice Syndrome article, women who receive custodial sentences for murder spend an average of 6 years in gaol.  Men on the other hand receive 18 years in jail.  Women are more likely than men to receive suspended sentences and other means of impunity based on subjective theory such as the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence.  There is no proof that "Battered Women's Syndrome" is a legitimate defence, yet it is still used to offer impunity to women who commit premeditated murder.  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a greater percentage of male defendants are given custodial sentences than female defendants.

If you were a man then you wouldn't be offered all of the Government-funded services that are exclusively reserved for women.  The legal representation that is offered to women for free during custodial disputes is not available to men in most jurisdictions.  There are far more examples I could offer to strengthen my argument on this subject.

If you were a man then your health issues wouldn't be given as much recognition as "women's health".  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, malignant neoplasms account for far more deathes than breast cancer, and most people who die from them are men.  Yet all the Government really cares about is breast cancer research.  My father had a melanoma on his foot.  He saw five different doctors about it -- none of them knew 'what it was'.  One of the cunts had a photo of a fucken melanoma on his wall, yet the dumb prick still didn't know what it was.  My father died from the melanoma, as the doctor's incompetence allowed the cancer to spread to hsi lymphatic system, liver and right lung.  If the cunts had have removed the cancer while it was only young, then he would have survived.  If a woman were to have run into his office with a complaint about a lump in her breast, then she would have been given first-class care and sent to the hospital for examination.  I blame feminism for it, because those cunts were instrumental in pushing breast cancer as a 'political issue'.  They lobbied for more attention to be paid to women's health at the expense of men's health.  There was an Australian feminist who threw a tantrum when men spoke about the way men's health is neglected by the Government.  She said "men are getting worried about their balls and want to be victims too".  That's the way feminists look at it.  They tell men that we should feel 'guilty' if we ask for just a minute of attention for the problems that primarily affect men.

As it's late I will leave my post there.  If you want me to cite my sources for all of the information, then I will do so -- just give me time and I will acquire whatever it is you want to 'validate' my claims.

[Kate]

Dr E:

"For myself I think that for centuries men and women have been limited in their actions.."

-agreed.

"...based on mutually agreed upon rigid sex roles."

-Nope. I have a big problem with this. How can one say such sex roles were mutually agreed upon? That sounds like men and women had equal agency whereas I don't believe they could have done: you even acknowledge that where women were tied to the hearth, men were tied to, amongst other things, "administration of communities." I just cannot understand how you acknowledge this yet refuse to see the situation as in any way slanted in favour of those who had ownership rights i.e. men. Women were legally the PROPERTY of their fathers or husbands, still are in some parts of the world, and yet you are refusing to admit this leads to any type of coercion or unequal treatment for women....same goes for the suffrage argument. I understand what you are saying as regards enfranchisement being tied to property. I believe it was this way in the UK prior to 1832. The law then DISenfranchised women (although, it is not the case that women had equal representation before that, simply that they were not specifically disenfranchised by law) until women were granted equal rights to vote in 1928. Come on. If disenfranchisement was such a fair deal for certain people then why has there NEVER been a movement from a group with voting rights who want to give up those rights in favour of a less responsible, more pleasure-filled existence?

Secondly, Dr E, your comment as regards not having a problem with allowing women a voice...it's a little disingenuous. We both know singing isn't really the issue. Hell, even slaves were tolerated at times to sing the blues. The problem was never really whether women should speak, write, sing literally. It was what they chose to speak, write and sing about.  Yes, we can move this conversation on to the other thread, to discuss feminism's content. But I will note that I have not been offered a plausible explanation for even the most basic, least controversial question that I asked above....why there were no female philosophers...feminism offers an answer to this, so why can't the MRM?

Chris Key - the issue of rights and responsibilities is a red herring. The idea that wanting rights without responsibilities is a specific fault of women is mistaken. The impulse towards selfishness - towards having your cake and eating it - may be found in all humans, and where anyone is granted rights, they have the opportunity to abuse that priviledge. But without rights, they are without power/autonomy (except power through proxy). In fact, Chris, your argument skewers itself - by your logic, before women were able to vote, they could not be held responsible for any policy of government.
I am not going to address the other points you raised. If you read my original posting on 'has feminism hurt men & boys' you will see why. I'm not here to stamp on people's pain or grief. I think you are grieving for your father. I wish you well.

[dr e]

Kate - It seems to me that there is a great deal more evidence supporting my position that women and men agreed over the millenia to their respective rigid sex roles.  Looking at my own mother, grand mother and great grandmother I see women who were happy in their "hearth" roles and each of them also was involved in some aspects of administration outside the home. Both my mother and grandmother worked outside the home when and if they desired.  Both went to college.  In the last century the roles were far more blended than our fem friends like to pretend.  It wasn't until the advent of feminism that this role division was seen as some sort of oppression.  My gracious.  Once it was forged as a compaint the roles have been shifting ever since.  Hardly the path of an oppressor.  It makes me chuckle that the radical feminists only look at the negative aspect to the female role.  They don't mention that women were not held responsible and were free from responsibility in many ways, that if they committed a crime often times it was the head of household who had to serve the sentence!  (This little tidbit continues to this day in our court system where women are consistenly held less responsible by receiving shorter sentences for similar crimes.  I don't see the fems complaining about that inequity.) The family was seen as a unit with father and mother held in high esteem for their different roles.  Women were revered and put on a pedastel, not oppressed.  Revisionist history is the name of the feminists game.  Your way of seeing things implies that women were unhappy sheep.  They didn't like what they were doing and simply went along with their dissatisfaction like a herd of stupid sheep.  I refuse to see women as being so numb and dumb.  Give me some evidence that women didn't like their roles over the last thousands of years.  I simply don't see it.

Why have there been so few female philosophers?  Well probably for the same reason there are so few female grand masters at chess, or so few females who are NASCAR winners, it simply is not their forte.  We have now had a couple of generations of feminism and we still don't see many chess grand masters or NASCAR champions who are female. Or philosophers btw!    Maybe they are innately better at different sorts of things?   

[Mr. X]

Partly, its out of recognition and respect for the many people - men and women - who have gone before me: I recognise that at no other time in history has a woman in my position had as many rights and priviledges as I do now. My life, my choices, my education - all would not have been possible without feminism and women's suffrage. I can compare my life to my mother's, my grand-mother's, my great-grandmother's. Without a doubt, I would choose my own - I have choices they never even dreamed of. Damn right it's a priviledge. However, my rights and priviledges are mine because I'm a human being, not a woman. All human beings should have them.

This always gets me when I hear women/feminists say this. So I'm curious. What do you consider priviledge? Here's a story for you. Its about the building of the Brooklyn bridge.

The bridge was built at a time in which we did not have massive earth moving machines, computers or safety equipment. The builders had to build deep pillars under the river, nearly 100 feet down into the river bedrock. To do this they constructed wooden boxes about half the size of a football field and sank them as bubbles under the water. Men (and I do stress MEN) worked in these bubbles under hundreds of tuns of water. If the air pumps stopped for a mere second, the bubble would flood instantly from water coming in from underneath. They had to dig with pick and shovel in the muck, mud, quicksand then into bedrock as the shaft sank deeper. They had no concept of the bends and all suffered from the bends. They routinely blasted with dynomite in these bubbles. They breathed smoke exhaust from fires, their own co2 and mortality was very high.

So I'm curious... who had more priviledge? The men who went every day to earn a pittance and risked never coming home and risked brain damage, and crippling in this environment

OR

The wives who stayed at home, raised kids, cooked, cleaned, did laundry?


There are three problems with your explanation that is typical with feminists.

1. You don't acknowledge that EVERYONE was pretty much SOL in history. Only a tiny minority of wealthy and aristrocrat had property rights throught history. For example, women couldn't own land in the US but that only lasted 40 years AFTER the general populace of men were allowed to own land. Romans, eqyptians, brits, germanic, slavic, chinese, japanese... nearly all societies never allowed anyone to own land, only a select few. For every case of women without priviledge I can match it with men not having priviledge. Of course it wasn't totally 50/50 but the fact is it wasn't 99/1 against women either.

2. You seem to deny any participation and sacrifice by men to help women. Your rights dod not come about by female pioneers alone. It was men and economic power that brought about female rights today. Gloria Stienmen waving her hands next to a volcano does not make that volcano erupt. Did it ever occur to you that women were going to get these rights whether they liked it or not.

3. Women are 50% of the population and are not helpless. There are too many examples of women being competant and powerful to assume 50% of the population could stay enslaved or oppressed WITHOUT THE CONSENT of the oppressed.

[Mr. Bad]

Kate - Thanks for your response.  The "How Feminism has harmed" thread is open so feel free to post there. 

To argue that he (Hugo) is censoring MRA arguments seems disingenuous - not only has he blogged extensively on the men's movement, but he has allowed MRAs to post for years, and their posts are archived for all to see).

Firstly, your take on Hugo is off base.  Many here have been silenced by him for what seems to be ideological reasons.  I have been blocked from posting there as have many who are here.  If you think for one second that he is fair and impartial you are wearing very feminist colored glasses.  I am sure you will hear a chorus of folks here who will offer you a strikingly different view of Hugo than you seem to have.

Count me as a member of that chorus.

Kate, the reason I asked you to come over here is precisely because Hugo heavily censors any and all comments that examine feminism in a critical way.  He's even stated openly that criticisms of feminism, placing responsibility on women for men's pain (or anything else), etc. will get people immediately banned.  We simply could not have these conversations at Hugo's space, nor any other feminist blog that I'm aware of.

Saying that Hugo is fair and impartial is beyond ludicrous.

As for the rest, I'll get to it as time allows. 

[Mr. Bad]

Oh geez, I really have to work but I can't let this slide.

Privilege: It pisses me off that since the rise of feminism what was once a relatively benign word gets me so worked up.  Feminists live in the Bizzaro World when it comes to privilege.

For example:  Women in the U.S. enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens as a matter of course, no strings attached.  On the other hand, men are not allowed to vote, take out a government loan, hold a government job, may be jailed, etc., if they don't register for the Selective Service and if called upon, go and fight - and perhaps die - for their country.  Therefore we have two classes in the U.S., those who enjoy all of the rights and privileges of citizens as a basic human right (women) and those who must earn that right by fighting and dying if required (men).  Does this sound like equality to you?  As a feminist, perhaps it does.

Examining the issue of voting and the draft more closely, consider this:  Since 1919 women have had the right to vote, no strings attached (men got the right to vote about 60 years earlier, after earning it by fighting and dying in horrendous numbers during our Civil War).  On the other hand, since about the same time women got the vote in 1919 (the WW-I era), American men have been required to register for the draft and go off to war before they were granted the same rights and privileges that women enjoyed.  Thus, at the very same time women were given the right to vote, men were downgraded to second-class status.  You might call this progress, but as a man I sure wouldn't?

Further, before the voting age in the U.S. was lowered to 18 years (I believe this occurred in the 1970s), many of the men between the ages of 18 and 21 who were drafted and subsequently died fighting for their country (most notably during WW-II, Korea and the early part of the Vietnam War) did so without ever having the right to vote for the men and women who were sending them to their deaths! This is the same time that the Second Wave of feminism took roots and grew, with notable members like Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Betty Friedan, et al., making a stink about women being "oppressed," "suffering domestic slavery," etc.  The hypocrisy and utter mendacity exhibited by those harridans was stunning.

That's why when feminists start in on "privilege" it makes me want projectile vomit and throw things.  Women in the West are IMO and experience the most pampered, spoiled and privileged people in human history, and IMO the fact that many of them buy-in to the feminist's bullshit does not speak well vis-a-vis their ability to exercise reason, logic and justice. 

[Mr. X]

That's why when feminists start in on "privilege" it makes me want projectile vomit and throw things.  Women in the West are IMO and experience the most pampered, spoiled and privileged people in human history, and IMO the fact that many of them buy-in to the feminist's bullshit does not speak well vis-a-vis their ability to exercise reason, logic and justice.

Add to that women have actually never waged a war to get their rights. MEN have waged the wars FOR THEM. Women have never organized an army, no 50,000 women ever were marched to death at Bataan, no 5 million killed in a civil war. And all this against a neanderthal oppressor who is an oppressive tyrant.

I'm curious about all these claims that feminists fought for women's rights.... how? How did they do this without one shot fired against such an oppressive opponent. unless that opponent WASN'T oppressive and that these women were helped or even pushed into equality. It makes no sense that we had to sacrifice 292,000 service men (MEN!) against Germany and Japan yet women have never fire ONE SHOT to win freedom from something even more insideous, evil and pervasive than Hitler.

Maybe women actually never fought at all for equality. Maybe men just shoved them out into the cold and said "now take care of yourselves, you don't need us anymore".

[Mr. Bad]

Maybe women actually never fought at all for equality. Maybe men just shoved them out into the cold and said "now take care of yourselves, you don't need us anymore".

Oh, if that were only true...   

[Chris Key]

Chris Key - the issue of rights and responsibilities is a red herring.

How is it a red-herring?  You were the one who brought up the subject about 'rights' and 'privileges'.  Let me remind you of what you said:

I recognise that at no other time in history has a woman in my position had as many rights and priviledges as I do now. My life, my choices, my education - all would not have been possible without feminism and women's suffrage. I can compare my life to my mother's, my grand-mother's, my great-grandmother's. Without a doubt, I would choose my own - I have choices they never even dreamed of. Damn right it's a priviledge. However, my rights and priviledges are mine because I'm a human being, not a woman. All human beings should have them.

Therefore, it is patently evidence that my reference to 'rights and responsibilities' was a direct reply to your comment about rights and privileges.

The idea that wanting rights without responsibilities is a specific fault of women is mistaken.

There are a minority of women who will accept the responsibilities that should accompany their rights, however on the most part, women as a class are not all that willing to assume the unfavourable jobs and tasks that have been primarily performed by men.  Therefore, it's fair to conclude that women as a class tend to want rights without responsibilities.  A rare excemption to the general rule doesn't mean that the general rule doesn't exist.

The impulse towards selfishness - towards having your cake and eating it - may be found in all humans, and where anyone is granted rights, they have the opportunity to abuse that priviledge.

Your point?  You're not telling me anything that I didn't already know.  Judges, legislators and police officers are a prime example of persons who take advantage of their 'rights'.  We have seen it with our very own eyes.  However, the fact is ordinary men are not given the power to abuse the small amount of rights that they have.  Therefore, 'having your cake and eating it' is something that is primarily performed by women.

But without rights, they are without power/autonomy (except power through proxy).

Women are dependant upon Government intervention for the 'rights without responsibilities' that they wanted.  Today's women turn to other people -- usually men or the Government in order to force men into doing their bidding -- for protection, favours and money.  Therefore, women are just as dependant today as they were in the 19th Century. The only difference is women rely on the Government to force men into being their knights.  Women from the Victorian Age were dependant enough to raise their children on their own.  They didn't stand around and moan about how the Government should do it for them so that they could go earn money for themselves.

In fact, Chris, your argument skewers itself - by your logic, before women were able to vote, they could not be held responsible for any policy of government.

I think you're clutching at straws, as I never said that women were responsible for 'any policy of Government' [sic].  What I said is the original feminists were cunning enough to demand that they be given rights, however they never set about to relinquish the privileges that were conferred upon women for not having rights.