The fruits of the feminist revolution: eight hours a day in a cubicle.

In fact, I can't see a down side in this case for either (adult) party -- being poor and uneducated with child support is inferior to being relatively self-wealthy with modest child support, so it was a win for her.

There's a value to raising your children yourself; a stay-at-home parent can focus on the needs of the children and spend more time on giving them a first class childhood experience. If the relationship is headed for the wall, however, it surely is superior to do this at the expense of trying to continue stay-at-home parenting.

Heck, I'll even cut you a break and let you just use the discourse that appears in those gloriously-editor-mediated "major media outlets" without having to muck about with the hoi polloi that wouldn't know what the OED was if you (laboriously) hit them with it; it's still the same result.

"What's the point of discussing silly made-up rights"

Well, to take one silly made-up right that has been the topic of much recent political discourse, there's the "right to healthcare" that has been making the rounds, which certainly can't be found in the Constitution or any discussion of rights of any significant age (such as the classic discourse of the Founding Fathers or Enlightenment philosophers), unless you squint really, really hard.

And, if you feel that isn't a silly, made-up right, well, I'm sure you can manage to find someone who will say "the right to pursue a career unfettered by non-gender-fair obligations like childbirthing" isn't either. "Right" has been ill-defined for a long time; it fits right in to that list I gave above. (Which, by the way, is a heavily abridged list; as I said, you name the term it's probably been stripped of all meaning, used to signify group membership more than any original denotation it may have ever had, with only rare people using it "correctly", and they not understood by any but those other rare people who use it "correctly".)

In practice I see that feminists are like various fonbois seen here, they go on and on about their pet topic, they are very easily provoked. It is as if they are finding an excuse to start a pissing contest of arguments.

I don't think a woman who is a happy and proud 'housewife' (and there are _many_) fits well with the definitions of those feminist fonbois. And about equality: aping men is not equality its lack of self-worth. Women are different. What their traditional role was was and is respectable too. The way they were (even now in some regions) treated by society is very deplorable. The ideal society would certainly be when women are given equal rights and respect. But they shouldn't be expected to get a full-time job to prove anything.

And they don't have equal rights under the law. For example, say a man and a woman have sex and make a baby and the man says, "I can't support this child, I think you should have an abortion." Well, he can't make her do that, but she can still sue him for child support. But if he says, "I do not want you to have an abortion." She still can.

Would you argue, that with equal rights under the law, a father of a child should have equal say in whether or not a child he has conceived should be aborted? Do you think a man should have the right to force a woman to give birth to the child, take custody of it, then require her, by law, to pay child support?

I too thought it was superfluous hipster talk and got bored reading it. The point of the article in my mind was that after women's fighting for the choice to work, now they want to choose not to work.

I didn't really like kindergarden - I didn't like food and how you was supposed to sleep for a hour near noon. Toys were fine, tho.

I say this because I remember the days of the Bush administration, when an inbreeding of ideas and a biased "discussion" amongst a gang of highly like minded outsiders delivered the final verdict on the future of "us" Muslims, their de facto colonial subjects. I read columns from across the American political "divide" everyday, each supporting the last in mutual self-congratulating orgy, each explaining our "problem" and proposing very similar "solutions" to impose upon us; sometimes threatening, other times sympathetic, but always patronizing and paternalistic in its tone.

I never was a feminist, not still (I couldn't be even if I wanted to!) but at least now I understand not to "think" for the Other. Women's demand for self-empowerment is an issue squarely in their hands. They could argue amongst themselves all they want, but I as a man have learned better not to offer any unsolicited "feedback", having never experienced their condition.

Now let me answer you sofal.

Also, I didn't see any real data on your theory of Arab nations being at half speed because of the lack of women in the work force

I said above that I was addressing a "problem that I have to face everyday". The problems of the Arab world are numerous, but one thing we can both be certain of: the total absence of the female voice from every kind of leadership. Even with the lack of sufficient research and data, I can look across the landscape, or at least my Thunderbird contact list of several hundred executives, and I can't help but wonder if things would have been better with just one woman in their midst.

Also, asking for data about the Arab world is akin to sophistry, seeing how half of the nations there are U.S.-sanctioned tyrannies, and the other half are closed despotic regimes that would never allow for unfavorable research to see the light of day (you could do it once, but that's the end of your presence there.) Western "press" is safe to ignore the BIG offenders and abusers of human rights, and it can only wiggle its little "democratic" tail against a few, hand-selected and Western-approved "bad guys".