In "Fire with Fire" by Naomi Wolf explains beautifully that it isn't about men vs. women. There are men AND women who are interested in moving on to egalitarian relationships and there are men AND women who want to maintain the patriarchal status quo. You seem to be leaning much more toward maintaining the status quo in spite of your comments about equality.

You refer to women in demeaning ways, "wifey", etc. when speaking about how many men turn their paychecks over to her, supposedly indicating that she runs things when in reality he can decide to dump her and start handing his check over to his new "wifey." That type of "power" is illusory as is power "behind the scenes," "the hand that rocks the cradle", etc., etc. These are not examples of real power but power experienced through others.

You are uncomfortable with the women as victim idealogy but the facts show that the majority of sexual abuse of children, sexual assaults, sexual harrassment and domestic abuse are NOT gender neutral but overwhelmingly male crimes. You represent as relatively unimportant those facts that cannot be fudged--like the deaths of women at the hands of their "loved ones." I believe there are men who are abused, but I don't believe it's 50/50 and the statistics on injuries and deaths bear this out. Having something thrown at you (while wrong) comes no where equaling the serious, life-threatening and oft-times fatal injuries experienced by women. Those men who have responded that women's verbal harassing brings on their subsequent beating need to deal seriously with anger management. That's just the old blame the victim mentality. The facts are that majority of prisoners and violent criminals are men. It's a testosterone thing made worse by a macho society that reinforces the need to dominate and control. Are the majority of men like this? I don't believe so but to deny these basic facts is to ruin your credibility.

One of your more ridiculous comments is that porn is "insightful." Porn perpetuates lies and myths about female sexuality. I hate to disillusion you--but the women in porn do it for money not because they just love to please men. They are posing, acting, etc. the way men are directing and paying them to. It has nothing to do with women's real sexuality; in fact it is pretty much the opposite of the way emotionally healthy and intelligent women feel. The sexuality portrayed in porn represents women as sexually impersonal, indiscriminate and crude whereas most women prefer sex that is personal, discriminate, and intimate. Many of the women in porn and prostitution were sexually abused as children and hardly serve as true representatives of healthy female sexuality.

In fact, prostituted women are part of the patriarchy you say doesn't exist. For the longest time in history women had two main career choices: prostitution or marriage. In order to survive economically (because women couldn't own property, go to college, inherit, earn a living wage, vote, etc., etc.) women had to choose between pleasing one man to survive (marriage) or please the anonymous masses (prostitution). It's the old madonna/whore thing. Women defined by who owns them. Women defined in terms of who they service. Not women as individuals unto themselves but who they belong to. Women couldn't own property because they were considered the property of their husband as were children born to the union. They were chattel.

Fortunately that is changing but it is interesting to note that as the stock of privately owned women decreases (as more women have their own incomes) and sexual harassment in the workplace has been outlawed, the sex industry is churning out more publicly owned females. What's a red blooded guy gonna do when he can't sexually degrade women at work anymore? Now he has to go to a sex club and pay for the privilege. Are these women forced to whore themselves? No, but they are rewarded all out of proportion to the talent involved. You also have to look at the context that they're operating in. They don't encounter the glass ceilings, discrimination and resentment women moving into true positions of power do. In every oppression you have the vast majority who are in denial; you have a small number of those in resistance groups; and you have those who collaborate with the enemy for personal and opportunistic gain. But it's still about putting women in the position of controlling their sexuality by holding a paycheck over their head. You want to be able to pay the rent? ...then strip, bend over, put out...please me or you can't feed yourself, your kid. These women don't own their sexuality but have to share it with whoever has their purchase price. Prostitution is the one of the cornerstones of patriarchy and is very alive and, unfortunately, thriving because of the need of SOME men to control, dominate, humiliate and feel superior to women. The sex industry is the last bastion of male control of women's bodies. The men call the shots. The women are generic--interchangeable and disposable--and know their place is groveling naked at the feet of men in exchange for cash. It's mutual exploitation. The men treat the women as sex objects and the women treat the men as money objects. It's the relationship of whore and john (trick). And mutual exploitation only encourages alienation and contempt.

Porn (the trade in women) is insightful? Maybe into the motives of some men but it says nothing about women except that their chattel status still exists. It's no more insightful into female's sexuality than the way seals performing in a circus for treats demonstrates their true nature. If you read what these women say behind the scenes about men--that they're assholes to be taken for all they're worth--you should stop and ask yourself who the real "man-haters" are. Those who want to share equally or those who see men as "walking ATM's" as one sex professional referred to her customers. Think about it.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.

She said: Defining feminism is hardly a complex task...women should have social, economic and political equality.

The point that I am trying to make about the feminist theoretical system is that it uses the surface claim that it searches for equality but underneath that it does not look for equality in all respects at all. I will agree it looks for equal workplace participation rates. But in every other respect it deals with a thousand issues which all highlight and promote differences. You've done it yourself. Your claims about pornography, as I see it highlights that men's sexual lust is foul and perverse and oppressive while women's sexual desire is undefined but they live to please men. This ignores the increasing prevalence of women going to see male strippers and that men's desire for porno may have more complex roots than simply the desire to oppress. I would ask, why see porno, if you already live in a society that realises your dream of keeping women down. The way you portray sexuality suggests a vast "testosterone/biological" gap that can never result in equality, except one that is enforced physically. This means either ban porno, or accept that some women like it too.

The essence of the greatest part of feminism is reiterating the differences in character and experience between men and women, often when these character differences don't even exist. In this way what results is not greater equality but greater "privilege" for women. Crime is one example. When women murder their spouses there is a more common, often false, assumption that they were the sole victims of violence. When women kill their children there is more often an acceptance that she was temporarily mentally disturbed. Men committing the same crime are more often seen as simply brutal. Feminism reinforces stereotypes about women's nature which feeds into the perpetuation of privileges, but also differences in behaviour and culture.

(She) There are men AND women who are interested in moving on to egalitarian relationships and there are men AND women who want to maintain the patriarchal status quo.

I am ambiguous about equality and status quo in all things. Women an men will never ever be equal/identical in their aspirations and personality and how they interact. I do however believe in equal political/economic rights and access as long as the rights and access are primarily acquired under fair and reasoned conditions. That is why I am not a feminist, but an egalitarian. Feminism poses as egalitarianism, killing the host and adopting its colours.

My concern is that some equal opportunity for women is not acquired fairly. It is believed by many people that women gain some jobs due to quotas rather than by the criteria of talent alone. Its a hard issues to prove. I am actually not even opposed absolutely to this phenomenon because it helps to change the culture of some workplaces. In addition I think many men should probably try harder and accept some of these changes. But on the other hand, society has concentrated so long on women's rights and access that it has ignored and perhaps obstructed men's cooperation with this. Many men are finding they have very limited access to their children after divorce. In custody disputes the judges decides, and I have heard them say it, that women are more nurturing, so they get the child and he gets to see it every 2 weeks. The assumption that we live in a patriarchal society simply assumes that men are privileged, have everything they could want and therefore deserve no additional consideration.

She: You refer to women in demeaning ways, "wifey", etc.

Sorry about the demeaning comments. I have had a number of criticisms of these tiny manifestations of my patriarchal mindset. Then again, there are women who take serious offence at being labelled slaves by feminists when they have chosen to be housewives and mothers. That could certainly be seen as demeaning because they think the title of wife is not related to slave status but instead, to a significant social role. I am intrigued though by the extraordinary eagle eye of feminist women who see persecution in every word and every comment. I do not refer to women in demeaning ways just because I use a silly word for wife. Yet you also seem to have some loathing for the "red blooded guy". The term itself is harmless and you claim he is in the minority. But this doesn't mesh with the claim that we live in a patriarchy, which serves his interests exclusively. It sounds like we live in a "red blooded guy" society in which he is a despotic exploiter of women's economic vulnerability. Then again she exploits him, seeing him as a walking ATM. There's something quite complex and seemingly inconsistent in these claims.

She: "behind the scenes," "the hand that rocks the cradle", etc., etc. These are not examples of real power but power experienced through others.

What is real power? I am of the opinion that power happens in many ways in both grand and small ways. Some power is a response or resistance to something bigger while other power is actually the ability to take on responsibilities. Power is not always privilege. Feminism negates and scoffs at all forms of power that women currently exercise because they don't want to see it as real power. This would force them to acknowledge that women have had defined and traditional and even mysterious powers throughout human history. They want to promote the belief that women have no power and need to acquire as much of it as possible in order to achieve equality. This actually distorts your comprehension of reality and insight into both men and women's current and past social status. The power over children, over childbirth practices and the power to support men in their careers have been real manifestations of women's power. They are just the tip of the iceberg and deserve elaboration too. To be a father is surely one of the greatest examples of experiencing power through others. A man is only a father through the mother and often has a distanced role to play in being a parent. That doesn't make it not real power, though perhaps it deserves criticism as being not close enough to the centre of the family experience. Basically we don't have to deny the credibility and significance of existing powers in order to pursue our social agendas.

She: I believe there are men who are abused, but I don't believe it's 50/50 and the statistics on injuries and deaths bear this out.

Men do undoubtedly figure far higher in public violence and crime: 8:1. But the statistics on domestic violence that I have read, in combination with my own experiences, have convinced me that there is no fairness in suggesting that domestic violence is basically a male phenomenon. Women use all the panoply of psychological and physical abuse that men use. They resort to means of torture and abuse and cruelty that they see as most effective and most calculated to serve their ends in particular circumstances. Having said this, domestic violence varies enormously beween social classes and races and cultures and regions. It seems to be higher on average in rural areas, among blacks, among the poor and amng the socially degraded. Yet rich white families obviously experience it too. I don't like arguing this point because it appears petty but it is only in response to feminist claims and stereotypes. Domestic violence which includes significant psychological and physical abuse occurs in about 10% of families. It is not something that leads us to view society as a whole as either patriarchal or ideed matriarchal. What concerns me most is that violence and degrading of men is ignored. Take a look at the bums on the street and I can tell you that most have probably been kicked out of the matrimonial home. Perhaps they deserved it, but it is an unfortunate social issue.

She: Porn perpetuates lies and myths about female sexuality. The sexuality portrayed in porn represents women as sexually impersonal, indiscriminate and crude

Porn does generate myths. That's not wrong. Men like to fantasise about women and one of these fantasies is that a woman will be ready and willing to have sex with him. The subtext of this is that she finds him desirable and therefore it is an affirmation of his social and sexual credibility.

Men have a very active imagination in general when it comes to focusing their social needs into sexual channels. I suggest that women have repressed this channel and so they fantasise less. Perhaps they are lacking in absolute imagination or perhaps their fantasies and myths are about knights in shining armour, or shining business suits. Perhaps (feminist) women only dream about dolphins and don't have sexual desire for men!?!

I haven't thought this through fully and perhaps you will enlighten me. Let me say this though, women do have sexual fantasies though they may not be as physical/objectified. But feminism has the aim of denigrating men's sexual fantasies. Men's sexual longing and desire is to be touched, to see a woman in intimate circumstances, and to witness the consummation of desire through the ultimate intimacy: the sex act. Yet feminism treats this with a particularly virulent loathing. It is the basis for seeing men's weakness, their pathetic need. Ironically though, women influenced by feminism then feel that they must deny men any opportunity to gratify the fantasy or indeed even the reality: the reality of intimacy and personal sexual gratification. That is why we have the contemporary fanatical feminist and puritan opposition to pornography and to heterosexual desire itself.

She: For the longest time in history women had two main career choices: prostitution or marriage. Women defined by who owns them. Women defined in terms of who they service.

Two main career choices: These weren't necessarily imposed and they were not the only choices and lastly they did not impose themselves exclusively on women. Let me explain:

Firstly I should say that it is feminists who create this apparent dichotomy. The whore/madonna split is a creation of feminism, not of history. Women have had a variety of roles and opportunities throughout history but they did not necessarily take all of them up. The same is true of most men. Only a tiny fraction of men and women achieve exceptional things either through ambition or opportunity. College/university was not available to 99% of men at the beginning of this century but the majority who decided to go where men. It wasn't considered just a privilege. Some say that men's choices were often limited in the middle ages. You either became a preacher, a farmer or a soldier. Of course that is true for a limited number of men. But then again, the majority of women never became exclusively mothers. Most women have always worked and been mothers too.

There was an additional choice for women in the last several hundred years which was to join a monastic order: to become a nun. The same happened for men: to become a monk. I suggest that being a nun was a more viable and perhaps common decision than becoming a prostitute.

Lastly, it should be said that in some respects history is always oppressive. Rights, opportunities and customs were often, though not always, limited by the economic backwardness of those eras. This was a condition imposed upon humanity as a whole. So in this respect the opportunities for women are indeed growing.

She: Prostitution is the one of the cornerstones of patriarchy....

No its one of the cornerstones of matriarchy. Men will pay women to see them naked and stimulating sex. Men are discriminated against in women's more general refusal or indifference in taking men's erotic potential seriously. Many women who can make a good living in other professions can still earn more in this industry. They are exploiting a feature of gender attractiveness that they possess by virtue of their sex. Men have not been endowed generally by this feature, though it is a socially constructed lack. It is just another work option that some women have available to them. It may be humiliating and degrading to you but then so are many jobs. Try becoming a plumber.

Feminism seems unduly obsessive about this subject though. It really is a small part of life and such a limited feature of core sexual desire. But it can be explained more readily when we acknowledge the sexual fascist implications of feminist ideology. It demands total control over women's bodies and their portrayal. Feminism wants the elimination of desire outside of its parameters of what is legitimate. Men's desire is to be suppressed by the banning of images of women and women's availability. That is ironically why Islamic fundamentalist societies in many ways resemble a feminist ideal: women hidden from men's lustful gaze.

Her reply in new email: all points addressed
I should preface this by saying that although we certainly have different perspectives and opinions on these issues, I do admire and respect people who are engaged in discussion and who are concerned about issues as opposed to those who just don't care or who accept without questioning. Also bear in mind that I feel very strongly about equality...for men and women...and feel we will all gain by moving away from patriarchy to an egalitarian society. Likewise, I reserve my contempt for the patriarchal system not the individuals who haven't been able to free themselves from it.

I agree with much of what you say about unfairness. I don't think women want or need quotas. I don't agree with women getting lighter sentences for crimes. In general, stereotypes are problematic. Not all women are nurturing but we are still shocked when child killing happens because we buy into the notion that men have certain qualities which women don't and vice-versa. Here we differ - I blame the patriarchy for the rigid Mom/Pop set-up. Men and women are sort of half-human beings under that theory. I agree that we are more alike that we've been allowed to realize or admit. What feminism represents is freedom from these stereotypes and promotes choice for both men and women. I don't think women who choose to be stay-at-home moms and wives are "slaves" and name-calling is unproductive, but feminism does want to encourage these women to be able to support themselves and take care of themselves, not due to hatred of men, but due to the realities of life. Shouldn't every functioning adult be able to support themselves instead of living in a state of childlike dependence?

We are in complete agreement that children should have equal access to both parents as long as there are no abuse issues (on either side).

I understand what you are saying about feminism as misrepresenting itself as looking for equality but feel you are judging by the actions of a minority of the most extreme radical feminists. In general, you are pointing out the exceptions (male strippers, wives who beat husbands, kill children, etc.) in your arguments against feminism when in all fairness these are not gender-neutral situations. There are no absolutes but, honestly, why not deal with the rule rather than the exceptions?

I regret that some of my comments led you to some misconceptions about my take on sexuality. I don't at all agree with comments such as:

(Excerpt from Thinkbomb comments in red:) -male sexual lust is foul, perverse, and loathsome -feminism views heterosexual desire/acts with virulant loathing.

I'm all for lust, desire, et al. However, it can culminate in something wonderful or something horrible. What feminism (and I) have a problem with is sexuality that is not mutual and equal and invited. It's a concern with a sexuality which perpetuates harmful myths which have real life harmful consequences. That's why feminism attempts to raise consciousness around issues of sexual harassment and rape. You say that:

Thinkbomb: "feminism...demands total control of women's bodies and their portrayal."

She: That is because up until recent times men had that control, primarily because of economic and power disparities. What feminism desires is for that control to be in the hands of women themselves.

They desire a society in which women, like men, can make decisions about with whom they will be sexual and how, without economic survival being part of that decision. You say (in discussing prostitution) that it can be degrading to be a plumber but at least that plumber maintains the basic right of deciding who he will share his body and sexuality with. He doesn't have to share it with people he might find personally repulsive. Isn't this a basic right and desire of emotionally healthy people? You are putting sexuality in the same category of any other type of "work." However, in reality most of us have no problem with our sons and daughters, spouses, etc. "working" and sharing their talents with their co-workers but we would feel differently if it was sex they were peddling to the anonymous masses. Sex is unique and in a category by itself. Intercourse is the closest two humans can come together physically and can lead to the birth of another human being. It's hardly on the same level as fixing a faucet.

Likewise, I find the whole notion of whoring - experiencing the ultimate intimacy with a stranger(s) - just bizarre. Studies have demonstrated that women in all facets of the sex industry are much more likely than any other group of women to have been sexually abused as children. Should we facilitate their continuing to be used throughout their adulthood because some men like it? Does paying a person for it free you from having to treat them like a human being? A recent worldwide study of prostitutes revealed that the majority of them experience symptoms of a post traumatic syndrome similar to people who have lived through combat situations. It isn't lust that feminists find perverse and oppressive but exploitive sex.

Thinkbomb: Your claims about pornography highlights that women's sexual desire is undefined but they live to please men.

She: I was saying that porn erroneously portrays female sexuality as stated above. I once ran across a book of erotica which said it was about women's sexuality "as experienced by women themselves." This is, unfortunately, a novel approach and something you rarely see. As I stated female sexuality is generally presented in a way that is exactly opposite to its reality. Girls in our society grow up viewing their bodies and sexuality as existing for the pleasure of others. Girls very rarely see presentations of sexuality they can identify with or feel good about. It isn't lack of libido or imagination that results in less fantasty for women but difficulty in perceiving oneself as a sexual subject rather than a sexual object. Women's true sexuality has been repressed and twisted and distorted for so long that when it started to be freed up, women didn't even know how to act. They imitated what men do (male pin-ups, strippers) even though women's turn-on system isn't nearly as visually oriented and connected to objectification. It's sort of the same way they women used to dress like men in suits and scarves that resembled ties when they started to move into management roles. There were no role models. People generally mimic until they find their own style. Women are finding their way but their sexuality has been defined for them for so long it's confusing to men and women themselves.

I have no problem with depictions/descriptions of sexuality which are based on mutuality (as in erotica). There are differences between erotica and pornography which can be boiled down to the definition of erotica (sexual love) vs. porn which translates to the graphic depiction of whores. Apparently in the hierarchy of whoredom, porne was the Greek term for the prostitutes who were available to every male citizen. (G. Steinem) Contrary to what you think, most feminists are not anti-sex. Porn is about inequality, where one person is there as an object, where one person is exposed and vulnerable while the other maintains their privacy and dignity, etc. There is usually an imbalance of power. It seems obvious to me that depictions of women enduring pain, humiliation, degradation, etc. (and ostensibly loving every minute of it) is pornographic. The question is, I guess, whether the need of some men to have visual aids in fantasizing about this overrides the harm that results (both to the women themselves and the status of women in general). It perpetuates myths such as "they all really want it," "she was asking for it," "she loved it," etc.

Feminists seem obsessive about this topic because underlying rape, sexual harrassment,and child sexual abuse, is the notion of male entitlement to the body and sexuality of others. You refer to "availability" and some men seem to feel that there should be someone available to satisfy their sexual urges whenever they feel like it. Porn and prostitution institutionalize access to the bodies of others as a privilege that is some sort of male birthright - to the point that a special group of women should be set aside just for this purpose (Susan Brownmiller). Even if this is a natural desire, is this one we want to reinforce, encourage and legitimize?

Men don't need to fear sexual objectification because in most cases they are the perpetrators, not the victims, of sexual harrassment and abuse. Control and ownership of an object is also at the root of domestic violence.

I'm not saying women never physically abuse men. But if there is a 8:1 ratio between men and women as far as public violence is concerned, it's difficult for me to imagine there would be much of a difference in private violence particularly when men are the larger, stronger, and more physically aggressive gender.

Thinkbomb: why would men see porno, if they already live in a society that realises their dream of keeping women down?

It's precisely because women in the U.S. have achieved so much independence - financially, educationally, socially that there is a greater need than ever to view and witness women being put back under control, and even better putting themselves back under control. There is hardly any pornography or forced exposure of women in Islamic countries because their women are already greatly controlled. They know their place. In either case - the US or fundamentalist societies--it is men deciding whether they want their women covered up or exposed. You can't drive around a city in the U.S. without being surrounded by billboards, magazines, etc., of women stripped down and posing submissively as blatant reminders that women exist as "entertainment for men." Its been said that when people don't get the message you are sending, you have to scream it louder. There is more need to have the messages right out there in the open these days, particularly for girls and boys growing up to see. They don't even have to be old enough to read to get the message.

ThinkBomb: The whole whore/madonna split is a creation of feminism.

The division of women into madonnas and whores certainly pre-dates feminism. You are right, sexuality is one power women have over men. For the longest time it was the only power they were permitted to exert. In order to control that formidable power, men divided women up into the privately owned (wives) so they could be sure of paternity and the publicly owned (whores) to satisfy those sudden urges. In the beginning ownership was enforced through the fact that men are physically larger and stronger. As strength became more irrelevant that changed to keeping women from access to money and the ability to feed and clothe themselves and the children in the family. Men wrote the laws that set up this situation and maintained it. (then turned around and criticized women for judging them by the size of their paychecks). The structure (patriarchy) was in place long before feminism.

Thinkbomb: ...he is a despotic exploiter of women's economic vulnerability. Then again she exploits him, seeing him as a walking ATM. There's something quite complex and seemingly inconsistent in this claim.

I don't see it as complex but the natural result of the patriarchy. As I said in my original response, it is mutual exploitation. They are relating as whore to john which is the basic relational set-up of the patriarchy. This is not going to change overnight, but this is why I feel theoretically and from personal experience that egalitarian relationships are better. If a woman can support herself, a man knows she is with him for the right reasons and is sexual with him because she truly wants him, not because she is looking for a economic security. A woman can choose a man she is truly compatible with and not just the "best catch" financially she is capable of.

Thinkbomb: you are "ambiguous" about equality and status quo in all things

She: There is a difference between "equality" and being identical. In the same way that minorities asked for equality I don't think they ever wanted to be exactly like caucasians, they just wanted the same opportunities. I don't want men and women to be the same, they each bring unique talents and abilities to society which should be equally valued and included. Things may have gone to sometimes ridiculous extremes, I agree, but that is because for so long the pendulum was at the opposite extreme. Now that it's been pried loose it's swung way to the other side but, if everyone calms down and accepts change, it will eventually reach equilibrium.

ThinkBomb: Women have had a variety of roles and opportunities throughout history but they did not necessarily take all of them up.
- career choices...these weren't necessarily imposed and they were not the only choices...

You'll have to explain to me how women - who for most of history could not earn a living wage, could not vote, could not go to college, could not own property, and could not inherit could have any other choices than to bind themselves to a man who could do all of the above. If she didn't want to marry or whore she could stay living home with her father, I suppose but that's still dependence on a man. Or as you point she could take herself to a nunnery, giving her obedience to a heavenly "father." Patriarchy is certainly the backbone of most religions. I know nuns used to wear a wedding band as they were considered to be "married to Christ." Nuns were required to take a "vow of "poverty" (and may still) but priests are not. This perfectly mirrored what was going on in secular society. It's a pretty consistent feature of patriarchy. What if men depended on women for their physical survival--in order to have food to eat and have a roof over their heads and to feed and clothe their children? Does that help you to understand the enormous power one gender had over the other?

As soon as the world outside the home opened up to women they rushed to fill it. There has been great progress in economic freedom for women: Women have the opportunity to earn their own income which has freed them from compulsory marriage. Sexual harassment is against the law so working women don't have to trade off sexual access for their paychecks. The women in the sex industry are the last group of women who don't truly own their own sexuality but have to share it with anyone who has their purchase price.

I know that men have also been constricted in the past and not all could go to college, become president, etc., but at least that was within the realm of their possibilities. What does it do to the psyches of a group who was disenfranchised from nearly all participation in life outside the home?

ThinkBomb: What is real power? ...we don't have to deny the credibility and significance of existing powers in order to pursue our social agendas.

I don't want to portray women as completely powerless. The power to influence (woman behind the man, hand that rocks the cradle, etc.) definitely should not be discounted. But let me ask you, how content would you be to live through the achievements of others? To have others speak for you, just hoping they get it right? Women have been criticized through the ages for being manipulative, whining, nagging, etc. but that's because they couldn't be direct. They acted like children because they were in a child-like status. The power I am referring to is the power of social, economic and political independence...the power of self-determination.
You are right - things are much better for women now but to deny that there are remnants still existing of the old system of oppression, I believe, is incorrect. The patriarchy still greatly affects how men and women interact. There is a backlash and there is a division between the men and women who are patriarchalists and the men and women who are egalitarians (Naomi Wolf). I think you are fighting for the wrong side.

So much for keeping this to generalities. I plan to look up your book...I'll try to keep an open mind and low blood pressure as I do so. You are wise to find out the criticisms/counterpoints ahead of time. Please take my comments into consideration. Thanks.