Feminism

According to the dictionary, feminism is:  "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"

For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income? Why should we have 'economic equality' among men and women? Men and women should make equal pay for an equal amount of work.  They should not make equal amounts of pay regardless of whether or not they work.

I think it is interesting to note that Friedan herself (the mother of feminism, essentially) was a staunch Marxist. 

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue35/boucher35.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1096

http://www.rense.com/general21/bettyfriedan.htm

What of 'social equality'? How will you achieve this 'social equality'? Are you going to ram this agenda down everyone's throat through government force, and social control?

According to webster online, the definition of fascism is:  "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Of particularly important note is the section that reads "economic and social regimentation".  Keeping in mind that feminism demands both economic, and social equality of the sexes, this begs the question:  'how will you attain this 'social and economic equality'?  Through use of the government. 

Political equality is something women in the USA already have.    So what is the purpose behind the feminist movement?

In light of these considerations, I am not a 'feminist.'  I am in favor of equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of sex.  Is this 'feminism'? No.  Not feminism by definition, anyway.

"For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income?" - WTF? No you would not, just a lack of bias, which, by definition, would ensure economic equality.
>>39 >>35
Are you retarded, or trolling?
No society is totally free. In anarchy, one person limits the freedoms of another any time they want. In a classless democracy, one person's freedom would be limited by being unable to gain more than the next person (presumeably by taking it from them somehow).
Equality limits freedom.
Lack of equality limits freedom.
Here, you are not free to treat a woman like you would your dog and prevent them from driving on the basis of being a woman. That is a limit on your freedom.
In Saudi Arabia, THE WOMEN'S freedoms are limited by the men doing the things described above.
You can't NOT limit freedom, so your argument is a Doug point.

In conclusion: Your logic is retarded. Equality is better.