I'm not sure you are really representative of womankind. It may be impertinent of me to say so, but that's the impression I've gained from this correspondence.

Precisely my point, (and I like impertinent people). You cant box me, I always rise above. I exercise my importance with more than whats between my legs. (as it has been suggested here that women have always done that historically). If you took the right to vote from women and a right of employment, at least the latter part, wouldn't apply to me. Some here would dance a marry jig, but what about all those average women who just want to work at their average job and have a few choices in life.
Forgive me for putting you in boxes: it makes reading these posts easier.

And I'm sorry - it's probably me, but I haven't followed your argument here, other than that you are different from, and perhaps more successful than, most other women.
Women choose to raise their children on their own? Some do, but that number is very small. The number of men that leave their wife and children, the number of men that doesn't and refuses to pay child support...
The number is not that small these days, and it is growing at an appreciable rate. The number of children in primary (and even secondary schools) who are living in a home where there is no permanent adult male presence is already significant and it will rise. And I am led to believe this is the consequence of positive choices by the children's mothers


Nor have I any with you. But I 'm not sure changing places with you would do any good. In principle, however, I'd do it. Then you'd find that being a man isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
LOl, its been done.

Property tycoon Charles Kane ... realised he'd made a horrible mistake.
Poor guy: neither fish nor fowl. What am I to make of that?


... to suggest that men should be given a head start just because they are male ...
... is necessary because they have no other useful role in society than to be "provider".

It's probably completely inappropriate to compare humans with other animals and insects, but can you think of any female dominated species where males are not expected to bugger off and die once the mating season is over - unless, that is, they are to become dinner. And of those species, is it also true that, of the females, one of them alone, the queen, has the right to reproduce and the remaining females just work for her?

I'm no natural historian, and I don't really believe that that is the brave new world feminism is leading us towards, but ...


. And what is really interesting is that most of it is just a false perception - male superiority, preferential treatment, better pay and all that is still very much "safe" in the possession of men.
No! In the possession of the employer. You appear to have influence in your company. You are better paid than your male colleagues, and they hate you for it. Yet you admit there are other women who are not paid as much as you. Why don't they hate you for it too? And why aren't you using your influence to make damned bloody sure that their pay is lifted to the same level as their male counterparts?

Could it be that if pay costs rose, profits would fall, and bonuses/pay awards would be affected unless everyone worked much much harder to cover the increases? Are you on a bonus?

And just a wild guess here, but you are from UK?
Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?