Besides using the rationale favored by the under 10 set, “Mommy, mommy she called me a name first!,” your excuse for nastiness serves more as self-exposure. If you felt personally attacked by “snide remarks” then it would be somewhat understandable to respond with an equally snide personal response. But you didn’t do that. You didn’t trash a single individual. You made derogatory and unsubstantiated remarks about feminists in general – that it is childish, essentially outmoded, ugly and vindictive. Kind of like a white driver getting cut off on the highway by a black man and instead of cussing out “that idiot driver,” goes into a rant about “those people.” It’s very telling, don’t you think.

You’re argument that the debate was simply about whether religion in general was created by men and women or just men might have a leg if no one bothers to read the sentences that opened up the argument: “Who in the heck do you think wrote the Bible and religion en toto? If Christianity (and Islam) are “evil” religions, look not to the religion but its many creators and its power structure.” Now you can try to argue that the word “Bible” refers to some all-encompassing nebulous faith, or “Christianity” and “Islam” have nothing to do with the Old and New Testament or the Koran, or perhaps that the societies that gave birth to these documents were brimming with gender equality, or that the various historical religious establishments were characterized by power sharing among the sexes – but I hope that even you would see the absurdity in attempting that.

As for your request for proof concerning your “pretense” for supporting the liberation of women and charge that I tried to “twist” your words – as the quote goes, methinks though doest protest too much.

As you said (again), your exact words were “Feminism is a childish backlash against the crimes of men past, that wont die, despite having achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.” Then you go on to explain through repeating yourself that feminism is targeting the men of the past, that feminism won’t die, that it has achieved it’s aims as best it can. True, you didn’t say that women were “childish” for protesting against the type of current crimes I listed – you did say against crimes of men past. What is odd, though, is most feminists today protest, speak out, denounce those current and ongoing crimes against women. What is revealing is your use of the word “past.” What is the only logical conclusion – since as you allege feminism “won’t die” even though it has “achieved it’s aims” – is that these women need to just get over it already. Not much different than the argument by white people who adamantly decry discrimination while insisting that Black people need to “get over it” since the civil rights movement “achieved it’s aims.” Hence the phrase “pretense of support for the liberation of women.”

By the way, it appears that you’ve assumed I was a previous poster on this thread. Just to be clear, my response to your posts was my first and only post on this thread.