Feminism: The Zero Sum Game--UPDATED

Will feminist women only be happy when men become what women were before liberation--subservient haus fraus? Feminism's new role: as victimizers of "Beta males".

To feminists, there is no mutual way. It isn't possible to have a loving, mutually beneficial relationship. Nope, in marriage there are winners and losers. Darline Click [Dan Collins corrected my misspelling of Ms. Click's name, sorry Darline! And thanks, Dan for the heads up. Here's a good post by Dan about Leftists and Boundaries.] has an excellent post that is a must read:

Having come of age in the midst of the 70’s feminism and seeing the same navel lint-picking continue to this day on ostensible feminist blogs (”oh my, can I wear lipgloss and still be an authentic feminist?”), I see Kate as nothing more than the stereotyped-chauvanist male in drag. How so?

Because a good deal of the ‘feminist’ movement is about identifying the “male role”, co-opting it, then declaring anything outside of it as lesser than — or beta.

She is referencing an article by Kate Mulvey where the future is "female supremecy":

Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.

It is permissible then, for women to be supreme and men the "beta", but not permissible for men to be supreme and women the "beta".

Women as the new chauvinist pigs.