Re: And you're right....

I guess you might be right about the things you listed. It just seems to me many of those things were accomplished *after* feminism had already turned sour.

Both Baldur and you are wrong. Women have been doing that since the times of Justinian and Theodora.

Perhaps I'm wrong about WHEN Feminism began. That looks to be the case. To me, feminism began after WWII. I suppose I'm wrong about that.

Absolutely. Feminism began in the same era that Liberalism and Socialism did, in the first half of the 19th century.

As many people note, they believed all sex is degrading for women, among other absurdities.

...which is an iteration of the Augustinian thought. Funny how secularists are more religious than the religious, usually because at least the religious know what they are doing when they are following Augustine.

I certainly wouldn't want a girl's - or any child's - purpose in life to be go to school, get a job, make money, and basically just serve the economy.

And THAT is an extraordinary great point that nobody has mentioned in this thread. (Seamus makes it often, though). The movement to raise the AOC had two sources - adult prostitutes wanting to control the market (gives me a chuckle to think that now they too are victim of their own wishes) and the great corporations (which by that time were really more evil than anything the 99%ers have witnessed) wanting to have children working for them rather than in the less dangerous, healthier and better paid jobs in prostitution. They got behind them other movements: feminists by using the same exploitation discourse they're still using; religious by using the same pseudo-Biblical discourse they're still using; progressives (19th century definition) by appealing to their instincts against vice and for "progress" (19th century definition); police chiefs because it made it easier to extort brothels and johns... But in the end none of these is directly guilty. The directly guilty were adult prostitutes; and large industrial barons. So yes, you are right. We are illegal because we do not endorse the submission of man to economy, because we really execute the "People before Profits" of today's Far Left better than even today's Far Left.

What's going to happen when almost no men want women any longer?

Oh but it is already happening.

Since so many women now pursue career goals exclusively or very predominantly over personal life goals, they end up rich and powerful without having got a partner. Then, when they try to get a partner, they realize that all the partners who are their "equals" or "superiors" socially have already gone for the supermodels who probably are not as smart and certainly not as independently successful, but who are hotter and who, through having needed the man more, more grateful. So they have to settle for a socially "inferior" man, that is, if they can swallow their pride and go for one, and if the "inferior" man also accepts that (because same as women are naturally conditioned to try to marry "up", men are conditioned to try to NOT marry "up" but "down"). Most women do not want to settle for an inferior man, so they end up alone, and unhappy that they are alone; or settling for it out of desperation, and unhappy that they settled for an inferior man.

And today feminists are writing about this and want to do something about something that ostensibly makes women unhappy. Yet it is a monster of feminist creation. And the only two ways to kill it: less emphasis on professional goals, or earlier marriage (before career paths take on definite shapes), are also anathema to them.

And every day we see more and more "men's rights" groups and websites popping up.

Men's rights as conceived today will not go anywhere. They are simply a mirror of modern feminism. Feminists say X, then men's rights advocates say Not-X. If modern feminism disappeared, so would men's rights groups. And they have mighty self-contradictory beliefs too; more, probably, than feminism does - with their attitudes to all non-hetero sexualities at the forefront, attitudes that I don't see even in the "Religious Right". Not unlike Breivikists who decry the feminist zeitgeist in Europe at the same time as they attack Islam on women's rights terms.