Taking the first question, what do you really mean? By acquiring more jobs for women, apparently feminists have created situations where a woman is in a position to harass a female employee…why is this the fault of feminists? If women weren’t in management positions, men would have those jobs…surely some of them would harass others, no? Are you really arguing that more women in management will _increase_ sexual harassment in the workplace? On what grounds? Or are you arguing that feminists shouldn’t have pushed for more women in management to protect women from themselves…that way, women who would harass others if given the opportunity would be protected from doing so? Is that really your argument?

The second question you raise I find even more baffling. In an economic downturn, some sectors will lose more jobs than others. If only men were employed, we would not see any gender gap. If men and women were equally employed in every occupation (as it would be if we had some kind of awful, forced-quota system of 50-50 men-women in every occupation), presumably we would not see any gender gap. As it is, as you correctly note, men are more likely to serve in certain sectors, and women in others. Depending on the nature of the depression, some sectors will lose more jobs. If those jobs happen to be sectors that employ more men, more men will end up unemployed than women. Are you alleging that women have engineered a massive economic depression and targeted it at those sectors that employ more men? If so, what evidence can you present? And if not, why would you blame women, suggesting that they’ve “wished” widespread unemployment on men? I think it’s pretty obvious that men and women all over this country are impacted by the depression, and would not wish its ill effects on anyone. Why, then, are women being blamed for something? Is it because a few feminists have noted that it’s nice that we are no longer living in a society where women would have been likelier laid off because their bosses would assume their husbands would provide for them? I wouldn’t say any of the quotations you presented show unnatural insensitivity towards men–simply women who are glad that there truly is equality. Would it be better, in your estimation, for them to encourage women across America to instruct their employers to lay them off, so that more men are allowed to keep their jobs? On what grounds?

I’m sorry, I can agree that there are occasions where especially militant feminism goes too far. But nothing in this piece suggests that you have any justifiable criticisms to levy against feminists, based on the points you’ve raised and the evidence you’ve presented.