I don't think this is correct. I don't think it's even possibly correct, in fact, I will assert that the notion is a simple category error. To claim that the observable, demonstrable, and provable contradiction between women’s rights and the rights upon which Western civilization were historically founded could even theoretically be described as misogynistic is tantamount to setting oneself against logic, against history, and against reality itself.

As the Castrate said, it is so or it is not so. If women's rights contradict the rights of natural law, or the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then they contradict them. If I am correct, and they do, then it is a simple matter of fact and neither my feelings about women or Susan's feelings about Martians have anything whatsoever to do with the matter. The idea is not misogynistic for the same reason it is not romantic or anti-semitic or happy or purple. The term simply cannot apply, not even hypothetically.

But no one need take my word for this. I plan to methodically prove it, conclusively, in a series of forthcoming posts. As I mentioned on her blog, I’d even welcome Susan's contribution, if she would care to provide me with what she would consider to be the definitive “women’s rights”.

I would also welcome a comprehensive list of "women's rights" as they are distinguished from simple non-sexually based rights from anyone, male or female, who considers himself to be a feminist or even just a defender of "women's rights". I can, of course, simply resort to Wikipedia, but I would prefer to utilize the list provided by a self-professed champion of them.