Ok. Do you disagree with the idea that women are as capable as men? Or do you disagree that women face a natural handicap in merit-based careers because they are forced to lose a year of their working life for every child they have?

Feminism is about male-female equality. Women deserve an equal chance to succeed, and if that means preferential treatment to overcome the handicap of pregnancy and nursing, that's fine by this guy.

To suggest a parallel, not all kids excel at school, but teachers give the struggling students extra help. Is this equal treatment for all? No, the smart kids get less one-on-one time. Is this fair treatment for all? Yes, because the smart kids are already ahead and do not need as much support in order to be successful. Women are disadvantaged by men not being able to produce and nurse the next generation -- so you need a way to make sure men don't capitalize on the advantage.

In the US and UK, the First Wave of feminism was had civil rights as its goal -- that was achieved and the activists moved on. Many men and women opposed this fight, because it challenged their world-view, but today most people agree that women are "people" and should vote.

The second wave saw that civil rights were not enough, and so women fought for sexual and reproductive rights, among others -- these rights were achieved (with questionable success) and the activists moved on. Again, people thought this was immoral, and fought back.

Some are now questioning again if employment rights now need to be fought for. Is this part of a Third Wave? Who knows? In any case, I don't think we're dealing with the dregs -- I think we're seeing a new generation with new goals, and those who are opposed are often conservatives afraid to see their world-view challenged.

I disagree. Ringworld is a perfect example of a terrible story wrapped around excellent science fiction.