Do some feminists think they can shame men into finding older women attractive?
I don't think anyone is trying to shame men into liking older women...but I think there are many who acknowledge that men who consistently try to date women considerably younger than themselves ought to be ashamed of themselves. I hate to be close-minded, but that's just gross. Some old guy is just being pathetic if he continually ignores women in his own age group in favor of younger women. If he doesn't find women his own age attractive, he needs to remember that HE'S OLD TOO!! Old men aren't exactly all that appealing either. Also, young women who date old men should be recognized for what they (all too often) are...money hungry. They're looking for some old dude to spend his money on them. Basically, everyone should stick to approximately their own age group. EDIT: @celtish: A cougar is an older woman who often dates younger men. @Gnu: To be honest, the main people that I have a problem with are the older men who immediately write off women of their own age group as being "ghastly"...if those women are ghastly, so are you, buddy! If two people from very different age groups connect with one another on a level besides the physical, and it's safe to assume those two individuals would still date even if they were close together in age, then I suppose I have no problem with that. It just really bothers me that old women are shoved off to the side in the realm of dating and sexuality. Old women are sexual beings just as much as old men are, and they ought to find satisfaction in one another, instead of the old men going after the young pretties and leaving the older women out in the cold. EDIT: @Lioness: I'm 21, so I have absolutely no problem with men of my own age group dating younger than me. That would be statutory rape. All the same, I can recognize that there is a hypocrisy in old men flatly refusing to date women their own age. If you will read all of what I have wrote (more specifically, my "@Gnu" section) you will see that *to some extent* I agree with you.
Do you agree with feminists who say women who make false rape accusations should not be prosecuted for doing so?
No, I don't agree with that. Being falsely accused of any crime can ruin someone's life, and this is even more true if someone is accused of a sex crime because they provoke emotions from a lot of people and it can easily destroy somebody's reputation. If there is evidence that a woman has maliciously falsely accused a man of a rape which he did not commit, she should be prosecuted for her crime. It can be hard to prove malicious intent though, especially in cases where there is alcohol and other substances involved or if the man and woman were in a relationship before the alleged crime took place.
Do feminists here really believe the myth that "if women ran the world, there would be no more wars"?
Do feminists here really believe the myth that "if women ran the world, there would be no more wars"? Do feminists truly believe that a global matriarchy would mean the end of all wars? Throughout history, there have been women leaders that have started or engaged in wars and military aggression. Queen Isabella II of Spain invaded Morocco, and started wars with Peru, Chile, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. Queen Victoria of the UK sent her nation to fight in the Second Boer War. Catherine The Great of Russia was an expansionist which led to her invading the Turkish and Polish lands. Elizabeth I of England started wars with the Spanish. More currently and closer to home, Condoleeza Rice is an advocate and proponent of "pre-emptive war" (political alternative term for "aggressive warmongering"), and she is a supporter of the war in Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton also voted for military invasion of Iraq. Congressman Ron Paul is against pre-emptive war ideology and the Iraq War.