I am a Feminist

I am not a feminist. I don't want the government to give power to one group and take it from another in the name of equality. When the groups aren't equal and shouldn't have the same power.

kind of logic is that?

It's perfectly reasonable to try to change the personal views of men if they're detrimental to others.

I agree with your argument. I never said we should have a 50:50 split in parliament. I think those who are more able should be in place, if it happens to be all men, then so be it.

No it's not. Everyone has a right to whatever views the have, regardless to how despicable you think they are, as long as they don't act on them. Repressing someone's right to a free mind is dictatorial.

I support the campaign for equal rights for both sexes. Men and women should be respected equally, and both given the opportunities they deserve. Women should be paid equally as well as men under the same vocation. Women should not be objectified. Women deserve the rights to voice their opinions.

The list goes on:
Co-educative schools, same content of classes for girls and boys, same qualification for men and women is important.

For women, career is just as important as for men; equal professional opportunities for men and women are important.

Neither partner should dominate; solutions do not always follow the principle of finding a concerted decision; status quo is maintained if disagreement occurs.

However, men and women are different in many ways aside from the obvious, and women and men have gender roles that they should appreciate. Radical feminism completely trashes the thought of gender roles.

For example you can't expect a man to be as able as woman when it comes to caring for a newborn? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's stupid to campaign for childcare of newborns to be of equal responsibility for both parents. Women are biologically and psychologically more able in these circumstances. But if the partners decide among themselves to share the responsibilities, then so be it, but it isn't something that should be expected from the outset or campaigned about. Similarly with housework. Most men want their partner to take care of the majority of housework, does it mean these men are against equal rights? Of course not! If the man is happy to help equally, then so be it, if the women wants the man to help equally, this should be understood from the outset.

Likewise with Men. Most women want the male to be the main support for the family in terms of finance. I think this is perfectly normal for women to think this. But this doesn't mean the men should disagree with females wanting to be independent, and frown upon them wanting to work for themselves, because that is wrong.

What I'm trying to say is, there are gender roles that must be appreciated, that shouldn't interfere with what equality is. Radical feminists do not appreciate gender roles whatsoever. As a Male, I would not expect my partner to want me to offer full nursing care for a newborn, I wouldn't know where to start, but if she wants me to help, I'll try. And, I wouldn't expect my partner to take care of finances either, but if she wants to contribute, that's fine by me !

TL;DR - Equality is important. Males are not better beings than females but there is no place for radical feminism

They're not being persecuted for their views. Heck, I live by Voltaire's quote.

People are simply countering them with their own views. This is not repression, this is debate. One person's freedom of speech pitted against another's.

I don't have an issue with female MP's. Rather female Bishops, Lords and Judges. I would rather we had a King instead of a Queen also. Men and women must be equal under the law. Not in terms of power. Forcing men to constrain themselves and improves themselves through that constraint.

But males are no better than females though ?

No one said anything about debate? If someone changes their views after a debate then that's great. We all know feminists don't debate but rather bully and intimidate their opponents into submission.

Women should be paid equally as well as men under the same vocation.

Assuming:

Two Job Candidates: M (Male) and F (Female)
The Vector of Employer Requirements [Degree, Experience,..] Is Equally Satisfied by Both Candidates
Employer Has a Ten Year Horizon
The Successful Candidate Will Stay for At-Least 10 Years with the Firm
On The Job Productivity is Equal For M and F
M and F Are Identical in ALL Respects apart from Gender. So Probability of Sickness etc is also the same. Hence we can cancel these effects out.

Over the Ten-Year Period:

(H Is a Measure of Productivity and is Equal for M and F)
(H1 Is Productivity in Year 1)
(H1M is Productivity in Year 1 for M)

Then,

H1M + H2M + H3M + H4M + H5M + H6M + H7M + H8M + H9M + H10M = Y

H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F + H10F = Y

H Increases over time as the worker gains skiils and expertise from working (on the job).

But. If F falls pregnant say during the 5th year, then:

H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + 0 + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F = V

(Assuming that F takes then entire fifth year off (doesn't affect analysis if this is shorter) and her skills set depreciates by 0%, then in the sixth year her productivity is H5F (not H6F))

Over the ten years then:

If F doesn't fall pregnant then Y = Y and the pay should be equal.
If F does fall pregnant then Y > V and so M should earn more.

Conclusion. If you want M and F to earn the same wage for an identical job etc then you need to enforce some sort of contract whereby F agrees that she will not fall pregnant during a certain period.

Also, adding in uncertainty where the employer is unsure about F falling pregnant in a certain period has its own losses therefore from the outset F should be offered a lower pay (unless you enforce a contract)

I know it sounds harsh but if you want equal pay then this is the only fair solution.

(May be some unintentional mistakes above)

I think this is pretty accurat and fair.

Only issue I have with this is that if I am the F employer will most likely choose M because he cannot know if I will get pregnant of not. Why would he take the risk?

So this way I need to suffer from this among those who get family, even if I will never marry or have kids.

Correct.

Even my proposed solution of contracts or agreements has issues such as enforcement and monitoring costs.

This is an example of the trade-off between profit and ethics. Suppose a woman who has signed an agreement was to get pregnant by "mistake", would it be right to force an abortion? For arguments sake even if she agrees to it, there are still costs involved compared to M.

Because we are generally risk-averse the employer would require a risk-premium i.e. paying a lower wage to F relative to M if they were to employ F over M.

Equal rights for both sexes is, in the purest sense, feminism.

I find it annoying, that in a lot of comments here, people have disagreed with you using the term 'Male supremacy' as if it does not exist. There's this culture of ignorance in society, where those who are privileged don't acknowledge their privilege.