Thoughts? The same thought i've always had.

There is no such thing as equality on feminism. There is the wish to be granted superior and special status.

That is why i am opposed to such things. I have always treated everyone equally. But i refuse to give special treatment, or to destroy things men enjoy just to please women. You don't see men doing or demanding the opposite.

Actually these are issues that have been known for ten years and longer and there have been attempts to actively deal with them as well.
The problem is that girls typically do better in traditional learning environments than boys, who benefit from a more active, hands on learning style. Most of it comes down to cost really. More outdoor activity, more excursions and more experiments and equitment require more funding and personnel. And while that is something that would really benefit the entire student body, the funding often just isn't there.

Also kids need environments where they can be unsupervised, or at least feel like they are, to gain independence, wich is a thing that is getting more and more difficult to provide in an increasingly micromanaged, connected and supervised world.

All of these factors are very detremental to all kids really, but tend to hit boys harder.

Instead of moaning about feminists, how about you actively try to better your surroundings? Go learn something about pedagogics, volunteer at your local school or after school program, start a local campaign for more funding for schools or literally anything other than utilizing a legitimate issue to take a dig at people you happen to dislike.

1.  All types strive for equality; the types just just get more specific in areas to improve or methods to improve them. 
2.  Given their definition of the term it certainly exists (though it is to which extent where arguments can be made for and against) and actually, they argue that it is oppressive to both men and women. 
3.  Certainly a good thing and entirely compatible with, nay. dependent on feminism--for without, a society can never be fully egalitarian.
4.  If you want a society where one of the sexes is a lower class, you are advocating for either a patriarchal or matriarchal society.  I'm not sure what purpose your McCarthyian angle intends to serve here. 

Actually, considering that none of your four points have anything to do Teeqoz's statement, I'm not sure what purpose any of them were supposed to serve.  His statement is correct: if you believe the sexes should be treated equally, you are a feminist.

See that purple word that spells out  equal?  Thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, I see it leading directly to "for women".

equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women

GG 

GG, thanks again for proving my case.  You...do know what "equal" means, don't you...?

My 2 cents but I think a lot of the feminazi defenders suffer from  sexual frustration. They think that by being white knights they'll get laid. Usually they are the ones that are virgins. 

So, it's a sexist institution then?

Only if you think equality is inherently sexist.

This is it in a nutshell, Most if not all the posts I read complaining about feminists seem to be by men/boys who can't get laid and thus take out their frustrations on some perceived threat