I'm not sure what side to pick because somehow I don't fully understand the question, though, I have an idea of what it's asking from what I read on the left side.

I understand the frustration that women want equal rights, yet, are conforming to the social norm of the past (staying at home with the children, not working, being maids). I do think that all contradicts what you guys are trying to make sense of, but I'll take a dif approach. I think by what women mean when they want 'equal rights,' is to actually not be treated like we're just to be used by our husbands and required to stay indoors cleaning all the time. We want to be ABLE to work when we want to work, to bring in money, to have to share cleaning responsibilities with our partners, to not have children if we choose so, and to be able to vote. Granted, we've been giving permission (and it's sad we NEEDED permission) to do all those over the past, um... 50 years? 100? But still in society, there are men that still want women to be the way they were centuries ago, and there are also women that are fine with being one of those women... those are typically referred to as the conservatives in this country. I think a lot of it has to do with what the bible says too... so, those wanting equality and change are more liberal.

As for the stuff about men being stuck paying on dates even if the women makes more money, I think has more to do with two things: the woman is greedy, or she still believes in "old fashioned" behavior, or chivalry, from the men. I personally, do agree it's a little ridiculous and women should have no problem paying on dates sometimes. It may also show that the man still has most of the power between the two, by paying all the time. We may want equality, but we still want a strong man who takes a stand. We just don't want that attitude from men that makes us feel like servants and mindlessly useless beings.

Oh, and one last thing, most of this about women still clinging to old fashion values probably has more to do with the type of household they grew up in. Our generation isn't quite out of it yet, but the next generation, just might pull out of it.

This is not a black and white question because the Women's Rights Movement has morphed over time. It used to be equal rights for women. Currently, the Women's Rights Movement almost wants to force women against their genetic makeup. Women want to feel independent and be independent but deep down, they still yearn to be taken care of. Not because they can't fend for themselves (I don't believe that women are the weaker sex) but because it makes them feel loved.

The image of a Knight in shining white armor counters naught the women's right movement. 'Tis a mere symbol of heroism and protection standing to say that a man has the"obligation" to protect a woman. The women's rights movement has nothing to do with protection, it has to do with equal rights to those of men, earning respect. By saying that the Knight in shining white armor image counters the movement, one would be stating that women are far too proud to need rescuing/protecting/respect. In other words, it is achieving the opposite of what women want. Every being, man or woman needs to feel protected, the image of a parent caring for a child, two old persons taking a walk, the knight in shining white armor and a woman standing beside a man all convey that image of protection.

That the image makes feminists feel undermined is different. Feminists are not the only one's fighting for women's rights, they are they ones that take it to the extreme my seeking Independence from men. My personal believe is that said independence is not necessarily needed since, like I said, no human being can truly stand alone and be happy.