My fragmented profession brings me into contact [last count] with 125 ladies and 8 gentlemen per working week and those are the types of odds which keep me over here.

Let me set out my stall. In me you’ll find a door opener, a flower bringer, an impulsive present giver and the physical biz is very nice as well. In short, I like women, [as distinct from loving them]. And the more intelligent, the more accomplished, the better.

What I can’t handle, not at all, is special interest groups. I’ll not speak of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishnas and political movements but I shall speak and vehemently so, of Feminists and give these reasons why, when you see one approaching, you should hide until she’s gone:

1. Men and women were designed for one another. Does it have to be spelled out - any man who ever stayed more than one night with his woman knows that. So when you read such pap as ‘a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’, once we’ve smiled at the wit, the very next gesture must be to shake the head and to sigh sadly for the woman who uttered it.

2. It’s an unbalanced and illogical position. Even the arcane, dualistic enemy admit that there needs to be balance but I’d say it’s not so much a question of balance, as symbiosis. It’s like nature – cut down the trees and erosion and desertification will follow. Unbalance a relationship and the inevitable must follow.

3. It’s a waste of time and misplaced energy. Whom do the Feministi hope to influence? The men? Most of the high flying women I know have no time for such rubbish. They simply stand or fall by their abilities and recognize that there is prejudice against them, just as there is against the aging and the young.

4. They make relationships an impossibility. When one side is so intransigent about something, it gradually squeezes the life and the love out of the other.

5. It’s a waste of good womanhood. A person’s thoughts become a person’s opinions and one’s opinions shape the personality over time. A feminist does walk differently and does talk differently, no matter how appealing the original outer façade. With men, it’s the non-achiever – you can see him a mile off. I’m sorry if that’s cruel but we really are the sum of our experiences and prejudices. And that’s why the successes with the other sex continue to succeed.

6. Lastly, it does not make the Feministi any happier. This is where I hand over to a woman who can put it much better than I:

Why wanting equality makes women unhappy, by Meghan O'Rourke

In The Feminine Mystique, the late Betty Friedan attributed the malaise of married women largely to traditionalist marriages in which wives ran the home and men did the bread-winning.

Her book helped spark the sexual revolution of the 1970s and fueled the notion that egalitarian partnerships—where both partners have domestic responsibilities and pursue jobs—would make wives happier.

Last week, two sociologists at the University of Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness among women that challenges this assumption.

Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and "emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute).

But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals—have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate.

Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose. Progressive married women—who should be enjoying some or all of the fruits that Freidan lobbied for—are less happy, it would appear, than women who live as if Friedan never existed.

Of course, conclusions like these are never cut-and-dried. This study is based on surveys conducted between 1992 and 1994, and measuring marital happiness is a little like trying to quantify sex appeal.

But the data are nonetheless worth pausing over, especially if, like me, you've long subscribed to the view that so-called companionate couples have the best chance at sustaining a happy partnership.

Among all the married women surveyed, 52 percent of homemakers considered themselves very happy. Yet only 45 percent of the most progressive-minded homemakers considered themselves happy.

This might not seem surprising—presumably, many progressive women prefer to work than stay at home. But the difference in happiness persists even among working wives. Forty-one percent of all the working wives surveyed said they were happy, compared with 38 percent of the progressive working wives.

The same was the case when it came to earnings. Forty-two percent of wives who earned one-third or more of the couple's income reported being happy, compared with 34 percent of progressive women in the same position. Perhaps the progressive women had hoped to earn more.

But they were less happy than their peers about being a primary breadwinner—though you might expect the opposite. Across the board, progressive women are less likely to feel content, whether they are working or at home, and no matter how much they are making.

What's really going on here?

The conservative explanation, of course, is that the findings suggest that women don't know what they really want (as John Tierney implied in the New York Times, and Charlotte Allen suggested in the Los Angeles Times). Feminism, they argue, has only undermined the sturdy institution of marriage for everyone.

The feminist and liberal argument is that reality hasn't yet caught up to women's expectations. Women have entered the workforce, but men still haven't picked up the domestic slack—working wives continue to do 70 percent or more of the housework, according to one study.

If you work hard and come home and find you have to do much more than your husband does, it's little wonder that you would be angry and frustrated.