"Yes... Absolutely. I’m always a little bit puzzled when any woman of whatever age, but particularly a young woman, says something like, ‘well, I believe in equal rights but I’m not a feminist.’ Well, a feminist is by definition someone who believes in equal rights. I’m hoping that people will not be afraid to say, that doesn’t mean you hate men, it doesn’t you want to separate out the world [sic], so you’re not a part of ordinary life -- that’s not what it means at all! It just means that we believe that women have the same rights as men."Who writes the definition? We're still saying what X is "by definition" after all these years of scoffing at the anti-same-sex-marriage people who kept saying, tediously, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman?
Even if we are still doing "by definition"-style arguments, where was it ever established that the definition of feminism is just "someone who believes in equal rights"? If that could be nailed down, virtually every American would say "yes" to Dunham's question. They might not go around proclaiming "I'm a feminist" because if what you believe in is equal rights, what's your motivation to use a label that calls attention to a particular subgroup of humanity?
Hillary is being cagey though. She says "a feminist is by definition someone who believes in equal rights," but she doesn't say feminism is the belief in equal rights and nothing more. The reason for resisting the label is that you want to control the precise set of beliefs that you're signing onto and not to make yourself vulnerable to various definitions purveyed by writers and speakers who are more active and powerful than you are. Put that way, the resistance itself sounds feminist to me.
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
Do you consider yourself a feminist?
Follow up questions...
What kind of tree would you be?
What's your favorite color, and why?
oh Hillary is so brave. Sitting down with a silly odd duck actress for a Q&A. There's only one Korrect answer about feminism. The 2 fascists sitting there have said.
Where's Paglia when you need her?
I doubt brave Hillary would sit down with Camille Paglia.
...after all these years of scoffing at the anti-same-sex-marriage people who kept saying, tediously, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman?
I'm sorry that you find the truth tedious.
Well, a feminist is by definition someone who believes in equal rights.
Like most extremists those who call themselves feminists today try to hide their goals under unobjectionable blather. If feminism were about equal rights 2/3 of women (and even more men) wouldn't reject the label.
Feminism is cursed by its own success. The elements that did support equal rights and equal opportunity were so successful those ideals are so widely accepted they don't count as feminism any longer. This is a good thing.
Unfortunately extremists captured the brand and use it as cover to advance radical ideas. This is a bad thing.
I’m hoping that people will not be afraid to say, that doesn’t mean you hate men, it doesn’t you want to separate out the world [sic], so you’re not a part of ordinary life -- that’s not what it means at all!
'Cause, you know, young women are so silly & vapid! They really don't know what they think, do they? #WarOnWomen.
Actually, I think the problem with feminism is that young, college educated women who take the time to look into academic feminism find out that, yes, it actually is full of radical lesbian, man-hating, heterosex-hating, social if not political separatists.
There's "street feminism", which is about common economic & social issues that affect women, but when you look into "academic feminism" a whole different world comes into view. How can an average, hetero, young woman look into academic feminism & not think "Wow, if that's the brains of the operation, count me out!".
Who writes the definition? We're still saying what X is "by definition" after all these years of scoffing at the anti-same-sex-marriage people who kept saying, tediously, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman?
The people write the definition. It's an art to discover a definition.
If you want to see it in action (highly, highly recommended) read this little bit by Stanley Cavell on something as simple as a chair chair
It's amusing as well as informative. 3 pages, more or less.
The key is that we can't articulate the whole definition. It has to be discovered in where the word wants to go, apart from our will but not apart from our interests.
"Do you feel that acceptance by feminism of your husband's sexual harassment of subordinate employees discredited feminism?"
"You claim to be a feminist, do you regret the damage you did to its credibility in covering up his sexual discrimination relating to Monica Lewinsky, the sexual harassment and assault of Paula Jones, and the sexual assault of Kathleen Wiley? I mean, these were are loyal female democrats..."
"As a feminist, do you understand now that sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace is not 'just about sex' ?"
tediously
Nobody has shown you why it's interesting. It is, though. You take too much for granted.
Ironic tediousness, since Althouse claims to be interested in words.
"...the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
'You should see the words come round me of a Saturday night,' Hillary went on, wagging her head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
I am a conservative, white man and I consider myself a feminist. Unless the definition of feminist mandates the use of bad statistics and emotional argument. Definitions do matter.
To consider yourself a feminist today you must believe in abortion on demand up to the due date and perhaps include the transitioning time during birth and some time period immediate post-birth—inclusive abortion for all anytime any way because at this point WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!
My son tells me the women at Harvard are wary of associating with the wacko extreme feminists there.
Sounds sexist.......
The real answer is feminists now don't give a shit about women or their rights. There isn't a facet of American life where they aren't equal or more than equal to men.
Feminism has become an ism. We don't hear anything about applying title 9 to graduation rates for boys in any level of education despite universally lower graduation rates. But that is because feminism is about balkanizing the electorate and sowing division along demographic lines. Modern feminists are little different from black lives matter activists and toe the same lines. This is because they are funded and organized by the same people and have exactly the same goals which is to make the everyone bitter, hateful, and to resent their fellow citizens.
There will never be equality between the sexes because women will never agree to give up that much power.
Can a feminist believe that the victim of a rape, the woman who discovered her immediately after bleeding from the lip in a hotel room, the four other friends and her husband that she told about it in the days just afterward, all six people were lying about a rape?
Because that is what she would have to believe to believe that her husband did not rape Juanita Broaddrick.
"Hillary is being cagey though. She says "a feminist is by definition someone who believes in equal rights," but she doesn't say feminism is the belief in equal rights and nothing more. The reason for resisting the label is that you want to control the precise set of beliefs that you're signing onto and not to make yourself vulnerable to various definitions purveyed by writers and speakers who are more active and powerful than you are. Put that way, the resistance itself sounds feminist to me."
Althouse points out Hillary's effort to herd women into the GLEICHSCHALTUNG, and also the interesting fact that herding creates it's own contradictions where resistance becomes "feminism".
Jonah Goldberg
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/215046/
It means “coordination.” The German National Socialists (Nazis) used the concept to get every institution to sing from the same hymnal. If a fraternity or business embraced Nazism, it could stay “independent.” If it rejected Nazism, it was crushed or bent to the state’s ideology. Meanwhile, every branch of government was charged with not merely doing its job but advancing the official state ideology.
Now, contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren’t evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism. But there is a liberal Gleichschaltung all the same. Every institution must be on the same page. Every agency must advance the liberal agenda.
And this is where the Catch-22 catches. The dream of a nimble, focused, problem-solving government is undone by the reality of hyper–mission creep. When every institution is yoked to an overarching philosophy or mission, its actual purpose can become an afterthought. In 2005, volunteer firefighters from all over the country offered to help with Katrina’s aftermath. But FEMA sent many of them to Atlanta first to undergo diversity and sexual-harassment training (which most already had).
Feminists make demands of men on behalf of women by trying to emulate men.
but her communications aide Kristina Schake said: “Hillary was drawn to Lena's unique voice, dynamic talent and strong commitment to women's rights. Hillary and Lena had a strong connection, which comes through in this intimate, engaging interview.”
It's like a grandmother talking to her granddaughter.
Feminism means Emasculism.
"the resistance itself sounds feminist to me"
Well, rhh, it seems this word doesn't want to stay put on a chair. Who knows where it wants go next. Maybe get into substantive due process. Stranger things have happened.
See, if Hillary was being questioned by a thinking human being and not Lena Dunham, the followup would be "do you consider Carly Fiorina a feminist, then?" Because the "all women and men should be feminists, if they believe in equal rights!" crowd tends to also be the "you're not a real feminist if you don't want all abortions to be legal and subsidized, and government to take care of women, and women's rape accusations to be automatically believed unless the alleged rapist is Bill Clinton, and think women's opinions deserve special weight" crowd.
And by ANY definition of "feminist", I would say someone who spent her adult life trashing the reputations of women who were groped, molested or raped by her husband is no feminist. If she is, then "feminist" simply means "unthinking Democrat" in which case no smart person should want to be called one.
'but her communications aide Kristina Schake said: “Hillary was drawn to Lena's unique voice...
...which speaks to a certain subset of young women, who even though they don't know what they want, are pissed off that they aren't getting it, whatever "it" is. By golly, if that isn't a constituent group tailor-made for HRC, I don't know what is.'
There, fixed that for ya!
Hillary doesn't believe in equal rights.
She believes that women should receive "free" stuff by virtue of the fact that they are women.
She believes that women have the right to kill a partially delivered baby (feet and legs) under the guise of "reproductive rights", whatever the hell that is.
She believes that she has the right to store classified government information on a private server while others should be prosecuted for the same behavior.
She believes that a woman should have the presumption of truth whenever they claim they've been raped. The corollary is that men should have the presumption of guilt whenever a claim of rape has been leveled against them.
She isn't "cagey". She's just a liar.
Transgender marriage is merely the latest consequence of pro-choice religious doctrine that works through the establishment of congruences that are notoriously selective and variable on principle. Class diversity is another policy of the State-established pro-choice cult that denigrates individual dignity and legally denies individual rights. However, the key achievement, the highlight of pro-choice doctrine, was the normalization/promotion of elective abortion as a wicked solution to a "wicked problem". That really set the threshold of tolerance for everything that followed.
As for feminism, there is individual liberty, a corporate establishment (i.e. financial profit), and a political movement (i.e. democratic leverage). There are the industries that developed to support feminism. Most notably the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood that provide death and dismemberment services, harvesting, and trafficking of millions of viable human lives annually.
Yeah, Clinton is a feminist and Feminist. As are all Democrats in principle, and not a few moderate Republicans.
If you have a basic argument that seems obvious to you but is not convincing other people and all you do is to keep repeating the argument in the same way, you are going to be tedious.
I agree, it is tedious to be forced to point out that Bill Clinton is a rapist every time Hillary opens her mouth to spout one more gaping hypocrisy.
How can you agree with equal rights without condemning the kangaroo courts and their processes used for sexual assault on campus today?
After all, if the man and woman have both been drinking, the man is responsible, the woman is .... not?
(Plus, of course the oft remarked above, "believe the victim", Ho Lee Katz.)
Some women, given a modestly tilted playing field, can become a university professor. Or a CEO. Others discover that they lack to the talent to achieve her lofty goals, but assume that it's because the playing field is not tilted nearly enough. That's a 21st century feminist, period.
There's a major difference between Elaine Pao and Carly Fiorina.
Not the only rapist she defended either. Maybe the only one she defended where she wasn't recorded chortling about.
Imagine if we could use the "tedious" argument to get the "Americans Against The Tea Party" to shut up!
Is Lena the one that molested her sister?
A feminist wouldn't have remained married to Bill Clinton.
Stuck pebbles in her vagina, not "molested..." yeesh!
"you are going to be tedious."
Luke 18:1-8
Tedious does not necessarily equal ineffective.
Feminism is more a belief in equal outcomes than in equal rights, except for the important case where if women have more they should not have to give it up.
At a minimum it's more accurately described as an advocacy for women and girls than as an advocate of equal rights. At least if one pays more attention to what it does than to what its proponents say.
Well, then, the next time someone says they're a feminist and asks for anything other than Equal Rights, I'll tell them Hillary Clinton Says You're Wrong.
(Completely agree on the problem of saying "the definition of X is Y"; people seem to confuse their belief that X means Y with some ineffable truth of the essence of X.
This is almost understandable on age-old terms and institutions like marriage, but it utterly baffles me for relative neologisms like "feminism", which has had multiple definitions for decades now.
[Lately, I saw a discussion of transgender issues; someone had said that while they fully support all rights for TG persons and treat them decently in all interactions, they still hold "they're not really women [in context of M-F transition]".
The response was, roughly, "well, you're completely wrong but at least you're not being a dick about it, I guess?".
Which made me think ... "completely wrong"? Did someone establish the True Ineffable Nature Of Gender while I looked away, and decided that it was definitely "whatever you felt like you were", with no genetic component?
I mean, that's not indefensible - but it's not obviously and inarguably correct either - and simply asserting that it is is not actually helpful.
Thus the relevance to the definition question.)
I'm right to be an atheist. Lena Dunham and Hillary Clinton were in the same room and there was no meteor.
Feminism doesn't remotely believe in "equal rights". What kind of nonsense is that? "Equality" is a belief in equal rights.
Slightly marginal chair.
Stuck pebbles in her vagina, not "molested..." yeesh!
_The Job of Sex_ said that you ought to be able to say simple words with your vagina. It suggested starting with "boat."
Demothenes suggested pebbles.
There you go.
f you have a basic argument that seems obvious to you but is not convincing other people and all you do is to keep repeating the argument in the same way, you are going to be tedious.
Suppose you think there's something interesting there that the other guy isn't seeing, but is capable of becoming interested in, given his other interests.
Try the chair pages.
Just as there are good and bad readers of literature, there are good and bad readers of words.
I suggest also Wm. Empson, _The Structure of Complex Words_ as likely to interest Althouse.
I don't suggest that Althouse read some math, because I don't think she'd be interested.
Words, though, yes.
Limbaugh is playing the Pope, who sounds senile. That's tedious.
ANSWER: 23%
QUESTION: How many American women consider themselves "feminists," according to a poll by the ultra-feminist Huffington Post.
TED talks are named after tedium.
Where does Pizza Rat stand on this issue?
To Dunham, feminist = abortion enthusiast.
You'll notice that people promoting feminism always insist feminism is about equality, to a degree that's excessive in a "lady [sexist!] doth protest too much" sense. Almost no one, including people who believe in traditional gender roles etc, argues against equality. If an otherwise-identical man and woman do the same job equally well at the same company they ought to be paid the same salary. But when there are differences (in time continuously worked, time with the company, hours worked per week, # of raises asked for, etc) between the two it's not upholding the idea of equality to insist that they be paid the same--it's asking for unequal treatment!
We're all people, treat everyone the same regardless of gender! Sure, ok, equality, everyone's on board.
Women are different, treat women differently in ways that benefit women (at the expense of men) because of those differences and change things around so that women benefit generally! That's special pleading, not equality, and it's obvious enough that people promoting feminism have to keep insisting it's "about equality" to try and stop you from noticing.
Pizza Rat just wants to eat his waffle.
If feminism were about equal rights 2/3 of women (and even more men) wouldn't reject the label.
If feminism were about equal rights we would hear constant calls by women to include everyone in registration for selective service. Curiously, that's not the case.
tim in vermont
You are not describing a rape rape. A rape rape is when a college student decides several weeks after a consensual sexual encounter that it was not, might not have been, consensual after all. That is rape rape.
You are describing a misunderstanding.
Pizza Rat just wants to eat his waffle.
Bravo, Pizza Rat!
In 2005, volunteer firefighters from all over the country offered to help with Katrina’s aftermath. But FEMA sent many of them to Atlanta first to undergo diversity and sexual-harassment training (which most already had).?
Is that true? I don't remember seeing anything about it. Links?
If you believe UVA's Jackie was raped but not Juanita Broderick, then you're something, but I don't think you should be able to call yourself "feminist" anymore.
The feminist cover is the best interests of women. From that you get feminists like me, claiming to see what the best interests of women are, opposing the popular zero sum game against men feminists.
You'd say true feminist to distinguish the first. It's called misogynist as a popular defense.
Dan Hoosley said....She believes that a woman should have the presumption of truth whenever they claim they've been raped.
No, Dan, that's not it. Hillary Clinton says "survivors" (which functionally means women accusing someone of sexual assault) have a right to be believed."
Men accused of sexual assault don't have a right to be believed. That, to a feminist like Clinton, is equality.
Vicki Hearne does feminism in the former sense, the true interests of women
vickihearne.feminism.txt.
I love Ann but she seems to have slipped up a few times recently.
Here, Hillary plainly said "It just means that we believe that women have the same rights as men." She was making the term meaningless thought a meaningless definition. She was not leaving it open to adding more.
The characterization of Hillary as "cagey" is interesting. Cagey implies smart. I view her more as programmed, and not particularly bright, especially when she ventures beyond the programmed stuff. I'm not saying she is stupid, more average without very good political skills.
Overall, the emails will do her in and probably now beyond her control. She is a dead candidate walking. I think she will pretty soon be seen as going through the motions. She may stick around for a few losses, but it will go down quick. Biden will be the nominee.
....from the woman that coined the phrase "Bimbo Eruptions".
Overall, the emails will do her in and probably now beyond her control. She is a dead candidate walking. I think she will pretty soon be seen as going through the motions.
I agree with this and to a person, all my liberal or Democrat-voting friends who initially dismissed this whole thing have been very quiet on the subject recently.
I love how Roughcoat's dog looks like he just spotted Pizza Rat.
If "feminists" gave a shit about equality,, you'd see them worry that boys are doing horribly in school and are given the shaft in college. Universities are, overall, a Title IX violation based on enrollment and graduation numbers.
The regime will crucify Clinton unless she purchases indulgence from the State.
Feminists don't give a shit about men until the shit hits the fan then they will demand that men be manly.
As for Hillary and feminism, what difference at this point does it make since she is more likely to be sleeping in The Big House instead of The White House.
Scott M said...Is that true? I don't remember seeing anything about it. Links?
CNN: FEMA Katrina response problems
•Firefighters who answered a nationwide call for help were sent to Atlanta for FEMA training sessions on community relations and sexual harassment. "On the news every night you hear 'How come everybody forgot us?' " Pennsylvania firefighter Joseph Manning told The Dallas Morning News. "We didn't forget. We're stuck in Atlanta drinking beer."
Wiki: Criticism of Government response to Katrina
However, many police, fire and EMS organizations from outside the affected areas were reportedly hindered or otherwise slowed in their efforts to send help and assistance to the area. FEMA sent hundreds of firefighters who had volunteered to help rescue victims to Atlanta for 2 days of training classes on topics including sexual harassment and the history of FEMA.
"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up on the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster."
Robert A. Heinlein
"....from the woman that coined the phrase "Bimbo Eruptions"."
I think that was actually Mary Matalin who at the time was on the Bush campaign.
"If "feminists" gave a shit about equality,, you'd see them worry that boys are doing horribly in school and are given the shaft in college. Universities are, overall, a Title IX violation based on enrollment and graduation numbers."
Or the fact that men more than women are improsoned for the same crimes. Or men more than women are subject to profiling by the police. Or boys more than girls are subject to discipline at school for the same behavior.
In fact, if you take most of what SJWs say about how blacks are treated relative to whites, you can make the same conclusions as to how men are treated relative to women.
Now consider when a woman says "I shouldn't have to cringe in fear when I walk down a lonely street and see a man standing there, not knowing if he's going to rape me" and change that to a white person saying "I shouldn't have to cringe in fear when I walk down a lonely street and see a black person standing there, not knowing if he's going to rape me" and ask yourself why the first statement is ok but the second one is considered bigoted.
Women aren't superior to men; they are just more valuable than men. But it is possible to oversell that.
If you have a basic argument that seems obvious to you but is not convincing other people and all you do is to keep repeating the argument in the same way, you are going to be tedious
I certainly find modern feminists to be tedious, when they aren't being hysterical.
I love how Roughcoat's dog looks like he just spotted Pizza Rat.
Heh heh ... ain't it the truth. She don't like furry little critters no-ways. If I just so much as whisper "squirrel" to her she runs to the nearest window and looks out, glowering and ferocious: "I HATE you, squirrels! HATE HATE HATE!"
Bad blood that goes back to the Old Country, I'd say.
She taught my pup, another border collie, to hate them too. When we go out for walkies it's all about herding the kids, other dogs, and perchance any sheep that might happen by ... until we see a squirrel. Then it's chase 'em up a tree, enraged by its effrontery, "DIE, SQUIRREL, DIE, DAMN YOU!"
I pray Pizza Rat never strays into their domain ...
Feminism is simply a thin veneer for Leftism.
If Hillary and Ms. Lena were true feminists, they would have supported Sarah Palin from numerous personal attacks. They didn't.
The guesswork about Obama's intentions also is fascinating. He, presumably, could bring Hillary down and probably does not care for her. However, she also might have some goods on him.
My guess is he would prefer her to die without him leaving fingerprints, which she might be very close to doing. My further guess is that some combination of bad intent and incompetence is going to do her in on the email issues. Even sophisticated IT people can fail in efforts to destroy evidence, so I doubt her corps of sycophants brought sufficient competence to the game to successfully manage the project.
Interesting rumor that Obama would back 74 year old Biden (when sworn in) in exchange for Biden picking Patrick as running mate and pledging one term. Idea is that Obama through Biden and Patrick gets five terms. May be nonsense and, even if true, very hard to execute, i.e., good Republican candidate and campaign likely beats Biden. Still interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/24/fbi-confident-clinton-emails-being-recovered-source/
The is not particularly revealing information, but it suggests Clinton tried to wipe the server and did not competently get it done. If the facts are Clinton decided what to give to State and then tried unsuccessfully to wipe everything else, that sounds like a perilous position for her to be in. It might explain why she has avoided saying whether she ordered the server wiped. The best guess is she did, but was afraid of admitting it because of concern the stuff would be recovered.
"Interesting rumor that Obama would back 74 year old Biden (when sworn in) in exchange for Biden picking Patrick as running mate and pledging one term. Idea is that Obama through Biden and Patrick gets five terms. May be nonsense and, even if true, very hard to execute, i.e., good Republican candidate and campaign likely beats Biden. Still interesting."
I can certainly see him favoring Biden, just it doesn't look like Biden will run (short of a total Hillary flameout). But I'd figure Cory Booker would be a better running mate than Patrick, as he's got fewer negatives and some crossover appeal.
"The is not particularly revealing information, but it suggests Clinton tried to wipe the server and did not competently get it done. If the facts are Clinton decided what to give to State and then tried unsuccessfully to wipe everything else, that sounds like a perilous position for her to be in."
I don't trust the Clintons at all, but playing devils advocate it is possible she only tried to wipe the e-mails she didn't turn over because she thought they were merely personal and not belonging to State. (Though of course she was still wrong in doing so, it may be that there is nothing on those e-mails)
I'm hoping they find something damning enough on the e-mails that she tried to wipe that it forces her out of the race. This country can't afford to have someone like this in power.
Bay Area Guy:
Leftism is about establishing and maintaining monopolies.
Feminism is worse. It is a political and cultish movement that derives power through stoking and exploiting conflict between the two sexes, has overseen an unprecedented violation of human rights through the resumption of sacrificial rites under the State-established pro-choice cult, constructed an abortion industry to promote congruence between males and females, and runs a Planned Parenthood corporation for dismemberment, harvesting, and trafficking of human cells, parts, and other marketable features of human babies.
I can certainly see him favoring Biden, just it doesn't look like Biden will run (short of a total Hillary flameout). But I'd figure Cory Booker would be a better running mate than Patrick, as he's got fewer negatives and some crossover appeal.
Booker has a POWERFUL "weird" vibe to him.
"Women aren't superior to men; they are just more valuable than men. But it is possible to oversell that."
If you want to be cruel to feminists, ask them: "if women are equal to men, how is it that men have so easily oppressed them for so many thousands of years?"
Fen said...
"Women aren't superior to men; they are just more valuable than men. But it is possible to oversell that."
If you want to be cruel to feminists, ask them: "if women are equal to men, how is it that men have so easily oppressed them for so many thousands of years?"
9/24/15, 4:31 PM
Another one of Fen's Laws. So obviously true yet so rarely mentioned.
I think she was asking her if she was a lesbian.
If you have a basic argument that seems obvious to you but is not convincing other people and all you do is to keep repeating the argument in the same way, you are going to be tedious.
Mega-irony.
If you have a basic argument that seems obvious to you but is not convincing other people and all you do is to keep repeating the argument in the same way, you are going to be president.
Well, a feminist is by definition someone who believes in equal rights.
That's like saying an environmentalist is by definition someone who believes we should be responsible in our treatment of the environment. I suppose there's some people who don't really believe in equal rights or responsible treatment of the environment, but I've never met them.
The problem here is shifting definitions. You define a concept narrowly, demand that people behave in accordance with this narrow definition, and then when they challenge whether that's a good idea, change the definition to a broad one so that you can portray their challenge as if they were disagreeing with some basic concept that would indicate they are immoral or something. It's fundamentally dishonest. It's an attempt to control and manipulate people into doing what you want. It disrespects their autonomy.
Indiscriminate killing is an important topic.
Construction of congruences is an important topic.
People need to be aware of the moral hazards created through a State-established pro-choice doctrine.
I'm still trying to get my brain around Hillary Clinton being interviewed by Lena Dunham. I can't imagine being interested in what was said.
I didn't watch the interview, but I saw the enraptured look on Dunham's face. Just earlier I had seen pictures of some nuns meeting the Pope. It was almost the exact same look. Can Dunham even think a critical thought about Hillary?.....Dunham isn't known for her sunny view of human nature--men and women. I guess the one bright spot in humanity's squalor is Hillary and her campaign for President.
Favoring equal rights makes you a "humanist". Hillary is so out-of-touch that she doesn't realize her second-wave feminism is simply the other gender's version of "masculinism". But the younger generation does.
Feminists don't believe in equal rights. Egalitarians do. Most people who claim to not be feminists are not saying women have to be bare foot and pregnant or can't work jobs. The fact that women can have rooms of their own is a given. First wave feminism is different than third wave feminism, which is just cultural marxism at this point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा