One of the problems is that it is impossible in the current hyper-sensitive, politically correct environment to scrutinize, question, doubt or criticize a radical feminist without (instantly) being the target of charges of sexism and misogyny. It's as if a page has been taken out of the Zionist book on how to shut down an argument involving aid to Israel: accuse anyone who doesn't support Zionism and/or Israeli aid of being an anti-Semite and/or a Nazi sympathizer and you win. The feminists argument often relies on that exact same tactic. And that's why so few will venture into a losing argument, where any sort of hare-brained feminist position should be up for possible discussion - better just to leave it alone. And if you do go there, you better choose your words very carefully, because they will be picked over with a fine tooth comb. As the extreme beliefs of radical feminism from 20-30 years ago (Wolf, MacKinnon, et al) have worked their way into the popular culture of what's "normal" or acceptable, the overall movement has adopted beliefs that many would say are no longer about achieving equality, but about achieving special treatment. The feminist drive (not just the radical wing) to classify women as a politically and legally "protected class" is but one example of that. "Sex" (but not "gender") was already a protected category. But Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, among others, pushed to make women (specifically) a protected class. Is that equality or is that special treatment? In my book, it's special treatment. If every little societal niche has special rules that apply to it, what sort of a disjointed, confused society are we going to have? Kind of what we have now, but worse? :dunno:
Take a look at things that are representative of pop culture, as I believe they're often indicative of where society is going. Look at half a dozen or so TV commercials, where there are male and female characters. I believe that you will notice a very common theme. I'm not advocating that women should always be portrayed as sex objects or bimbos. But I find it rather curious that in the majority of commercials, the male will be portrayed as the idiot, the boob or the object of humiliation and derision and the woman is there to save the day. The female will be portrayed as strong. The male will be portrayed as weak. I never took women's studies courses in school (or as some are now titled "
womyn's studies"), but from being around people who did, many of the things being taught 30 years ago were weird to me. Now, those things are considered normal. And other than the rad feminists, who refuse to wear tampons and
like offending people with menstrual blood running down their legs and the foul smell, I'm guessing that the things considered weird, extreme or radical now, will be considered pretty normal 30 years from now... assuming we stay on the same "progressive" social path that we're on now.
I just think it's too bad that there are people who rely on making someone else look weak so that they can make believe that they are strong. And it's too bad that women
and men, who actually have worked for equality, have been shouted down and marginalized by people who are not tuned into reality. And this isn't just happening on gender related issues. If anyone wants to get a laugh (or a cry), take a look at some of the oddball things going on at Harvard Law School and the University of California system - and I'm sad to say, what happened at my alma mater during the shameful Jackie Coakley affair. Where once there was a long standing, 175 year old honor code, which applied to
everyone, because Jackie Coakley's elaborate lie involved rape, she was given a
complete pass. And a university president, who was installed based on gender politics, having no previous ties to UVA, spent her time trying to destroy the fraternity system at the university (she only went after fraternities, but not sororities
), and not trying to get to the truth. Teresa Sullivan has been as silent as a church mouse since her political "tool" was exposed as a blatant liar. Sullivan has been a rolling disaster since she started, should have never been hired and should now be fired - but that is impossible to even discuss. That, I know from personal experience. Different rules for different people seems to be where we are headed.
