31.05.10
Now it is true, it is an argument out of print, because it is almost completely circular, and it raises the question every way imaginable. I herald, go, not everything feminism has challenged the patriarchal norms, or the dynamics of power, or systemic inequities. It's just iterating over the proper place, and several former feminists, for example, Susan B. Anthony addressed the root classic liberal arguments. At this point, Valenti took it maddening to prove - namely, that all feminism must be oriented towards "women's rights" (abortion, for example), and also to make intersectionality with homosexuals.None of these things is necessarily true, and it is foolish to pretend they are.
But it is not even the base nut harder to crack than I have with the article. Just as I am a fan Palin, for example, I often find annoying how she accuses her problems with the media and critics about sexism latent tolerance, something which comes much of the feminist playbook that anything done by , say, Phyllis Schlafly (who celebrates the traditional roles while crushing his opponents intellectually).In the gen after meeting Schlafly (albeit briefly), I know she would not have this policy, since its response when I said she had done more than any feminist was that "The only because they have not qualified is a lot because they do not believe they can. "Of course, Sarah Palin is not Catherine MacKinnon, and therefore of God, but is it really a stretch to see using some of the same claims victimization motivated?
Source: FrumForum