Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is the one thing Hillary Clinton said that I remember thinking "I like that woman."
When the BLM crew came in to talk with her and they said "they want to change hearts and minds," Clinton calmly explained to them that was stupid. You don't change hearts in minds with marches and protests. That is for changing laws. Hearts and minds respond to kindness over a long period of time. You won't hate blacks if you live next to them, make some friends with blacks, and don't get robbed hopefully by black people before the first step (it happens).
Protesting is to change laws. Social Justice Movements are being treated like god damn social clubs. They are social clubs these days! But that's highly counter productive in some sense -- because SJM also create division. It's supposed to be temporary -- to change laws.
Modern Feminism practical impact is to divide people more then bring them together -- without any concrete legal goals that can possibly make any of this worth it. Keep in mind, pro-choice isn't a feminist-only stance....yet whenever I say something like this people bring up feminists protecting abortion rights.
Whatever. That can be completely separated from feminism. Evidenced by how many pro-life feminists there are. Most of this stuff can besides the pay gap.
We are over-using the lens. That's what conservatives do. They pick a lens to see the world through -- and have a hard time taking it off and putting new ones on. But man can they rationalize how that one lens is always right. Liberals have more lenses but know them less well.
Modern feminism is a sanctuary for conservatives. But that word is only used to connotation Republicans in this country...I mean conservative in the traditional since. They want to keep what is old more than progress what is new.
|
I strongly agree with most of your post, but when you (or anyone in this forum) starts talking about "modern feminism" the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Assuming you're not involved yourself with the modern feminist movement, how do you define "modern feminism"? To put it another way, is it possible your beliefs might be based on a few crazies who are good at getting TV airtime and choose to identify as "modern feminists"?
I had an Ancient Greek Literature class (I don't know why all these conversations take me back to college, but they do). In that class we watched a short piece from the History channel, which included a "feminist historical expert" who went off about how the myths were full of phallic symbolism and a bunch of other nonsense. Afterwards our teacher explained that while most of the stuff in the video was relevant, that one lady was just some crank the History channel had found somewhere. None of the stuff she was talking about was supported by anything, and no other serious Greek scholar believed any of the ideas she espoused.
This was fine for us watching the segment in class, but it made me think: what if you're just a random person watching the History channel? You see this supposed "expert", and you certainly aren't an expert on feminist ancient Greek literature, so the only natural thing for you to do is believe it, or at least believe that's what feminist historians as a group think ... because you don't have a knowledgeable professor in your living room who can tell you that the"expert" on TV (who supposedly represents a certain group) is actually just a lone crank (who doesn't).
I'm not saying that what you wrote is wrong (again, I agree with the bulk of it), but I just really wonder if a lot of what everyone here thinks is "modern feminism" is similarly distorted.