palin: lowering the standard

[bicker]

I don't see that or agree with that, and I'm a woman.

Be careful; many feminists are quite to remind folks that being female doesn't make someone being a feminist (and that being male doesn't preclude someone from being a feminist). Asking "What makes someone a feminist?" is similar to asking "What makes someone a Christian?" Reasonable people disagree, and that's fine when people are talking about themselves, but when talking more broadly, a compromise definition is required, for when two people talk to each other. What Traister and the rest said are indeed their opinions. What I provided you is what I promised, a representative sampling of what people who care enough about feminism to have some strong perspectives about it. Sure, you can reject everything anyone says if you disagree with it, and therefore nothing ever means anything. But then we wouldn't have any way of communicating with each other.

Put 100 women in a room -- 50 will feel like me, 50 will feel like Traister.

I feel that if I put 100 feminists in a room, about 80 will feel like Traister. You'll disagree -- no surprise since you don't want it to be true. You want your perspective to prevail. However, I think it is better to stick with perspectives that are more consistent with what I've seen people who really care about the issues that feminists have traditionally supported.

And on the whole, isn't whether someone is a "feminist" totally subjective and unable to be proven either way?

That is the foundation on which people project what I believe is the meritless assertion that Sarah Palin is a feminist.

Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain. A group of people coin a term, that really resonates, like "feminist", and so everyone wants to co-opt the term for their own use. It's a bit like the "pro-life" movement. It's a great moniker, but attempts by people who oppose capital punishment (the ending of the life of a human being) but support abortion (the termination of a pregnancy for an embryo that is not yet a human life) wouldn't work out, would it?

There are many freedoms that are curtailed in the United States based on morality

The only moral foundation for that is when there are no significant minorities in the country that disagree with that limitation. Majorities imposing strictures on minorities is tyranny. (See: Tyranny of the majority.)

As for asking women to pay for rape kits? Are those rape tests that are done in the hospital?

Yup, pretty despicable, eh?

 

[bicker]

EDITED TO ADD: Bicker you are not only smart, but clearly well-read -- what an impressive array of quotes you pulled together so quickly!! You clearly read a lot, as do I. I love that you pulled from such a wide variety of sources.

Nah, I just google very well. To be fair, I have read most of those quotes before, and pretty-much knew how and where to find them.

 

[themilesfamily]

Originally Posted by themilesfamily
There are many freedoms that are curtailed in the United States based on morality

Posted by Bicker: The only moral foundation for that is when there are no significant minorities in the country that disagree with that limitation. Majorities imposing strictures on minorities is tyranny. (See: Tyranny of the majority.)

But in fact we do it on many issues. In fact, the majority DOES impose strictures on minority groups every day, based on morality.

Here are some things that are criminalized or not allowed due to the morality of the majority:

Plural marriage
Heroin use
S*x in public places
Nudity in public places

For what reason are these things illegal other than the collective majority has made a moral judgement to prohibit them? There has been a decision, based on morals, that these things should be banned in our society. I guarantee that there is a minority who wants to participate in all of these activities freely and legally -- are they being tyrannized?

I'm getting off-topic, I know...back to Sarah Palin.

 

[bicker]

We can have a discussion about what a "significant" minority means. Clearly, many groups are deliberately marginalized by our society because they're small and represent physical dangers (i.e., people who believe they are supposed to kill people who don't agree with their minority beliefs). However, remarkably, our society has evolve to the point where, these days, it generally doesn't have a problem differentiating from such "fringe groups" and legitimate minorities. So there is no need to even go there.

I don't think heroin use makes any sense in this context. It's dangerous, and there is little doubt that people who push heroin are fringe.

Regarding nudity/sex in public: I'm not in favor of those practices, and if someone made it completely up to me whether to legalize public nudity/sex or not, I think someone could justify the restriction, as a matter of the public interest, based on the assertion that those practices endanger children. (I'm not sure if I could defend that assertion well-enough, but someone could I suspect, with real data and such.)

I also don't agree with plural marriage, but I cannot defend the restriction, except in cases where, as a matter of public interest, again, it endangers children, because the practice in some quarters has had a history of exploitation of minors. However, as a matter between consenting adults, the restriction on plural marriage, as much as I don't agree with the practice, is an instance of tyranny of the majority. The Mormons, who weren't marrying 14 year olds, pretty-much got a raw deal. Just because we committed that transgression once, doesn't mean we should commit it again. The best parallel I can draw is gay marriage: Restrictions against it are patently unfair and therefore immoral.

 

[themilesfamily]

I think someone could justify the restriction, as a matter of the public interest, based on the assertion that those practices endanger children.

Ohhhh, we can justify restricting something if it endangers children??? Well, I believe that the practice of abortion endangers children. In fact, I believe that it kills children. So making abortion illegal is justifiable on those grounds, according to that criteria...

I'm tired and hungry....I'm going to get some dinner....

Later Bicker! I certainly hope you are a lawyer -- you have the smarts.

 

[bicker]

Ohhhh, we can justify restricting something if it endangers children???

Absolutely.

Well, I believe that the practice of abortion endangers children.

It doesn't. Only embryos are affected, but let's not go there. If you'd like, I'll provide you a PM with a link to recent discussions here where abortion was argued.