This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Theyitis · 36-40, M
@JonUK31 His habits towards women are not irrelevant. The president’s behavior is a moral example for the country. If the president thinks it’s okay to treat women this way, then it must be okay for me to treat women this way too. Trump gets away with so much, no other candidate for president could get so many people to vote for him who would say something like, “I don’t like him, I think he’s morally bankrupt, but I’ll vote for him anyway because I agree with his policies.” People don’t generally vote for candidates they personally loathe, but Trump’s apparently an exception to every rule on the planet.
bijouxbroussard · F
@JonUK31 There’s now a question about what feminism actually [b]is[/b], in the U.S. (perhaps it’s different in the UK) there’s a lot a "rebranding" of terms and people deciding to redefine them.
When I was first involved in the feminist world here, it was about making opportunities for girls and women to follow dreams [b]other[/b] than home making and raising children (not unworthy goals, but [b]men[/b] were allowed to have careers [b]and[/b] families).
It was [b]never[/b] about hating men, but broadening possibilities for the other [b]half[/b] of the population that hadn’t really been widely available before.
I don’t accept that a woman who would rather be prey to a
convicted predator isn’t [b]damaged[/b] on some level. If we feminists are the "problem", it just means that with the "rebranding", people are now [b]ignorant[/b] about what the term feminism was originally all about.
I would wager that if you asked most women the following question:
"Would you accept going back to the times when women were seen as less than men and not allowed to vote, participate in politics or leadership roles, drive, become formally educated or work outside the home ?"
The majority of women (even those who don’t identify as feminist) wouldn’t likely [b]accept[/b] such conditions.
And yet, that’s all that feminism was originally about. The extremists who come along after the fact and tack on [b]their[/b] personal agendas have been doing their own thing.
When I was first involved in the feminist world here, it was about making opportunities for girls and women to follow dreams [b]other[/b] than home making and raising children (not unworthy goals, but [b]men[/b] were allowed to have careers [b]and[/b] families).
It was [b]never[/b] about hating men, but broadening possibilities for the other [b]half[/b] of the population that hadn’t really been widely available before.
I don’t accept that a woman who would rather be prey to a
convicted predator isn’t [b]damaged[/b] on some level. If we feminists are the "problem", it just means that with the "rebranding", people are now [b]ignorant[/b] about what the term feminism was originally all about.
I would wager that if you asked most women the following question:
"Would you accept going back to the times when women were seen as less than men and not allowed to vote, participate in politics or leadership roles, drive, become formally educated or work outside the home ?"
The majority of women (even those who don’t identify as feminist) wouldn’t likely [b]accept[/b] such conditions.
And yet, that’s all that feminism was originally about. The extremists who come along after the fact and tack on [b]their[/b] personal agendas have been doing their own thing.