Rush Limbaugh said: "You have to understand the mindset of a lot of these feminists and women...These women have paid their dues. They've been married two or three times; they've had two or three abortions; they've done everything that feminism asked them to do. They have cut men out of their lives; they have devoted themselves to causes and careers. And this — the candidacy of Hillary Clinton — is the culmination of all of these women's efforts."
Jezebel commenters said:
- These women have "had two or three abortions and cut men out of their lives" because they keep meeting men like Rush.
- Why, oh why, couldn't his mother have been one of these three abortion minimum feminists?
- And ol' Rushie here has been married three times, but of course that has nothing to do with anything.
- Oh, shit, I thought I was a feminist. Time to go sign the divorce papers and get impregnated and have an abortion.
- This bloated asshole has been married (and divorced) multiple times, and was caught carrying Viagra and condoms to the Dominican Republic.
11 comments:
It's also interesting to note that one abortion is impliedly fine. Oh, and abortions are caused by cutting men out of our lives.
And also, devotion to causes and careers is bad.
half the time, abortion is caused by cutting men out of your uterus!
A mighty punchable face, his.
Linda, what does it mean these days to be a feminist?
A feminist cares about equality between genders (political, economic, and - hardest to address - social).
Can, or maybe more better posed, should there be social equality between genders considering women's vastly different reproductive roles?
Of course.
It's just that, in general, I think the next step for gender philosophy is to move away from an obsession with equality and to appreciate the biological-- and therefore social [FN1]-- diversity of men and women: reveling in the differences, while respecting the common ground and of course continuing to advocate equal rights. But 'rights' as opposed to just 'equality'. Cf. Malcomb X versus MLK on race relations.
This is a complex topic than demands and better forum. However, I beseech you to not assume that my perspective is sexist. It may be (by your definition)-- just don't assume that for now...
FN1: Not advocating Social Darwinson as historically known... more like Dawkins' argument in The Selfish Gene: biology and genetics forming the basis of social interaction.
Whoops I dropped the ball. Yeah this is a poor forum and these are only my initial thoughts, but:
I don't mean a tit-for-tat equality in like an "each law firm must have the same number of women partners as men" (although that would be nice).
Malcolm X had some good points. I agree with him that MLK had it wrong to the extent a disenfranchised group simply conforms to the existing power structure without affecting change within it. But I liked him better toward the end of his life when he was becoming less of a separatist.
This is similar to my views of gender relations. Society does not benefit from women gaining power if they don't affect change. There is some benefit in merely seeing one's image reflected in positions of power, because it builds confidence.
But I'm talking about the grander equality in which women have equal participation in the power structure. We don't. We could get into all sorts of conversations about why that is, but I think that while the actual access has opened up (still relatively recently), society has a long way to go in terms of more subtle social barriers.
The goal of this greater equality is a benefit to society in general. Men benefit too. There's no reason men need to bear the social pressure to be the primary breadwinner. Let us help and maybe you will die of less middle aged heart attacks and suffer less depression. Maybe you will flounder less as 20somethings because relationships and adulthood carry less pressure and more joy. The more individuals are well-rounded, active participants in society, the better off we are.
Good points. I don't disagree with anything there. One thing I would add is that women should decide to have kids less if they really want power equality. I general I think that society should have less kids so we don't overpopulate and destroy ourselves and it's fucked up that there's so many people that there's traffic jams in places like Roseville, CA. But to stay on topic, I think that women should spearhead the less kids movement because they stand to have the most to gain.
Post a Comment