Escape From Duggarville

[Mrs Mungo]

for me- it's JFK,  teddy kennedy (and chappaquidick) - bill Clinton and the multiple accusations of rape, Kirsten gilibrand complaining about how male senators talk to her - (oh, it's come out it was Daniel innoye. apparently he has a list of women complaining about him behind the scenes.) . . all these males are supported by 'feminists' because they vote the way feminists want them too - but they all treat women like nothing more than a skirt at their disposal.

I put these feminists who support those men in the same category as peta supporters - who throw paint on little old ladies wearing fur, but won't go near a hell's angel biker clad in leather.

 

 

I don't understand what a particular "brand" of feminist has to do with refusing to claim the title at all. Again, to me it's like refusing to call yourself an educator or homeschooler or Christian or mom because some people with those titles do bad things or things that you disagree with.

[Reefgazer]

Apparently, the origins are not all that clear.  First page of a Yahoo search didn't turn it up. 

How exactly is it obscure when the name is "Irish carbomb?" That isn't something we should even need to google, I remember seeing it discussed on the news. That was still going on in the 90s, that wasn't hundreds of years ago.

 

I did say that about domestic violence being trivial. I do think the NFL should take it seriously.

 

[Slartibartfast]

OK, fair enough; players should not be allowed to break the law. Then have the legal system prosecute Ray Rice. But they haven't done so, and I suspect it's because they are doubtful they can get a conviction (for God knows what reason, because the elevator video seems pretty darned clear). Maybe in the state where the alleged crime occurred you have to have the victim willing to cooperate and his wife is unwilling? So how do you force her to testify, considering that spouses are usually treated as a unit? The obvious answer is to have laws that require prosecution in such a case. So lobby for such laws if that's a worthy cause for you. I don't know if the laws in the state where the alleged crime occurred are like that. But if a person remains uncharged, the evidence un-examined in court, and he/she is un-convicted of a crime, then on what basis do you fire them? At this time, Ray Rice. as despicable as he appears to be, is has not been convicted of any crime.

Why would a conviction be necessary before his employer gets involved? People get fired for posting stupid things on twitter all the time. This seems more serious.

[gardenmom5]

For elected judges, the accountability is at the voting booth.  

 

except it is *very hard* to know an elected judge's record unless you expend great energy looking it up.   or know a trial lawyer whom you respect who has argued cases in front of them.  

very, very few have records that can be easily discovered.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently, the origins are not all that clear. First page of a Yahoo search didn't turn it up.

The first page on google is recipes.

 

The origins are not remotely in question. That was happening twenty years ago, not centuries, most people on the boards remember it.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26543952

[Rosie_0801]

I don't understand what a particular "brand" of feminist has to do with refusing to claim the title at all. Again, to me it's like refusing to call yourself an educator or homeschool or Christian or mom because some people with those titles do bad things or things that you disagree with.

 

Mm. I don't think there are many people on here who don't hold what I consider to be feminist values, if any at all. I'm a feminist even though I think the man hating, second wave feminists needed to grow up and out of their ugliness, and stop being divisive idiots. We are now into the third wave of feminism so why would we want to focus on those extremists as though they are all feminism has ever encompassed?

 

But there are so many women who refuse to identify as feminists, I'm wondering whether "not feminist" is going to become some kind of "third way." My imagination is limited, however, so I can't figure out how.

[Mrs Mungo]

OK, fair enough; players should not be allowed to break the law.  Then have the legal system prosecute Ray Rice.  But they haven't done so, and I suspect it's because they are doubtful they can get a conviction (for God knows what reason, because the elevator video seems pretty darned clear).  Maybe in the state where the alleged crime occurred you have to have the victim willing to cooperate and his wife is unwilling?  So how do you force her to testify, considering that spouses are usually treated as a unit?  The obvious answer is to have laws that require prosecution in such a case.  So lobby for such laws if that's a worthy cause for you.  I don't know if the laws in the state where the alleged crime occurred are like that.  But if a person remains uncharged, the evidence un-examined in court, and he/she is un-convicted of a crime, then on what basis do you fire them?  At this time, Ray Rice. as despicable as he appears to be, is has not been convicted of any crime.

 

You definitely don't have to wait for a crime, proof of a crime or prosecution of a crime to fire someone. That is a ridiculous statement. 

 

Just a few of really random examples of people we have known in the past who have been fired from government jobs:

 

One guy got fired after getting drunk at an after work get together at a bar and remarking on his boss's wife's ass. Is that illegal? Nope. Is it a bad idea? Yep. Can it get you fired? Yep.

 

Another guy got fired when he connected with an ex-flame over Facebook. He and his wife decided to reconcile. The ex-flame got mad and sent photos of him...err...committing unmentionable acts in the work bathroom. Is that illegal? Nope. Will it get you fired? Pretty much every time. 

 

A guy was taking off early in the afternoons to gamble at a local casino. He was found out when his wife brought ATM receipts with time stamps to his boss. 

 

You fire them on the basis of a code of conduct. That is why Matt Prater was punished for having a couple of beers at his house. That wasn't illegal, but it resulted in a 4 game suspension while the initial suspension against Rice was only for 2 games.

[Reefgazer]

I understand that.  I disagree with it.

Why would a conviction be necessary before his employer gets involved? People get fired for posting stupid things on twitter all the time. This seems more serious.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Why would a conviction be necessary before his employer gets involved? People get fired for posting stupid things on twitter all the time. This seems more serious.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/what-happens-when-you-dress-as-a-boston-marathon-victim#1y060pw

 

 

Mm. I don't think there are many people on here who don't hold what I consider to be feminist values, if any at all. I'm a feminist even though I think the man hating, second wave feminists needed to grow up and out of their ugliness, and stop being divisive idiots. We are now into the third wave of feminism so why would we want to focus on those extremists as though they are all feminism has ever encompassed?

 

But there are so many women who refuse to identify as feminists, I'm wondering whether "not feminist" is going to become some kind of "third way." My imagination is limited, however, so I can't figure out how.

 

 

I agree and believe that you are right on the first point. I don't really understand the point of rejecting the title, I guess. I'm a big fan of not re-inventing the wheel.

[Mrs Mungo]

I understand that.  I disagree with it.

 

You disagree that companies should be able to fire people who do stupid things that indicate an extreme lack of judgment while representing the organization?

[Reefgazer]

The latter point came in to the discussion because you asked me whether or not I had "....a problem with systemic discrimination, unless it is legally mandated, is that your claim?".  I responded that I don't think government agencies or people working in the capacity of a government should be allowed to discriminate, but private citizens should. 

 

Off to help DS with BA....
 

I disagree on the former count. On the latter point, I'm not sure where that comes in? You can associate with whomever you choose. But, when you do business with the public, then that is a different matter.

[Mrs Mungo]

The latter point came in to the discussion because you asked me whether or not I had "....a problem with systemic discrimination, unless it is legally mandated, is that your claim?".  I responded that I don't think government agencies or people working in the capacity of a government should be allowed to discriminate, but private citizens should. 

 

 

 

 

I don't see anyone who claimed that private citizens cannot choose with whom they associate? That is why I don't see how it enters into the discussion? Seems like a red herring. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Apparently, the origins are not all that clear.  First page of a Yahoo search didn't turn it up. 

 

I'm sorry, but a search is needed...why? You don't understand the reference? 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm sorry, but a search is needed...why? You don't understand the reference?

 

It seemed obvious to me but there are plenty of references.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26543952

[gardenmom5]

the old saying - the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  well, they're covered in it.   I do not want to be associated with them at all.  (I grew up across the street from a woman who was big locally in this area. even growing up in a liberal family I thought she was 'weird".)

 

and no - it's not the same as saying I refuse to call myself a Christian.  as has been said, I can join whatever Christian church I want - one which has similar views, and I can stay away from ones that I do not aree with.

 

the feminist movement in the US - is very, very one sided.  those who seek power in it are very very loud and I consider many of them to be anti-woman man-haters. 

I came of age in the 70's - with the feminism of the 70's.  THESE are the messages that I got (remember - I came from a LIBERAL home where this crap was supported!)  that made me despise them.

 

you must work - if you stay home with your kids you're a sell out and not worth anything

you must put your kids in daycare - because your "happiness" is more important than your children's well-being

you must push the glass ceiling,

you must hate men

you must support men that think women should hike up their skirts for them - and don't complain about it. (re: above senators and other politicos that were very much supported by major feminist organizations)

and on and on and on

 

my daughter had a mandatory class with a radical in your face feminist prof. they butted heads frequently, with the prof actually downgrading her for the sin of not wanting to be her protégée.  (as dd said - she'd rather have someone whose abilities she respected - and it sure wasn't her.)

 

I still see so many feminists supporting female teachers who have taken advantage of male students under their authority.  if those female teachers were male - they'd be calling for their heads.  (and rightly so. but females teachers who do that need to have their heads on a platter too.)

 

I do not respect them.  I do not respect so-called 'christians' who abuse in the name of Christianity - but I don't have to join their group to call myself a Christian.  very few would automatically assume I did.  if I call myself a feminist - it is ASSUMED I support those ugly feminists and their disgusting views.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what a particular "brand" of feminist has to do with refusing to claim the title at all. Again, to me it's like refusing to call yourself an educator or homeschool or Christian or mom because some people with those titles do bad things or things that you disagree with.

 

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/what-happens-when-you-dress-as-a-boston-marathon-victim#1y060pw

She is wearing that at work but did not get fired until the internet went crazy.

[Catwoman]

Absolutely true. But, if it is simply labeled as whining over trivial nonsense, then why should the sponsors care?

I don't know anyone who is referring to it as "whining over trivial nonsense." The reports I have seen have been taking the current situations very seriously.

[Mrs Mungo]

and no - it's not the same as saying I refuse to call myself a Christian. as has been said, I can join whatever Christian church I want - one which has similar views, and I can stay away from ones that I do not aree with.

Apples and oranges. I am talking about the generic term "Christian" which includes Doug Wilson, Fred Phelps, Ken Ham, Jay Wile, me, the Duggars and all sorts of other people.

 

the feminist movement in the US - is very, very one sided. those who seek power in it are very very loud and I consider many of them to be anti-woman man-haters.

I came of age in the 70's - with the feminism of the 70's. THESE are the messages that I got (remember - I came from a LIBERAL home where this crap was supported!) that made me despise them.

You are obviously older than me, which means you received different messages than I did. As Rosie said, why pretend that second wave feminism is the only thing that counts?

 

I do not respect so-called 'christians' who abuse in the name of Christianity - but I don't have to join their group to call myself a Christian. very few would automatically assume I did. if I call myself a feminist - it is ASSUMED I support those ugly feminists and their disgusting views.

Not true. At least, it shouldn't be true. Women shouldn't be afraid to claim the label of feminist for fear of been boxed into a belief set. We shouldn't be afraid to call ourselves Christians for fear of being boxed in with Fred Phelps. It is the same thing. The people among bad assumptions are the ones in the wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know anyone who is referring to it as "whining over trivial nonsense." The reports I have seen have been taking the current situations very seriously.

It is a direct quote from another post.

[Catwoman]

What's the topic of this thread again? I'm completely lost. (LOL)

I don't know.

 

And even if I did, I might not comment on it, for fear of accidentally offending someone. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

She is wearing that at work but did not get fired until the internet went crazy.

Which shows that public pressure can induce change in many ways-for the trivial and not so trivial.

[Catwoman]

It is a direct quote from another post.

Thanks. :) Sorry -- I must have missed it. I'll admit to having only skimmed some of the posts.

 

I wonder what the Duggars would think of this... ;)

[gardenmom5]

You definitely don't have to wait for a crime, proof of a crime or prosecution of a crime to fire someone. That is a ridiculous statement. 

 

except -  it can end up in a lawsuit for wrongful termination, and the employer can end up spewing out millions.  especially if the verdict is there was no merit for the termination.  I read one case where the previous employer was afraid to say (for fear of being sued by terminated employee) "well, we fired her because we suspected - but couldn't prove - she was embezzling".  well, guess what, the next employer got the proof of her embezzling because she'd stolen so much from them. 

 

(even if the employer, questionable, wins - they are still spending bucks on lawyers to defend themselves. and as usually happens - settling out of court because it's cheaper for both sides.)

 

[Mrs Mungo]

except - it can end up in a lawsuit for wrongful termination, and the employer can end up spewing out millions. especially if the verdict is there was no merit for the termination. I read one case where the previous employer was afraid to say (for fear of being sued by terminated employee) "well, we fired her because we suspected - but couldn't prove - she was embezzling". well, guess what, the next employer got the proof of her embezzling because she'd stolen so much from them.

 

(even if the employer, questionable, wins - they are still spending bucks on lawyers to defend themselves. and as usually happens - settling out of court because it's cheaper for both sides.)

 

There is no question whether Rice punched his girlfriend. It is on video. I am talking about situations in which the firing took place over an act that was not illegal (but was against a code of conduct, which most companies have). That is very different than firing when there is no proof of what happened.

[unsinkable]

I don't know.

 

And even if I did, I might not comment on it, for fear of accidentally offending someone. ;)

Don't worry. There will another thread just like this one in a few days.

 

:D

[Guest]

Don't worry. There will another thread just like this one in a few days.

 

:D

 

 

:iagree:

[gardenmom5]

 

Not true. At least, it shouldn't be true. Women shouldn't be afraid to claim the label of feminist for fear of been boxed into a belief set. We shouldn't be afraid to call ourselves Christians for fear of being boxed in with Fred Phelps. It is the same thing. The people among bad assumptions are the ones in the wrong.

I can agree with you there - yet it is, sadly, true.

 

(and I can say I never heard of fred phelps until I came here. creepy dude.)

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I can agree with you there - yet it is, sadly, true.

 

(and I can say I never heard of fred phelps until I came here. creepy dude.)

It doesn't need to be true. If all of us who believe in gender equality call ourselves feminists, then a bigger picture is formed. That is the only way it can be formed.

 

DoD sent out warnings about the family...hmmm...must have been in 2002, I think that was the first post-9/11 funeral that I attended. The DoD warned that they were provocative protestors making their money through lawsuits.

[gardenmom5]

She is wearing that at work but did not get fired until the internet went crazy.

 

tacky.  very tacky.  many younger people make these types of stupid errors. they think are funny - and they end up with a major change in their life when they were just stupidly naïve.

 

because kate middleton is pg again, and experiencing HG again, the prank radio hosts from down under are back in the news.  the female is very very sorry for what happened.  she really was incredibly naïve to think there would be no repercussions for other people for their prank.  I assume this Halloween celebrant is in the incredibly naïve category about just how tacky her costume choice was.  I think a much more effective method of ramming home the message would be some serious service among those who suffered real injuries and helping them in their day to day doings that have been made much harder because of the actions of that day.  not only would it be more effective in changing her, she would be able to go ahead with a more productive life and probably be a much better person and have a better influence on other's her age.

[Slartibartfast]

It doesn't need to be true. If all of us who believe in gender equality call ourselves feminists, then a bigger picture is formed. That is the only way it can be formed.

 

DoD sent out warnings about the family...hmmm...must have been in 2002, I think that was the first post-9/11 funeral that I attended. The DoD warned that they were provocative protestors making their money through lawsuits.

They protested Mathew Shepard's funeral was the first I heard of them. I got in a fight with Fred phelps on the radio in the 90s sometime but I was in Kansas then and they were more annoying there. I had just called into a radio program I was listening to that he was on.

[Mrs Mungo]

They protested Mathew Shepard's funeral was the first I heard of them. I got in a fight with Fred phelps on the radio in the 90s sometime but I was in Kansas then and they were more annoying there. I had just called into a radio program I was listening to that he was on.

Yes, I first heard of them in the news for the Shepard funeral (and I lived in Germany). I was just saying that they were pretty national by 2002 for DoD to actively put out warnings against...errr...engaging them.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I first heard of them in the news for the Shepard funeral (and I lived in Germany). I was just saying that they were pretty national by 2002 for DoD to actively put out warnings against...errr...engaging them.

Ah, I see. Yeah they had been really annoying in Kansas for awhile. I guess they figured they could make more money and attention from soldiers than what they were getting.

[VeritasMama]

Nobody is expected to "keep up with it." It's more of a "consider your audience" type of thing. If someone TELLS me that they find something offensive, then I'm unlikely to continue to use that word/phrase around them. I'm not going to argue with them that it's not really offensive and that they are just being over-sensitive.

I didn't mean on this board, I was speaking in general. You will be attacked by strangers on social media for being politically incorrect. You can lose your job for tweeting the wrong thing, and public figures are evicerated for their gaffes. I'm not saying that this type of reaction is never warranted, but it does give one pause and make people feel like they have to keep up with what is currently correct to avoid backlash.

[gardenmom5]

It doesn't need to be true. If all of us who believe in gender equality call ourselves feminists, then a bigger picture is formed. That is the only way it can be formed.

 

DoD sent out warnings about the family...hmmm...must have been in 2002, I think that was the first post-9/11 funeral that I attended. The DoD warned that they were provocative protestors making their money through lawsuits.

 

ah - westboro.  okay, I thought he was someone else (aka: someone in the ranks of pearl or gothard.  which in a way - he was. (didn't he die?)).  yeah, I'd heard of him.   he's still a creepy dude.

[Slartibartfast]

ah - westboro.  okay, I thought he was someone else (aka: someone in the ranks of pearl or gothard.  which in a way - he was. (didn't he die?)).  yeah, I'd heard of him.   he's still a creepy dude.

 

He did die.

[VeritasMama]

There is no question whether Rice punched his girlfriend. It is on video. I am talking about situations in which the firing took place over an act that was not illegal (but was against a code of conduct, which most companies have). That is very different than firing when there is no proof of what happened.

Yes, but employee unions make it difficult to fire employees unless the act is a direct violation of the contract. It can be hard for the employer to use discretion, and course the specifics will depend on the union and the contract.

 

My husband has been the manager for union employees that were near impossible to fire, even coming to work drunk in an industrial setting merely ended in a paid suspension. Finally the serial offender physically assaulted another employee while on the clock, and so they were finally able to fire him, but only after he was convicted.

 

I was glad to see Ray Rice fired, I'm not defending the NFL, but Goodall does have to deal with the unions when disciplining and firing players, and so it is complicated. The public backlash gives him a bit more leverage with the union.

[AMJ]

That brings tears to my eyes. This is what I think about when I meet couples who have chosen not to have children or meet older men who left their families years ago. We manage a 55+ community and meet these people frequently. I sat at the bedside of a dying man because he had no contact with his children for years and there was no one to sit with him. No one in the world cared if he lived or died--except my family. It is heart-breaking. I have older men who need help and want me to go with them to the doctor, help them with their medication, pick up groceries, change their bandages, just visit with them. All the things their children should be doing. I see what happens in the last stage of life to people who have no children or no relationship with their children. It's quite ugly and sad.

 

I agree that it is sad.  However, do give their kids the benefit of the doubt until and unless you hear all sides of the story.  Sometimes the kids would be willing to be there and help, but the parent won't let them (but will still complain to others that the kids are never there for them).  Earlier this year I had to face the hard fact that despite my Dad's repeated requests for my assistance he only wanted to be able to boss me around.  The last time I actually did act effectively on his behalf the tongue-lashing I got for being so presumptuous was more extreme than ever (I made a doctor appointment for him, after he stated 3 times he wanted help with that because he couldn't remember to make the appointment himself).  In the meantime I had to explain to his close friend why I "gave up" in that case.  I care like crazy, but I'm not allowed to do what he asks (sometimes demands) me to do, and my nerves are completely shot where Dad is concerned.  I have to let him rely on his friend, who lives near him, and not me, who lives 1200 miles away.

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't mean on this board, I was speaking in general. You will be attacked by strangers on social media for being politically incorrect. You can lose your job for tweeting the wrong thing, and public figures are evicerated for their gaffes. I'm not saying that this type of reaction is never warranted, but it does give one pause and make people feel like they have to keep up with what is currently correct to avoid backlash.

 

I think many of the twitter gaffes seem like common sense.

 

US Airways carelessly retweeted something someone tweeted at them one day but it was a pornographic image of someone's lady bits prominently displayed.

 

I don't know how many retweeted lady bits I saw immediately following that.

[VeritasMama]

I don't understand what a particular "brand" of feminist has to do with refusing to claim the title at all. Again, to me it's like refusing to call yourself an educator or homeschooler or Christian or mom because some people with those titles do bad things or things that you disagree with.

I used to consider myself a feminist, but I am also pro-life. After enough feminists told me I couldn't be pro-life and be a feminist, I stop using the feminist label.

 

It isn't that I refused to claim the title, they didn't want me. And my generation and the one after mine are much more pro-life than my mother and her sister's generation, even though we agree with second wave feminism when it comes to most other issues. I think this is part of the "brand" problem.

[VeritasMama]

I think many of the twitter gaffes seem like common sense.

 

US Airways carelessly retweeted something someone tweeted at them one day but it was a pornographic image of someone's lady bits prominently displayed.

 

I don't know how many retweeted lady bits I saw immediately following that.

I remember that story, it made me happy I'm not on twitter ;).

 

If your job is running a company's social media account, you are probably aware that your tweets could get you fired. At least I would hope so :).

[Slartibartfast]

I used to consider myself a feminist, but I am also pro-life. After enough feminists told me I couldn't be pro-life and be a feminist, I stop using the feminist label.

 

It isn't that I refused to claim the title, they didn't want me. And my generation and the one after mine are much more pro-life than my mother and her sister's generation, even though we agree with second wave feminism when it comes to most other issues. I think this is part of the "brand" problem.

 

I suppose when they are wanting 1/2 of the population to be on their side they are likely to get  a lot of weirdos in the pot.

 

Why does being pro-life have anything to do with feminism? Shouldn't being allowed to have your own opinions be a part of it?

 

People are crazy.

[Slartibartfast]

I remember that story, it made me happy I'm not on twitter ;).

 

If your job is running a company's ocial media account, you are probably aware that your tweets could get you fired. At least I would hope so :).

 

 

I kind of thought that all the media outlets had to report on it with pixelated images of a lady putting an airplane into her lady parts was pretty hilarious. Was the picture necessary? 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/the-top-five-corporate-twitter-fails-us-airways

 

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/35-social-media-fails/95613/

 

The drunk Red Cross tweet made me laugh.

[Mrs Mungo]

I used to consider myself a feminist, but I am also pro-life. After enough feminists told me I couldn't be pro-life and be a feminist, I stop using the feminist label.

 

It isn't that I refused to claim the title, they didn't want me. And my generation and the one after mine are much more pro-life than my mother and her sister's generation, even though we agree with second wave feminism when it comes to most other issues. I think this is part of the "brand" problem.

There is no "they" that didn't want you. Some percentage of feminists may disagree with your use of the label. They don't get to decide. I had (a childless) someone tell me that I couldn't be a Democrat because I drive an SUV. I just thought they were dumb and went on calling myself what I wanted.

[VeritasMama]

There is no "they" that didn't want you. Some percentage of feminists may disagree with your use of the label. They don't get to decide. I had (a childless) someone tell me that I couldn't be a Democrat because I drive an SUV. I just thought they were dumb and went on calling myself what I wanted.

Well, when the public voices of feminism are constantly saying you can't be a feminist and be pro-life, it's pretty clear they don't want me marching next to them at a rally any time soon.

 

http://jezebel.com/5972943/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pro-life-feminist

[Slartibartfast]

Well, when the public voices of feminism are constantly saying you can't be a feminist and be pro-life, it's pretty clear they don't want me marching next to them at a rally any time soon.

 

http://jezebel.com/5972943/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pro-life-feminist

 

http://www.feministsforlife.org/ don't count?

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, when the public voices of feminism are constantly saying you can't be a feminist and be pro-life, it's pretty clear they don't want me marching next to them at a rally any time soon.

 

http://jezebel.com/5972943/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pro-life-feminist

Jezebel or writers for Jezebel don't own the term. That is what I am saying. I don't care what that particular author thinks. Feminism is about gender *equality*, period.

[VeritasMama]

Jezebel or writers for Jezebel don't own the term. That is what I am saying. I don't care what that particular author thinks. Feminism is about gender *equality*, period.

I like your sentiment, but it is a word that is being redefined by prominent feminists, Jezebel's article is indicative of the common thinking amongst those considered feminist leaders. Many feminists truly believe we can't. have gender equality without abortion on demand. Which is why respected and well known feminists publically say that pro-lifers like me can't be feminists. Even if I did call myself a feminist, some leaders of the movement would still insist that I'm not a feminist.

 

So, if you want the label to be more appealing to the younger generation, this attempt by feminist leaders to narrow the definition of feminism needs to be stopped. Honestly, I don't have the time or the energy for that battle.

[Mrs Mungo]

I like your sentiment, but it is a word that is being redefined by prominent feminists,

It doesn't matter.

 

 

Jezebel's article is indicative of the common thinking amongst those considered feminist leaders. Many feminists truly believe we can't. have gender equality without abortion on demand. Which is why respected and well known feminists publically say that pro-lifers like me can't be feminists. Even if I did call myself a feminist, some leaders of the movement would still insist that I'm not a feminist.

 

So, if you want the label to be more appealing to the younger generation, this attempt by feminist leaders to narrow the definition of feminism needs to be stopped. Honestly, I don't have the time or the energy for that battle.

Like I said, people have told me that I am not X, Y or Z for various reasons. They don't get to choose how I label *myself*. There is no large battle needed. Everyone woman in favor of gender equality simply needs to say, "yes, I'm a feminist." It doesn't have to be defined by anyone else.

[TechWife]

I

Being "gypped" is offensive because it means to have been treated cheated like Gypsies were accused of doing as group, not as individuals.  Cheating people is bad and associating a whole group of people with bad behavior is derogatory. 

 

I have never before connected the word "gypped" to gypsies. When do words loose their connotations? Do they ever loose them? 

 

Interesting question for me to ponder. 

[SKL]

It isn't hard to not say "Irish twins". If you don't want to chance offending people, stop saying it.

 

Sure, no problem.  (I don't believe I ever used it in conversation anyway.)  But tomorrow there will be another innocently-used term that offends someone.  And the next day.  And the next.  It will never end.

 

I don't want to offend people.  Part of that is my responsibility, and part of it is the other party's responsibility to give speakers the benefit of the doubt when they say something clumsy.

There are some words that gradually move from having negative connotations to positive and vice versa.  People who insist on being offended by the original outdated connotation apparently don't want the stigma to ever go away.  Is that good or bad?