The comments which I read and may post comments are Instapundit, Neo, Legal Insurrection, Watts up with that, and ???

Not many – for one, it takes too much time to follow comments, most of them on many sites are rude and repetitive and sometimes it is upsetting to see the attitude. There are better things to do with my time. And, I always want to add to the conversation. Just repeating what someone has said is silly. Who is going to read through a thousand comments? Sorry that is the logical me coming though…..

So his perspective is a bit jinxed in some ways.

Narratives exploited to create political, economic, and social leverage. For example, The Constitution was gender agnostic until the Fourteenth Amendment introduced “male” into its vocabulary. The Nineteenth Amendment restored the original letter and intent of The Constitution. Women’s suffrage was not about the right to vote, but a uniform right to vote throughout the states and jurisdictions.

Abortion is about a minority of People removing and terminating one of two named parties, “Posterity”, to The Constitution for light and casual reasons in order to pursue the secular profits of wealth, pleasure, and leisure; the liberal State’s compelling interest in taxable assets; and the Party’s compelling interest to create leverage for political exploitation.

That said, has it ever been different for any length of time? Or is the prevailing legal/religious (i.e. prescriptive, proscriptive) philosophy in our world amoral (e.g. wicked solutions to “wicked problems”) and opportunistic (i.e. pro-choice)? My opinion is that the majority of people are innately moral actors in a majority of circumstances. However, the world does not generally operate on consensus or democratic principles (especially in Democratic societies).

or do we forget shakespeare and taming of the shrew??
luciano pretended to be Bianca’s latin tutor…

it depended on your wealth and so on, as there were no free colleges paid for by the state, and families did not usually want to spend the money on their daughter (for similar reasons that chinese want sons… )… she would marry and leave, while the son would marry and tarry… taking over things for the father and securing the family future…

🙂

and its a shame cause all it did was make young women afraid to not be communists… the safest easiest course with the most celebration and love bombing is to tow the party line…

its interesting to note that if you take time, finding holes in their stories, history and things is like being nearsighted and finally getting a close look at a colander you thought was a bowl in the distance.

you know the trope about not being allowed to go to school? then how did the early feminists mostly have degrees… one fav one said was, well women couldnt to to harvard… so we had to fight… to which i asked what about radcliffe? founded in 1879

Radcliffe College was a women’s liberal arts college in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and functioned as a female coordinate institution for the all-male Harvard College. It was also one of the Seven Sisters colleges, among which it shared with Bryn Mawr College the popular reputation of having a particularly intellectual and independent-minded student body

The Seven Sisters is a loose association of seven liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern United States that are historically women’s colleges. They are Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. All were founded between 1837 and 1889.

but but they could not go to school…
[maybe prior to that, but then again, they also may not have wanted to as much… the larger point is that the men had to earn to support a family, women got to keep their earnings and did not have to use them for family, so if you gave women work, you put a family out in the cold… that might have influenced things just a bit, but they wont tell you that. for this same reason, men go first in afghanistan, cause if they dont earn, the family can die… women who do earn also have no obligation to family. ie. whats hers is hers whats his is hers]

i like big bang theory, as i am too much like sheldon (but not that bad)… when they had the feminist show where they were to visit a school and inspire girls into stem… sheldon the great physcist and so on, chose madame curie as the feminist inspiration

but if he really was the physicist he claimed to be, or the authors were not so feminist leftist, he never would have picked curie… would he?

he would have picked emmy noether…

Emmy Noether was an influential German mathematician known for her contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. She was described by Pavel Alexandrov, Albert Einstein, Jean Dieudonné, Hermann Weyl, and Norbert Wiener as the most important woman in the history of mathematics As one of the leading mathematicians of her time, she developed the theories of rings, fields, and algebras. In physics, Noether’s theorem explains the connection between symmetry and conservation laws

he originally planned to teach French and English after passing the required examinations, but instead studied mathematics at the University of Erlangen, where her father lectured. After completing her dissertation in 1907 under the supervision of Paul Gordan, she worked at the Mathematical Institute of Erlangen without pay for seven years. (At the time, women were largely excluded from academic positions.) In 1915, she was invited by David Hilbert and Felix Klein to join the mathematics department at the University of Gé¶ttingen, a world-renowned center of mathematical research. The philosophical faculty objected, however, and she spent four years lecturing under Hilbert’s name. Her habilitation was approved in 1919, allowing her to obtain the rank of Privatdozent.

Then we are in agreement and there is no conflict. Until the next post…

that is akin to discussing the merits of the length of your buggy whip… its not what they are doing, its not what is being used, its just an archaic salute to a past that we are too young to actually have lived through (unless your nearer to 100+).

we might as well discuss the tastes and customs of the shakers… they dont exist any more either.

I agree with the need for logical separation, especially of generational forms, which is an equally valid consideration for liberal, progressive, conservative, etc. They cannot be considered as monolithic unless they are based on a stable and enduring set of principles.

When I set Sarah Palin forth as an example of “ideal feminist”, I am acknowledging the merits of classical feminism that confronted more real than manufactured disparities, and avoided indulging and exploiting what it purportedly existed to protest and reconcile. Sarah Palin succeeded as an individual, a wife, a mother, a worker, and leader without capriciously demoting and disparaging others human lives — throughout their evolution from conception to death — in order to create leverage.

Fortunately, a large minority, and perhaps a slight majority, of women are “ideal feminists”. Thanks mom and dad who stood with her.

I want to be Kathy Shaidle.