No, we fully understand feminist “logic”. I think the word she was searching for was “acceptance”.
Nonetheless, I’ll take it as a compliment.
What isn’t on display is an “understanding” that we have not granted women of the dysfunctional hard left permission to speak for anyone but themselves regarding so-called “women’s issues”.
And we sure as hell haven’t authorized their men to define them.
But here’s some good old-fashioned feminist advice, anyway.
If you’re a young woman who finds herself struggling with “gender equality”, you need to acquire three things – a calendar, a map, and a mirror.
In other words, if you’re falling short of your goals given the opportunities on offer in this time and place – maybe it’s you.
Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin and Kate.
A trinity of TRUE feminists.
They can do it all and did it by themselves.
I suppose that “feminist logic” is a special kind of logic.
Just as “social democracy” is a special kind of democracy…
Amen, Sisters!!! When I graduated from high school back in the stone age there were only three or four options for careers for most of us to consider – secretary, nurse, teacher and, if you were of the right religious persuasion, you could also get yourself to a nunnery. ‘Nuff said.
Oh. And I might add, that Maggie Thatcher’s second term in office was accomplished with one of the largest, if not THE largest majorities in the history of the British Parliament. The Brits loved her and her primary thrust at the time, that being dismantling the power of the ultra-leftwing unions.
From the comments:
“Demented is an understatement, don’t you think?
Many of those men, if they walk the talk they spout at sda and other anti-feminist blogs are a danger to women. The only barrier between the violence they threaten to do, and acting upon the impulses they describe is their fear of criminal charges.”
Indeed, demented is an understatement.
I attended Brock University as an Adult Student. it was a lifetime goal to attend University. Life did not provide an opportunity to do so until I was in my sixties. Although I had the experience of learning from an excellent Woman Professor of History; my perception of the remainder was outright misandry in the English Literature Depertment from women instructors and fearful instruction from most older Men Professors in History and Political Science. One exception was a man who was retiring from the History Department and skirted the politically correct approach because he no longer cared, but showing the survival skills a male of the same age as me must have requiredto advance to Professor. I achieved the course level equivalent to classify myself as a sophmore.I believe this is when the University student starts to think s/he knows more about life than the instructors. In my varied life I knew I understood much more about life than the instructors and set the life goal of having a University Degree aside, really not worth the time and now spend my last few decades in community work. Cheers; Mike Sr.
Is it just me, or are we doomed to a lifetime of nonstop bitching about the social-engineering by our schools, media, HRC’s, feminazis, etc., or is there ACTION we can take?
Because voting conservative sure as f*ck doesn’t seem to be the answer.
Kate, I want to bear your children. We can figure out that XX-XY thing later.
How do you know that feminists are desperate??
They just found a victim of sexual assault by Toronto policeman, and it does not matter that it happened 30 years ago, and it does not matter that she was not raped but kissed and fondled, and it does not matter that the cop was fired for it. None of it matters as this poor woman’s life was ruined forever. At least that is what she claims and if she says so it must be true.
Read the rest of that nonsense at Red Star:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/555103
‘I went through this . . . to heal’
Louise, you are half right:
Those were indeed the big three options for most women. Because most women are a) of average or below average intelligence and b) generally lazy and hoping their Prince Charming would come along.
For those of us with above average IQs, no nurturing gene and lots of ambition, you could always do something else. It just wasn’t EASY, and therefore, most women chickened out.
However, for most of the 20th century, law schools, med schools etc WERE already open to women.
It is just that most women weren’t smart/ambitious/hard working enough to get into them.
And those professions didn’t interest most women anyway because most women are emotional nurturing followers by nature. Others are hysterical neurotics who have no business in the professions anyhow.
Marie Curie somehow managed to snag two Nobel Prizes without affirmative action. Go figure.
Women only really started going into law and med school when tv shows started portraying these jobs as a) open to women and b) GLAMOUROUS, with b) being the big deciding factor.
Feminism was only meant for smart women, who, ironically, never needed it anyway. So it is doubly obsolete (with its own built in obsolesence!)
Is it politically correct to aggregate all males into a group “men”?
There are many ways to try to find alliances with the intention of building a power base. Collectivism has many forms.
Trade unions and feminism are similar in that both attempt a collective bargaining – trade unions by leveraging availability of labor, and lobbying to bend legislation favorably, feminism by leveraging media mindspace, as well as lobbying to bend legislation.
Feminist leaders are thus playing the same game as union leaders. Power.
To grant feminists the role of spokespersons for women is like granting trade union leaders the role of spokespersons for all men.
In other words, nice try girls, but you are embarked on a journey of interminable frustration. But hey, you must be used to that.
Kate I gotta disagree with you. I don’t think any movement or any government law had anything to do with giving women more opportunity.
It was practicality and greed that did it along with innovation and productivity increases that did.
When WW2 came along there were no men left to do the work ergo no choice but to hire women. Even baseball was played professionally by women and attended by all for awhile.
That was what cracked the door open, later geniuses in government essentially Truedeau figured out that if you could overwhelming include women in the workforce u could massively raise taxes. Hence the true birth of feminism
Demented is an understatement, don’t you think?
Many of those men, if they walk the talk they spout at sda and other anti-feminist blogs are a danger to women. The only barrier between the violence they threaten to do, and acting upon the impulses they describe is their fear of criminal charges.
I’ve been reading and posting here for many years and not once have I recalled a single poster threaten violence against anybody. (Outside of ridiculous internet muscle flexing, of course, but those are gender-free.)
So, of course, without any other argument, the tolerant left demonizes Those Who Disagree by inventing reasons and bogeymen. It’s all for The Greater Good, naturally. Thought Crimes, because even if they didn’t type it, you could just TELL that they were thinking it.
Follow us, women, they say, or be cast out of the herd for ever. Not once did they stop to think that some women do not want to be sheep.
Newsflash: There is no such thing as ‘feminist logic’; there is only ‘logic’ period.
Gee, and who kept all the factories humming along during the WWII? A: WOMEN.
If they can put together aircraft, or occasionally fly them while under fire, what else couldn’t they do?
Hmm, Amelia Ehrhart ring a bell anybody?
Had a gap tooth smile to boot!
Flash, bang, Zoom!
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
Kathy, I think you are sort of saying the same thing. What I was trying to say was the only thing presented to us as a career path in society was the secretary, the nurse, the teacher and the nun. There was nothing else on TV and most of us didn’t know women who had achieved anything else. I myself never even entertained the idea that other careers may be worth exploring.
On the other hand, my younger sister wanted to enroll in a renewable resources technology program at a community college way back in the mid-1970s and the head of the program told her it wasn’t for women. She kicked up a big stink and he relented. Her class had a goodly percentage of young women in it, thanks to her spunk, but that was after she had tried a career as a nurse and hated it.
I also had a great aunt (b. 1868 – d. 1945) who studied medicine at Oregon State University and upon graduating practiced medicine in Seattle. She was the first woman graduate of that program and graduated with a medal for the highest average during the four years of the program.
We should remember, too, that women pretty much had to choose between having a career or being a wife and mother. That is no longer the case.
“the tolerant left demonizes Those Who Disagree by inventing reasons and bogeymen”
Brains devoid of reasoning are like black holes, sucking in the detritus of the human mind. Wow, that was deep.
For my fellow knuckledraggers out there, here’s a translation:
Lefties are easily-led, empty-headed drones who mostly seek approval from whatever the current popular zeitgeist is. Why? Because they are fearful and herd-like in behaviour. Like your Mommy always told you when you were 6, there’s strength in numbers.
*
“Many of those men, if they walk the talk they spout at sda and other anti-feminist
blogs are a danger to women. The only barrier between the violence they threaten
to do, and acting upon the impulses they describe is their fear of criminal charges.”
so to sum up the fembots… “you’re either with us… or you’re a sociopath.”
nice.
*
Feminism is now an idea that only survives because of university, MSM and bureaucracy. Where is this rampant discrimination happening? At worst there is individual events and bad choices that then get used to justify this crisis mentality of the official woman’s industry.
Progressive feminists are actually the worst anti-woman perpetrators. They viciously attack any woman who does not fully describe to their leftist agenda. Their list of enemies range from strong-willed individuals like Sarah Palin, Margaret Sommerville, Maggie Thatcher to groups like REAL Women, Christian women and stay-at-home moms. Any valid pro-women equality agenda has long since been thrown out and replaced with a radical anti-male, anti-conservative, anti-family, anti-Christian mentality. Note their silence regarding the exploitation and abuse of Muslim women.
Kathy, I have to disagree with your entire post. For just one example, it would be surprise to many of the past generation of farm and ranch wives and mothers that they were lazy and stupid for not choosing to go the single, childless professional route. Many of them were classic feminists that believed that they were equal to their men. The only chicken in them were the ones they slaughtered for supper
Migwawd is there anything drearier on earth than militant feminism.
Not quite on topic, but, during the thought police episode, I had a chat with my daughter who went to Queens in the early 90s. She told me that one of the best essays she ever wrote came back with every single ‘he’ circled in red ink. Every single one. She was scolded by the marxist-feminist prof and told to use the gender-neutral, but ugly and unprounceable, s/he.
Fair enough, I supposes, except …. the essay was about Gulliver’s Travels.
I attended Brock University as an Adult Student
Mike Sr.
Which professors from Brock? I attended Brock myself as a grad student; I took a few courses with professors who specialized in feminist readings of Shakespeare, for instance.
Best masculinist blog:
Those blogs that are devoted to gender equality, write about men’s issues, OR write from a masculinist perspective are eligible for this category.
Hi Me No Dhimmi,
Haven’t you ever seen a he-she? Or a she-he, shiite, or she-it? Merde!
Not all fur trappers wear fur hats.
Even in the absence of males these “femanist” would still have thier causes because thier is always someone higher up the ladder to blame.
lynnh @ 1:35PM
I absolutely agree with you. I thought it was missing, (sarcasm).
I am pleased to share some information. I have two daughters (25 and 22). They have grown up in the age of all possibilities. One has chosen the child care field (it fits her to a T) and the other is graduating this year from Queeen’s as a Mining Engineer (also a perfect choice).
I tried to instill in them that they should follow their own path and think for themselves.
I think I did a pretty good job. Cheers.
women pretty much had to choose between having a career or being a wife and mother.
That’s another feminist lie. True, some women chose to marry men who wouldn’t let them pursue their ambitions. Millions more didn’t HAVE any ambitions. But there have always–ALWAYS–been working mothers, married and single.
Check out Elizabeth Cady Stanton (married, seven children), Sarah Josepha Hale (married, five children), Madame CJ Walker (three husbands, one daughter), Elizabeth Blackwell (adopted a daughter, wait, that “doesn’t count”), Olive Ann Beech (widowed, two children), Elizabeth Knight Brittin (married, no info on children), Lillian Moller Gilbreth (married, twelve children).
Like Kathy said–women were only limited by their own talents and ambitions–and choice of husband. Just look at the “feminists” who hate Sarah Palin and blame the “patriarchy” for their own failures in life–either they chose to marry men who inhibited their talents and ambitions, or they never met a good supportive man who wanted to marry them (I know, who wouldn’t want to marry a man-hating scold?), so they frame it as a false choice between marriage and accomplishments.
I appreciated (re)reading Kate’s comments about the obsolescence of feminism. My experience is the opposite of Kate’s – I am a man who has been in traditionally female occupations for most of my career. What I found interesting about that experience was the number of my fellow workers who automatically assumed their low status on the totem pole was not due to their own choices (similar to my own) but rather the anti-woman society. When I pointed to the myriad of ways in which I, a white male, had been directly discriminated against in my career choices, they could only bleat about “systemic” (i.e. invisible) discrimination.
I’ve been thinking about the culture of excusism when I saw Will Smith on Oprah the other day talking about the election of Barack Obama as President. Here was the most successful Hollywood actor in history – his films have brought in $4 BILLION in revenue – together with the most successful entertainment star in history – both black, and yet Will was telling the tale of how the message he got from the election of Barack Obama was that black people no longer had an excuse for their failures in life.
I suggest they haven’t had an excuse for some time, but whatever it takes. Similarly, women haven’t had an excuse for decades. Perhaps a similar epiphany awaits.
“the culture of excusism”
Love it!!
Heather Radish, do you care to post some stats about the number of women who were married with children who also had a career during the 1950s and 1960s? That’s the era I’m referring to.
With all due respect, in this context, your use of the word “lie” is absurd. There’s a difference between “working mothers” and “careers”.
My hunch is that you either weren’t even born then, or if you were, you were too young to have any memory or palpable feeling about the real spirit of those times. My point is, that by social convention, most women, and most men, felt that if a woman got married, she was choosing to become a housewife and, hopefully, a mother. If a woman wanted a career, she would have to choose the single life. In fact, the term “career woman” was very much part of the lexicon back then and it referred to unmarried women who excelled in business or academia or whatever.
The vast, vast majority of married women with children did not have careers. Your disdain for these women “without ambition” is, itself, right out of the feminist little red book. Shame on you.
“Feminist logic”: surely, an oxymoron.
When such an activity wouldn’t land an ordinary working person in front of a Human Rights (sic) Tribunal, re-education sessions at one’s place of work, or in line at the unemployment office, I used to debate feminists. It was like taking candy from a baby, including from the ones with big sounding jobs, like law (you’ve GOT to be kidding) professor. They were so sure and smug about their bogus ideas that reality never intruded. When it did, in the facts I’d bring to the discussion, their magic thinking was trumped every time.
I usually didn’t get asked back! And their confreres—sorry!—would refuse to engage with me or any of my cronies who were willing to give them a run for their no good money. My mother and grandmothers—all happy to be stay-at-home moms (married— yikes!—to WW I and II vets, who were away) were much stronger in both their identity and the strength of their convictions than any of the weak-kneed, privileged, small minded, and peevish—not very smart either—feminists I had the misfortune to encounter.
Unfortunately, via “the long march through the institutions”, the feminists’ counterfeit, Marxist, anti-man-woman-child-family ideology has taken over much of official Canada today: it galloped into and remains, often by default, a part of the agendas of most institutions, like cancer spreads through the body. Strong measures are needed to rid us of this, if not stopped, fatal disease. I see signs of new antibodies starting to fight back, e.g., Kate, Ezra, other bloggers, and the anti-coalition rallies. (Finally, reinforcements joining the pro-life/family groups who have been fighting a lonely battle for decades: it reminds me a bit of Gandalf and the other forces of good arriving at Helm’s Deep!) This is very good news. However, re the cancer analogy, are we in time or has the disease already reached level four?
I think there are two types of feminists; the real and the fraudulent.
The real were the ones who worked with the changing historic era to obtain the vote, the right to work outside the home and equality of pay, the right to higher education. That’s all that is necessary. Anything more is up to the individual. Note that all of these are denied to women in Islamic countries, and the current set of ‘feminists’ say nothing; absolutely nothing.
These latter are the fraudulent feminists. They have moved into the role because the basic work of moving women into an equal role was essentially accomplished. These women are elitists. They require a stable group of victims – and they can write their academic papers, go to their conferences..all about ‘inequality in the workplace’, harassment in the workplace..and so on. But they really don’t intend to do anything because they require these victims.
Now, why, why won’t these feminists do anything about the real situation of women in Islamic societies?
Brava, ET! I totally agree. Political feminists are complete impostors.
They care not for the choices of women: they have a handy dandy straight jacket for them, which excludes marriage and motherhood, unless one’s working at a “real job” outside the home and one’s kids are in day care. (Let’s look at the real fallout of that, for both—often exhausted—women and their—often disaffected—children.)
I’ve honestly not met a group of more truncated, delusional, usually ridiculously privileged, and working-at-the-level-of-their-incompetence women than the feminists, both hard and soft core (the worst, actually, because it’s a hobby), whom I’ve had the misfortune to deal with.
Louise & Kathy – missing in all this discourse is the mention of all the volunteer work done by the ‘non-working’ women of the 50’s & 60’s. My mother may not have ‘worked’ until my sister and I were older, but she was very active in the community. Every church in town had its women’s group, and the work done there helped the whole town. As well, there were the St John’s Ambulance, Red Cross, Girl Guides, Scouts (the women’s group there catered almost everything going). Men were involved, but it was the women of the town whose unpaid labours really made it the great place it was.
“Now, why, why won’t these feminists do anything about the real situation of women in Islamic societies?”
The quintessential paradox of the left.
On the “BreadnRoses.ca” posting I just had to leave a “few” words. I don’t know if the author will allow my comment to remain. In case not, let me repost it here:
A Little Background . . . I’m one of those metrosexual guys who has always believed in and advocated for full equality for women and minorities throughout my life. Within my technology company I’ve hired people from around the world, including many women. Gender, race, skin colour, sexual preference – none of these things mattered one whit in terms of hiring or promotion. There was zero discrimination. In fact, women often have the more senior management roles and often the highest salaries! In my professional life there has never been a feminist agenda per say, but rather just a glorious meritocracy.
So for me the word “feminist” has always meant “equality for women”, which is the original & proper meaning, is it not?
How naive I was to think that everyone still shared this definition. The recent U.S. election revealed a dirty little secret about card carrying feminists, didn’t it? The infamous posting of the CBC’s Heather Mallick showed a deep-seated HATRED (there’s no other suitable word) toward Sarah Palin and women like her. And why? Because she’s a strong proponent of the Pro-Life Movement and a Republican. Wow, what a horrible person!!
I actually don’t share Palin’s beliefs on abortion but do recognize them as being morally consistent. So while I don’t agree with the ‘no exceptions’ views of Pro-Lifers, I do respect them.
It seems crystal clear that you and your like-minded readers have a long road to walk before you will ever understand that “feminism” simply doesn’t equate to “pro-Abortion”. The fact that you deeply believe that a feminist MUST be vociferously pro-Choice is a mystery I’ll leave for Sherlock Holmes to unravel.
Another mystery is why you believe that feminists can ONLY have Radical Left political views? “Socialism is the only path to set us free, sisters” ? ! ?
The 3rd Requirement in the Trilogy for Card Carrying Feminists seems to be a certain degree of antipathy toward men, especially if they’re Caucasian. If you think I’m exaggerating then you really need to hire a different polling firm.
So in summary, there are you you and your ilk who believe that Feminism means:
– Pro-Choice (anytime, anywhere)
– Radical Left political views
– A little or a lot of dislike towards men
Then there’s the rest of us. Thank goodness there’s the rest of us!
Until you realize how far off the rails your movement has veered, you will never be able to grasp why women like Sarah Palin, Kate McMillan, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Patricia Heaton are the TRUE feminists of the New Millennium.
I have some respect for the professional feminist. They have created an industry that produces little of anything and you pay for it. Like Al Gore in drag so to speak. My mother raised two boys alone. Built a house because she was not eligible for a mortgage. I have a lot more respect for the women who are just women. They are immovable force when the need arises and they will decide when that time is.
Indeed, Frances. My mother was involved in her church, but being a farm wife, she didn’t have a lot of time for volunteer activities that would have involved an extra trip to town several times a month (or the money to pay for the gas). And hard work without pay defined her very existence. Ask any farm wife from that era how much hard long backbreaking labour it took to keep that big farm family fed and clothed. Many of her friends and some of our neighbours had huge families – five, six, seven or more kids. (She was among the first to line up at the doctor’s office, too, when “the pill” became legal.) To suggest that she lacked ambition is delusional.
It’s also worth noting, for those whose roots are in prairie farmland, that it wasn’t until the 1970s that the equal division of property upon dissolution of marriage became law, thanks to a case in Alberta involving a farm wife. (Murdoch vs. Murdoch)
I wrote, “. . . they [the feminists] have a handy dandy straight jacket for [women], which excludes marriage and motherhood . . .”
However, in regard to Muslim women, who often ARE truly oppressed in marriage and as mothers, the impostor feminists, as usual, say nothing.
Re the general population in Canada, married women are four and a half times LESS likely to be abused than women living in less formal arrangements (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics). The impostor feminists, as usual, say nothing about this either.
In fact, the political feminists of Canada are quite removed from the realities of the lives of most ordinary women, unless their particular circumstances meet the feminists’ own, very narrow—political—specifications. That these impostors still receive millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to promote their discriminatory, delusional, and destructive agenda is a blight on the Canadian polity.
The vast, vast majority of married women with children did not have careers. Posted by: Louise at December 20, 2008 3:49 PM
Well, I dunno Louise. Full-time child-rearing and home management — for the right candidate — is probably the most important career there is. That was my wife’s career freely chosen, while I built a business. Classical division of labour!
The problem with institutional feminism is that the mission’s been accomplished — big time! When an institution no longer has a raison d’etre, it CURDLES.
I was an early feminist. To wit, around 1972, while in the process of buying our first house, my lawyer took me aside and gave me the Dutch Uncle treatment advising: “Now, Me, make sure you put the house in your own name in case the marriage goes sour.” I’ll never forget the shock. The house was registered in joint tenancy.
I’d like to see a new term: WOMAN-ISM. The problem with feminism is that it caters only to adolescent females of all ages.
My choice for womanist blog of the year is, well, you know.
Gee Kate , according to these Women your not even female. They also reserve the right it seems to pick & choose there own winners. None worry about the real threat to there freedom. The Islamist down the street who looks at ALL Western Women as animals to be raped or killed. I think these types look at them as friends because they share the same death cult mentality. Truly nuts if not malignant, was including childcare in baby pro-kill blogs.
That you have so many rivals from the Pink blogs, is to your credit, if not astuteness of mind.
One’s reputation can only be enhanced with foes like this. Talk about green with Jealousy ….
MND: “The problem with feminism is that it caters only to adolescent females of all ages.”
Now, that’s a succinct definition of feminism, if ever I’ve heard one (except that it should be inclusive enough to include similar males). Being part a profession, absolutely saturated with such adolescents, I know exactly what you mean!
” A calendar,a map,and a mirror”- well said,end of discussion.
Me No Dhimmi, I know what you mean, but you also know what I mean. In the 1950s, 60s, and even part of the 70s, being a woman with a career meant being in a a paid profession with a considerable amount of influence, including actually being at the helm in her own business. True, there were a few “career” women around who were married with children, but by and large, most women who chose that path were childless, at the least, and normally unmarried.
You know I do think the biggest revolution in society in the past 50 years was the invention of the pill. That, more than anything else, gave women far greater control over their own destiny and it certainly helped them to balance careers with families.
Because voting conservative sure as f*ck doesn’t seem to be the answer.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at December 20, 2008 12:03 PM
Canadian Observer … I share your frustration. First the Mulroney Tories in the 80s, now the Harper Conservatives.
What do we get?
Liberal-lite. And I’m not just talking about recent events. My disaffection stretches back to the massive expansion of gov’t spending in Harper’s first term.
If I wanted Libtard policies, I’d vote Libtard. Damn it’s frustrating being a conservative in Canada. Indeed, in the entire western world, I’m not sure there’s been a true conservative government since Reagan and Thatcher.
A feminist has no evidence and can not provide any evidence that,
” The only barrier between the violence they
( “they” meaning conservative white males at Smalldeadanimals.com) threaten to do, and acting upon the impulses they describe is their fear of criminal charges.”
but still firmly believes this to be a fact.
It is one example of “feminist logic” = confusing emotions with critical thinking.
She is neurotic at best (or certifiably paranoid) and her emotional over-reactions are frightening.
As a matter of fact I think she is the one who wants to hurt white males but is afraid of criminal charges… ( it is called projecting;
a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions to others. )
I guess “feminist logic” sounds better than “neurotic, paranoid projections”…
I agree with the first poster on this thread. Women such as those mentioned are first and foremost women, women that accomplish something on their own in this world. Women that can look in a mirror and say to themselves, I’m happy with what I see and what I am.
Quite frankly I’ve never understood this feminist Bull sh!t, it seems to be nothing more than a cover for ineptitude. Other than some physical limitations what the hell is it that women can’t do as well as men?
Cdn Observer, Colin: I share your frustration but a conservative party can only effect its policies if it achieves power. The mindset of too many Canadians, thanks to the CBC and others in the MSM, is left of centre.
That’s why, if the Conservatives ever achieve a majority, I think the first thing they should absolutely demand is a CBC that clearly & absolutely is 50% Left and 50% Right. I actually favour this over disbanding the CBC altogether because I strongly believe it would serve a very useful purpose in our country’s future to have a national broadcaster that accurately reflected the views of all Canadians and not just those of the Radical Left.
P.S. In other news, my comment on the “feminist” site is still awaiting moderation. I’m most curious to see if she’ll ever let it be published!
I only ever had one broad as a boss. And she was Adolph-with-boobs. And very nice boobs.
Within the elect.tech trade she was average, and it was somewhat obvious her lack of curiosity of science and desire for bossiness defined her averageness.
” Male Basketball players should play on their knees so that women who are shorter can compete with them.”
I think the above qualifies as “feminist logic”