Not Magic Retlated
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Sept. 4, 2014, 11:39 a.m. by VampireArmy
So yesterday during our Women of MTG thread, I admitted I was against Feminism and it seemed to have a level of backlash. That's expected but they type of backlash I got was rather confusing. I understand it to a degree I guess.
The idea tends to be "If you're against Feminism, you're against women's equality and women's rights" and this is not true. I'm not a Men's rights activist either by the way. I follow an ideology of Egalitarianism which by definition means :
1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
I really don't have the patience at this moment (lack of focus can be a bitch sometimes) but I wanted to highlight that the reason I'm against Feminism is it seeks to higher women no matter what. This is a vast, vast world and there are places (many places) where women are ahead in privilege and safety of rights but feminism will not address those things. I have here the most well known and probably the best equipped anti-feminist karen straughan It was a mix of her videos and debates coupled with Jessica's page that opened my eyes to the world and showed me a new way of seeing things.
Additionally This Facebook is a waypoint from Tumblr where women all over the world including third world countries (yes they have technology in some places there) are standing against feminism because of it's lack of equality in it's politics.
*Disclaimer about Women Against Fem. : Some of the people there have very illegitimate reasons to stand against feminism but the page is all inclusive and chooses to support all reasons to be against Feminism.
*Other disclaimer : I have yet to meet one feminist who has shown me one piece of proof that Feminism will balance it out where men are disenfranchised. Instead we see that they choose to simply ignore where men are held lesser than women.
Very honestly, I wish the whole world would accept a few truths.
Humans sexualize each other : It's how we exist as a species.
Men and Women are built differently : It's how we've existed as a society.
There are ALWAYS exceptions to those 2 rules : It's how we've evolved as a people
Gspot - Caitlin Moran maybe? Bit general and pop-culture-y but it's cool.
September 4, 2014 1:13 p.m.
VampireArmy - google doesn't give you access to most journals. You need to be a member of specialist websites.
I think the generic view is that if one groups voice is louder than anothers it is sometimes worth really focusing in on the quiet group so that they can be heard. Does that metaphor sort of make sense?
September 4, 2014 1:16 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #4
Here's my beef: I don't know that you could actually find me an example literally ever of a reasonable non-social media related instance of feminism pushing to further women above men in a place where women have an advantage. Hell I don't know that you can find me any example of that. Your entire argument is predicated on the (false) idea that feminism is somehow trying to place women above men, and I don't know that extremists have ever even said that. I doubt there were suffragettes saying "let us vote and ban men from voting", and if somehow there were, they were assuredly not in the majority.
September 4, 2014 1:17 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #5
Nigeltastic "ban Bossy" came to mind. As did the change of the definition itself of rape.
ChiefBell : I do forget that at times but still, there are still plenty of free government information out there.
.
September 4, 2014 1:21 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #6
Ban Bossy? I don't think that is an example of advocating taking anything away from men. It was a campaign to remove the word "bossy" from the English language in order to remove the negative connotation label to young women attempting to demonstrating leadership qualities.
I don't think banning words is an effective idea for anything, but I hardly see that as an example of militant feminists trying to take something away from men and give it only to women.
Also, please don't get me started on the definition of rape.
September 4, 2014 1:27 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #7
How do either of those things relate to feminism (a) at all and (b) put women above men? One is banning the word bossy and the other literally allowed males being raped to exist. Previously the definition literally included the word woman in it.
September 4, 2014 1:27 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #8
Alright guys, I'm going to abandon this thread soon as I can.
If you disagree with me still, that's fine. You're not lesser for nor beneath me. Just to be clear I have no intentions of acting like I "Won" this debate.
If you think i'm a moron for my believes, I forgive you for that because you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
If I have offended anyone, I apologize. These are what I believe and I can't change that so easily.
Have a nice day. /Endtopic
September 4, 2014 1:28 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #9
Nigeltastic as it'd fair to address what our debate:
Ban bossy was propagated by the feminist movement and though it's intentions may have been pure, it was an attack on free speech.
The definition does not include rapes done by women onto a man.
September 4, 2014 1:32 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #10
VampireArmy An attack on free speech? It was an attempt to try and get people to stop using a word. No one was advocating making it a CRIME to use the word "bossy" there is no free speech threat here.
The rape definition is about "forced penetration" which is kind of anatomically difficult for a woman to perform on a man don't you think??
September 4, 2014 1:39 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #11
UrbanAnathema : you see the problem then? By this definition men cannot be raped by women, which they can. Commonly Rape should be defined as "Forced sexual act against one's will" or something similar.
To remove a word from the dictionary simply because a select few women don't like is extremely oppressive. if that's all it took to prevent women from wanting leadership...that'd just be sad...also leadership requires a lot more backbone than backing out due to a random insault as in a leadership position you'll be faced with much worse.
September 4, 2014 1:42 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #13
VampireArmy the EXISTING definition of rape as of 1997 was "forced penetration".
A 1997 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, which defines rape as forced penetration by the offender, found that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male. However, when prison rapes are included in the statistics it has been reported that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, "...more men are raped in the U.S. than women... In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time... compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison."
The movement to change the definition was to include men.
Also as a society we don't have a rampant problem of women raping men, quite frankly because it is nearly impossible. Rape is a crime of power, usually physical power and men have an overwhelming advantage in that arena. There's also the issue of requiring "arousal" so there are precious few scenarios were women raping men is even physically possible.
As to the "bossy" thing. Removing a word from the dictionary is hardly "oppressive". I don't happen to think it was a very good idea, or an effective one, but the issue is that young women are often told that they are being "bossy" or "bitchy" for exhibiting the same qualities that if a boy were to exhibit, he would be praised for.
What it WAS, was an attempt to raise awareness about how we as a society continue set up our children to follow gender roles that continue to propagate inequality.
Focusing on the "oppressive" nature of theoretically removing a word from the English language, to the extent that such a thing is even possible, over the very real issue that the cause was trying to illuninate is a bit absurd to me.
September 4, 2014 1:51 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #14
UrbanAnathema Then as my above closing statement says, we agree to disagree.
September 4, 2014 1:53 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Oh boy.
First, let's establish an important distinction between egalitarianism and modern feminism.
Egalitarianism seeks to provide equal treatment and opportunity to all people. In an absolutely egalitarian movement, activists seek to recognize the same rights, privileges, punishments, etc. across all of humanity.
Modern feminism is not an egalitarian movement. Modern feminism is a front for misandry, selective equality (think Animal Farm), and retaliatory oppression. It criticizes the "straight white cisgendered males," especially of the middle and upper class, as members and supporters of an institutionalized patriarchy, and it routinely seeks to deny them rights.
Now, this is not to say that all people who might be considered feminists fall under this definition of modern feminism. However, the true progressives and egalitarians among them are or should be distancing themselves from the feminist label because of the way it is publicly received. Especially on social media, the non-feminist public expresses critical or anti-feminist opinions because modern feminism is both unreasonable and dishonest. Any attempt to criticize modern feminism is usually met with hostility, insult, blame, and even threat.
Let's take a recent example. There were four male college students who invented a nail polish that changes colors when exposed to date rape drugs. Their intent was for women, especially college women, to be able to use this nail polish to keep themselves safe at bars and parties. The general public lauded them for creating such a simple and effective tool with which potential rape victims could protect themselves.
Modern feminism got wind of this story and spun it as a promotion of rape culture. Their main contention was that by offering help to the victim rather than chastising, educating, or punishing rapists, the product and its inventors were enabling and promoting a rape culture. This sort of response is not unique to this product, either. Modern feminists also oppose rape kits and other products and services designed to offer help in one form or another to victims of rape.
Modern feminism is actually one of the biggest trivializers of rape. They adamantly defend the position that men cannot be raped, but their definition of rape is outstandingly loose when it comes to what qualifies as the rape of a woman. They also have a dogmatic conviction about rape culture and how the patriarchy enables it.
There was also a brief documentary-style video conducted about women and public harassment. Naturally, modern feminists responded with horror wherever this video was shared. To them, it typifies the problems that women face. However, they commonly argue that the fault, in its entirety, was with men and society.
In this case, we have a woman who explicitly admits that she dresses provocatively, which is an admission that she understands her choices will elicit attention and responses from other people. However, modern feminists are unwilling to accept that women should accept any responsibility for the way their actions influence others' actions.
I'm a realist. I deal with how things actually are. I would very much like to see a social system in which people are offered equal opportunities and fair treatment (equal and fair are different), but I also understand and accept that we live in a different society at present. Your goals can be predicated on your ideas and ideals, but your actions have to be grounded in reality because you have to take those actions in the present. Yes, harassment is an atrocity, but no, your opportunity and capability to dress yourself as you choose does not absolve you of your responsibility for whatever transpires as a result of your choices.
In short, I'm tired of all the selectiveness, dogma, and generally catastrophic stupidity that characterizes modern feminism and the SJW complex as a whole. I wish people would grow the fuck up.
September 4, 2014 4:16 p.m.
Yeh but being pragmatic doesn't alter the fact that there are fundamental problems. Whether you agree with the theories of rape apologism or not doesn't have to be an issue, it's just worth pointing out that there is a problem there somewhere.
Instead of being angry at the people being angry its probably worth noticing that they're right that there is something bad going on but perhaps they're taking it too far. Feminism isn't wrong necessarily, it's just that some people are taking it too far and not thinking in a pragmatic sense as you are.
It's not really pathetic or petty to get riled up about culture though. It's a fight that needs fighting, and we really should be focusing on the problems with people who commit crimes BEFORE we focus on the victims of that crime. Although, there should be a multi angled approach - deal with both the criminals AND the victims.
September 4, 2014 4:36 p.m.
slovakattack says... #17
Epochalyptik: "I wish people would grow up."
Amen.
September 4, 2014 4:46 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #18
Epochalyptik and ChiefBell Sum it better than I ever could. Thanks.
September 4, 2014 4:56 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #19
"Yes, harassment is an atrocity, but no, your opportunity and capability to dress yourself as you choose does not absolve you of your responsibility for whatever transpires as a result of your choices."
Gotta disagree with you here Epochalyptik. While as a rational actor I make choices that may increase or decrease the likelihood of someone noticing me and attacking me, I don't have a responsibility for my attackers actions. Period.
If I walk down the street dressed in suspenders and a pocket protector and glasses I don't have a "responsibility" for someone attacking me just because I dressed like a geek. Or if I dressed in tight flashy clothing and was attacked because I was dressed like a homosexual.
People make choices in life, and those choices impact the decisions of those around them. They do not have a share in the responsibility for criminal acts that are engaged in even if they are influenced by some choice I made in exercising a freedom I have.
You can dress however you want in this country. Women don't have a responsibility to not "incite" a rape. Just as you don't have a responsibility to not incite being robbed, assaulted, or any other violent, criminal act.
September 4, 2014 5:06 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #20
I do have responsibily to lock my car, be discreet about what's in my wallet and whether or not I instigate others. Youre actions do effect other people's opinions and thoughts. Whether it be robbing/ mugging you to smiling and saying hello.
September 4, 2014 5:22 p.m.
slovakattack says... #21
UrbanAnathema: People do have the right to judge you based on how you dress yourself. When you dress yourself, you are making a statement. To expect to dress provocatively and have others respect that is stupid.
That being said, when it comes to sexual assault and rape, etc. the person who bears the -vast majority of the responsibility- is indeed the perpetrator, as in the end, it is his or her choice whether or not to sexually harass/assault someone else. However, if someone is wearing extremely provocative clothing, they can't expect people to react to them as if they were wearing a nun's habit, nor indeed, do they. (they are wearing clothing to get a reaction, after all.)
I have an issue with your take on this, as while it makes sense in moderation, it is awfully easy to abuse. By your take, someone who (and pardon the crudeness of this example) who wears a shirt that says "I hate Niggers" and walks around in Watts isn't a victim. He/she is an idiot.
Now, you may respond with 'well that's hate speech', and while it is a very inflammatory example, it at it's core is sending a message. Just like every other piece of clothing that someone wears. A lack of willingness to bear the responsibility for what a person wears is foolish, and a mark of self-victimization.
September 4, 2014 5:23 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #23
Gspot You don't actually have a responsibility though for any of those things though. They are "good practices" and generally wise decisions. Its also a wise decision to not smoke, avoid red meat, junk food and alcohol. You don't have a "responsibility" to do any of those things, as you are free in our society to smoke, drink and eat all the steak and cheetos you want.
if someone steals your car because you didn't lock it, you don't share in the responsibility if someone steals it. Thats not how society works. You're not going to be prosecuted you not locking your car, the person who stole your car, or your wallet will be.
September 4, 2014 5:33 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
@ChiefBell: I'm wholly committed to bettering society. I plan to spend grad school and the years to come studying society and proposing changes on one level or another. What I'm saying here is that the breed of dogma exhibited by modern feminism hinders, and in some cases reverses, progress toward an egalitarian ideal. My post was more of a characterization and criticism of modern feminism than it was a summary of my ideas about social betterment.
@UrbanAnathema: I never said you are responsible for other people attacking you, at least not fully. What I said, or rather, what I meant to convey, is that your actions make you responsible at least in part for whatever counteractions and responses they elicit. If you walk down the street wearing a short black dress with a plunging V-neck and barely enough material to cover your ass, you are partially responsible (whether you accept it or not) for whatever reactions you elicit.
Now, this is not the same as victim blaming. I am not blaming rape victims for "asking for it." Far from it. Rape is inadmissible and indefensible in any form.
That said, the "I can dress however I like" defense is not actually a defense when you're talking about harassment. Yes, it may be a true statement. Yes, harassment still lies in large part with the aggressor. But people also need to realize that in our present society, people are likely to harass you on the street if you choose to wear a clubbing outfit in broad daylight. Or at all, really.
Let's use another example. You wouldn't walk down an alley in Compton while wearing a suit and Rolex and while talking on your iPhone, would you? Probably not. Why? Because you understand that such choices would increase the likelihood of you being put into a dangerous or difficult situation. You aren't directly responsible for being mugged; after all, you didn't control the attackers and order them to mug you. However, you are still partially responsible for the situation insofar as you made choices that increased your likelihood of being mugged.
And yes, I realize this is a slippery slope. But that's the nature of these kinds of cases. It's all about looking at actions within their contexts. I'm not inclined to say that the interviewee was asking to be raped (she wasn't raped, and she wasn't asking to be raped), but she made her choices knowing they would be likely to incite reactions, and knowing that those reactions were likely to be annoying, lewd, or any synonym of either. She's partially responsible for the situation.
This is why I disagree with the adamant refusal of modern feminism to accept that women have any responsibility in any situation in which they are disadvantaged. I'm not justifying attacks. I'm encouraging people to understand how their actions within the social context influence their situations.
September 4, 2014 5:35 p.m.
slovakattack says... #25
ChiefBell: This is true- I should have stated "faultless victim" instead of just "victim". My apologies for the lack of clarity.
September 4, 2014 5:36 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #27
slovakattack As ChiefBell says you can be an idiot and still be a victim. So long as you're not committing a crime. To use a real life example...I live in NYC. The KKK has on numerous occasions decided it would be a good idea to set up shop and start doing their thing on 135th and 5th Avenue in Harlem.
They have a freedom of speech. It should be protected. The people who would be prosecuted are those that would be violent against them. (Which is exactly what they want.)
There is a difference between someone making a bad decision, and someone somehow sharing responsibility for a criminal act. There is only ONE such act that we seem to give that distinction in American law that I know of, and thats when it comes to inciting a riot.
I am not saying one's actions does not impact others. That's reality. The point is it should be exactly noone's "responsibility" to consider whether or not I might get attacked tonight, in how they choose to dress and go out into the world. That goes for women, geeks, homosexuals, or hell even the KKK grand wizard who wants to wear his robe in Harlem.
Nothing justifies you being attacked for what you look like. Period.
September 4, 2014 5:40 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
@UrbanAnathema, post #4:12
You're playing with the word responsibility. No, you are not bound by law or morality to lock your car door. But as the warden of that car, you have an obligation of good stewardship to lock the car to prevent its theft. That's a responsibility. Perhaps it's not a responsibility in the sense of compulsion by code. However, your decision does influence the situation, and you are responsible for that situation by virtue of having taken an action (or an inaction) that affected that situation in a significant way.
Whether this means you're the party being prosecuted in a court of law is irrelevant, and it is precisely this mentality that modern feminism uses to absolve women of any responsibility for their own actions.
Self-accountability is a thing. Every person should be held accountable for his or her own actions.
September 4, 2014 5:42 p.m.
It's also not necessarily true that women wearing provocative clothing are more likely to be raped. Most women are targeted not by strangers looking for someone sexy but instead by someone they know who think they can get away with it. It's likely that the clothing issue is just a total falsehood.
September 4, 2014 5:44 p.m.
The problem is epoch, at the moment if you leave your car unlocked and your car is stolen the perpetrator will still be prosecuted. If a woman where's something revealing and is raped the conviction rate for the rapist will be low. This is a problem.
September 4, 2014 5:46 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #33
Epochalyptik I understand what you are trying to say. But keep in mind that if someone is "partially responsible" that necessitates they hold some responsibility for someone else's criminal act. That is not at all how we look at criminality in our society, and we shouldn't start now.
Yes, people can make stupid decisions, they can even make decisions they KNOW will likely incite a certain reaction from a certain subset of humanity and choose do make that decision anyway. It does not, imho in a moral context, and certainly not in any legal context in this country, (outside of inciting a riot) apply any responsibility for a crime against a victim to that victim.
Rape is one of the worst crimes that can be committed against someone. To apply even partial responsibility for that to its victims only re-victimizes them.
September 4, 2014 5:48 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #34
Epochalyptik It is not at all irrelevant when one of the major issues is when victims come forward to police, police treat them like the victim because of just this kind of thinking.
"How were you dressed?"
"Were you drinking?"
Cops generally don't interrogate you for hours about whether or not you locked your car if you report it stolen.
September 4, 2014 5:52 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #36
UrbanAnathema : in reply to interrogation thing. There's a reason for that. An epidemic of false accusations have occurred. If you want to prevent interrogations, you have to stop the huge amount of false accusations.
September 4, 2014 5:54 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #37
VampireArmy Do you honestly think that the "epidemic" of false accusations is anywhere near the number of ACTUAL rapes in this country?
Even the FBI's own numbers put the number of "unfounded" at 8% of all cases.
Single digits do not an "epidemic" make.
September 4, 2014 5:59 p.m.
False accusations make up such a tiny proportion of actual cases it's not really worth tarring everyone with the same brush. There are false theft accusations etc too so it's a bit of a null statement given that victims of those crimes aren't so hounded by the police. Like if you're going to treat something in one way you should be doing it for everything - but it's just not the way that things are happening. This is besides the point that I'm yet to read any actual sources definitively proving that there has been a flood of false allegations.
Rape has a fairly low conviction rate anyway so we should be aiding the process instead of hindering it.
September 4, 2014 6 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #39
8% is a higher number than you think and as such each case has to be treated with a level of seriousness. Also in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. That'd be like you accusing me of stealing your car and my being arrested for it before they even gathered the evidence.
September 4, 2014 6:01 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #40
If 8% of claims ARE false...should this be an equal concern or even a primary concern with dealing with the whole when 92% are valid?
September 4, 2014 6:02 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #41
VampireArmy Precisely my point. I'm not saying we should make an arrest simply on the word of the victim. I'm saying we don't need to interrogate the victim of a crime. You take a statement, you collect evidence.
We don't do this with other assault crimes. The fact that we have this built in thinking that the victim might have brought it on herself is a PROBLEM. You don't incite rape. End of story.
September 4, 2014 6:04 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #42
The 92% are very valid. Therefore we should be heavily cracking down on the 8% who trivilize the 92% right? Wrong, a majority walk away with no little to no repercussion
September 4, 2014 6:04 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #43
Also VampireArmy just as a suggestion. Don't link to Facebook pages as proof for your argument. It doesn't really help your case to post a link from an agenda group's social media page.
You wanna quote some stats, by all means do so.
September 4, 2014 6:07 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #44
It's a list of female false accusers. You want me to go through every single news article and relink every story or would it be easier for you to click through? There are approx. 100 there and i'd say about 10% got more than a legal slap on the wrist.
September 4, 2014 6:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #45
@UrbanAnathema: I'll direct you to my previous post, in which I explicitly state that rape cannot be justified or defended.
You're also still misapplying what I'm saying about responsibility. I'm not advocating that a woman who wears provocative clothing should be able to be countersued in a harassment case or anything of the sort. What I'm advocating is for people to realize they are accountable for their own actions, and that those actions have consequences. If you don't want to be harassed, it's probably best not to make choices that have a high likelihood of causing other people to harass you.
And once more, this is not victim blaming. I hope dearly that we can one day achieve a society of educated, responsible, and humane peoples and that harassment will not be the kind of pervasive problem it is today. There will always be harassment, but we can hope to reduce it. BUT, we still live in present society, and in present society, women wearing provocative clothing are likely to be harassed.
Too often, you see SJWs and modern feminists deliberately making self-victimizing choices, such as going out in public while wearing provocative clothing, specifically so they can encourage this kind of behavior in order to validate their positions. Numerous modern feminists and SJWs on social media sites like Twitter or Tumblr have already been exposed for using puppet accounts to harass themselves and serve as "examples" for their legions of followers.
Now, I'm not saying that every woman who dresses like the interviewee does is self-victimizing. But I am saying they are accountable for their actions and should understand their consequences within context. That's part of dealing with reality. Changing society is an admirable goal, and one well worth having, but that goal doesn't absolve you of your responsibility and accountability in present society.
September 4, 2014 6:22 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #46
By that logic then no one should ever engage in any activity that is shunned by the majority or is likely to draw harassment or ridicule from others. Don't protest against institutional injustice, don't identify as gay on a social network, or in public. Hell, don't play Magic. Engaging in any of these activities invites the ridicule and harassment of others and you are running the risk of self victimization and thus share in some way in the responsibility of your own abuse.
This is a dangerous perspective in my opinion.
September 4, 2014 7:15 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #47
We don't think the Cosplayer walking to Comicon dressed as Jace Baleren who gets beat up on the street enroute share in some way, responsibility for being attacked. Why do we think differently if its an attractive girl dressed provocatively?
I don't think anyone is saying that we live in some sort of fantasy world where actions don't have consequences and certain actions are more high risk than others.
September 4, 2014 7:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
@UrbanAnathema: That's a gross misinterpretation of the argument.
Telling people to be aware that they are accountable for their actions is in no way a statement on what actions they should take.
Yes, if you don't want to get harassed, you should try not to make decisions that increase your chances of being harassed. However, you can also fight the harassment. The whole point of activism is to enact change in a system, and, depending on the system and the means of enacting change, this may come at a personal cost. The sit-down protests during the civil rights movement in America were conducted by people aware that they may face harassment and legal confrontation as a result of their actions. People who vote in some third-world countries do so conscious of the very real risk of death or violence. These are informed decisions. They're examples of people weighing the consequences of their actions and maintaining their personal accountability for those actions.
The problem with the interviewee in the example I cited earlier is that she chose to wear provocative clothing, then complained that she was being harassed. Of course, the harassment is itself a problem, but until you achieve the change that makes harassment socially unacceptable by a much greater magnitude than it currently is, you still need to be accountable for your actions.
What I'm against is the flagrant disregard and even dismissal of personal accountability.
UrbanAnathema says... #1
I think the issue that in our society women are a disenfranchised social class and mainstream feminism seeks to change that. There are extremists in every social movement, and to think most people think of feminists as that extreme and that is an incorrect assumption.
It is a rather undeniable fact that women are disenfranchised and disempowered in this country and the world. Seeking to change that isn't a bad thing.
September 4, 2014 1:12 p.m.