Friday, December 24, 2010
Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 1960s, non-leftist women in the West and Israel have been hard-pressed to answer the question of whether or not we are feminists. Non-leftist women are opposed to the oppression of women. Certainly, we are no less opposed to the oppression of women than leftist women are.
But at its most basic level, the feminist label has never been solely or even predominantly about preventing and ending oppression or discrimination of women. It has been about advancing the Left’s social and political agenda against Western societies. It has been about castigating societies where women enjoy legal rights and protections as “structurally” discriminatory against women in order to weaken the legal, moral and social foundations of those societies. That is, rather than being about advancing the cause of women, to a large extent, the feminist movement has used the language of women’s rights to advance a social and political agenda that has nothing to do with women.
So to a large degree, the feminist movement itself is a deception.
Read the whole thing.
After posting a video critical of airport security, an airline pilot gets a visit from the Feds:
I think the pilot might really have cranked Janet Napolitano with this observation: "As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It's only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here."
Three days after he posted his critical video clips on YouTube, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at the pilot's house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. The pilot's attorney, not unreasonably, said he believed the federal government sent the posse to the pilot's house in order to send a message.More.
Though fundamentally tawdry, the Bell scandal raises two important questions about the prospect of American self-government. First, can a post-Madisonian development in America—the professionalization of government that began a century ago—be reconciled to the Madisonian framework of counteracting ambitions? Second, can we still rely on conscientious civic engagement at the local level to be the elevating political force that Tocqueville applauded—and, if not, can our republic endure without it?
Read the whole thing.