Our intrepid reporter takes another journey through the concentric circles of feminism. The old boy must be feeling his oats.
No feminist can ever concede that any critic could have a valid argument. Thus the starting point of the debate is that there can be no debate: The anti-feminist critic is simply presumed wrong, and all that needs be explained is why the critic is wrong. The Soviet “show trials” of the 1930s were less predictable than the arguments of feminists.
I would like to say that this is a hasty generalization, but it jibes too much with my own experience. If you argue with a feminist, and you are a man, you are not merely wrong, but the fact of your disagreement is evidence of your status as enemy.
But a greater point is found below, in a discussion of Prop. 8 and gay marriage:
If homosexuality is a right, and denying legal recognition to same-sex marriage is a violation of that right, then the rage of gay activists against their opponents is entirely justified. Proposition 8 does not deny tolerance, safety and freedom to gays and lesbians, whose right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is as secure in California as anywhere in the world.
Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via “rights talk.”
Given the choice between freedom and equality, I would always choose freedom. The kind of equality that the proggies are always finding new definitions forwill never overcome the faict that humans persistently divide themselves into groups, and some of those groups are better than others. So long as the coastal elite continue to mock and sneer at the Wrong Kinds of White People, I cannot see this judgement changing.