Can you please not post in a throwaway/flamewar style to HN? We're trying for something else here. What you bring up is no doubt one relevant aspect of a long career, but on HN we want comments that enhance curious conversation, not kill it.<p>If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a> and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. They include:<p>"<i>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.</i>"<p>"<i>Eschew flamebait.</i>"
Women's rights are human rights. We all win when that happens (except for those that exploit and abuse them).
This is only half right. The capitalists <i>loved</i> feminism. Biggest expense of many businesses is labor. Double the labor pool, labor cost plummets, & profits skyrocket, so of course the capitalists at the CIA appreciated Steinem, and vice versa.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem#CIA_ties_and_leader_of_Independent_Research_Service" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem#CIA_ties_and_le...</a><p>Would add that Alan Greenspan made a similar remark about his consulting firm. How he hired as many women as he could, since he could get sharp ones at a considerable discount.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5432331">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5432331</a>
Assuming your summary is true, does that have anything to do with the virtues or failing of feminism? After all socialism also (indirectly) gave us weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, social security, state pensions, and decent healthcare. (Shame about the authoritarian psychopathic leaders etc. but that’s clearly not linked to any specific political leaning).<p>I mean, if you’re against feminism, then I think you’re definitionally against the freedom of choices in life for fifty percent of humanity. It’s an unconditionally evil stance. The fact that most of the people who noisily complain about it are so clearly inadequate in their personality ( no one with actual confidence in their worth needs to spend their time crowing about it) doesn’t help.
Indeed.<p>Guys who think women have it too easy speaks to how far things have come in a generation or two. Some don't understand how second class citizen their mothers & grandmothers were in their time.<p>If you think 50% of the country not being kept as second class citizens has negatively impacted your ability to make it in life, please look in the mirror and reflect on your own failings.
There is a big difference between being a second class citizen, being equal but properly socialized to play an amazing role in life you specialize in, and being socialized in a way that basically destroys society if extrapolated a bit further.
My parser keeps returning "tradwife dog whistle", but I'd like to give the benefit of doubt. Could you clarify?
If your society can’t survive without a permanent second class of citizens maybe it deserves to be destroyed
Not just that, but being socialized to have women enforce their own status as second class citizens in a variety of ways. In some fashion, this is what the "Tradwife" movement is about.<p>Example: I recall my grandmother opining that women who were assaulted were to blame for their assault, because of how they dressed. That's a hot take even Fox News is staying away from today.
> CIA operative tasked with obfuscating the socialist origins of feminism<p>I've read this sentence multiple times, but it still does not make sense to me
Lmao do you have sources to support any piece of this claim?