Via Kate:
Unambiguously Ambidextrous raises some issues (Part 2) with the historical record of feminism, and what it has done. Which, of course, is the same as attacking it because feminism is sort of an “endangered species” in the world of the politically correct. What you might call a “sacred cow.”
The result of the rise of feminism in western civilization has been a double-edged sword, affording Canadians the luxuries of an increase in income and wealth, at the expense of outsourcing population growth and rapid demographic shifts from the mainly European settlement population. Added to this is the destruction of the nuclear family, high divorce rates, leading to psychological problems, increased crime, and higher rates of poverty. As the economy evolves to reflect the status quo of one man and one woman working all the time simultaneously, it becomes more and more difficult for Canadians to live in the traditional role where the woman stays at home and has children.
Canadian Cynic defends feminism. Kinda. Not really. Actually, Canadian Cynic attacks Unambiguously Ambidextrous with sarcasm, which is an effective technique of derogating something without putting forth an actual position of what it is you’re trying to say.
Feminism is the cause of everything bad that has ever happened since men made the monumental mistake of giving women the vote.
And when I say something like this:
My article was written in good faith in an attempt not to gain recognition, but to engage in a dialogue about feminism.
I actually mean that I’m right, you’re wrong and things would be so much more civil if you just admitted it and then shut up.
Broadsides attacks the entire topic. Actually, she Godwins it, saying that anybody who attacks feminism is a Nazi. I think. Actually, Broadsides is using sarcasm too, so it’s difficult to impossible (by design) to try to figure out what it is she’s trying to say.
Which is maybe a good move. The one time Broadsides veers her broad side away from sarcasm, is the one time she makes the least sense:
Never mind that, for many women, the nuclear family where the wife/mother stayed at home was a psychological, if not physical, prison which led to, among other things, depression and prescription drug abuse.
Uh…so staying home and taking care of your kids is a sure path to prescription drug abuse?
+++blink+++
Wow. So many problems with that, I don’t know where to begin. Why bother.
But I’m more than fascinated to learn of this debating technique used by Broadsides. If you want to attack someone’s lifestyle, all you have to do is come up with some stories about someone tripping out on prescription drugs…or just one. Ah screw it, just make it up if you have to.
Come to think on it, I think Broadsides herself is living in a “psychological, if not physical, prison.” Let’s watch her closely.
And it’ll just be a matter of time before G.R. swims across the pond and ends up here. OH NOES!!!
Amazingly, you have to wait a MINUTE AND A HALF before this “feminist” unloads on Rush Limbaugh with any specifics. Up until then, the main point of her video is that Limbaugh — and by extension, anybody else who says “irresponsible” things — needs to check with her first before being allowed to communicate with any significant numbers of people.
Speaking of Gerard, he’s taking apart 
For that reason, I thought I’d put together a list of reasons good-looking girls should NOT wear skimpy clothes. I decided to do this after chuckling over this long, drawn-out debate under 
Hooters. That’s my solution. It’s like garlic to Dracula. Just set your weary ass down, order a hot plate of wings and a cold pitcher of brew, and if there are any “Crate and Barrel elitists” around they’ll disappear in a cloud of dust and screeching and bitching about “orange shorts oppressive to women flaunting skimpy blah blah blah” and out they go.
