Plenty of suitable people also have been led to believe the “Conservatives are anti-science” myth, a more common and useful current political weapon and rationalization for Democratic politics and policies.

It's not like past decades, thank goodness. And Sotomayor, controversy and all, isn't that threatening.

There are no alternative “visions.” The extremists characterize and taint contemporary feminism.

I made accurate statements of fact, and the “labels” (or whatever other name you may wish to substitute in place of “terms”) are accurate if they are clear and correct, which they are. I suppose in a rare or odd case you could raise an example, such as demanding a specific wavelength to officially define a specific color, but that's carrying things to rare and odd extremes, and is exceptional, not the norm.

Funny you mention agreement, as it is applicable to the (real) problem of judicial activism.

“And that's just not the case with several of the labels you've used.”

Well, if some would insist that “red” mean green instead, (which is a valid analogy to judicial activism, substuting one's own views and wishes for what was intended and agreed on, and what may correctly may be inferred from this or retroactively applied to it, and having judges rather than the legislature state what a law _should_be_), I really don't think that matters, Jill. Unanimity obviously is never required to define a term.

That's a great perspective re: the ACLU. I do actually feel that they protect civil liberties all along the spectrum, but I like what you wrote because you open the window on the nuance of how civil liberties are perceived, defined and, ugh – I can't believe I'm writing this – labeled.

Yeah, again, I will disagree w/you here. There's no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it – speaking it and hearing it – agree on what it represents. And that's just not the case with several of the labels you've used.

I disagree and I'm happy to throw down my JD/MSW dual licensure as a lawyer and social worker. I stand by my opinion and I disagree with your position. Nothing personal. I just completely disagree.

You are going to have to ask someone else – I don't speak for “feminists” as you see them. I don't know what more to tell you. I'm just not the right person to respond to that question. I would urge you to not label and compartmentalize so much but again, just IMO.

Hmm. I'll think about these points. The re-emphasize your previous comments, but I'm not sure I agree or disagree anymore or less with you on them. For ex., sure – we've come to think that judicial activism is a term of art, but a la Frank Luntz and many others, such terms have come up for grab. Sometimes I like that, sometimes I don't. Activism in and of itself is nonpartisan, IMO. Which is to say, I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court. That might come to be one of its hallmarks, really.

And kind of like conservative women embracing their own brand of feminism. There are just a lot of phrases up for grabs, and not being a lover of labels, I find that to be natural and interesting, but also dangerous.

The whole thing about feminism, abortion, academia – I don't related to what you're expressing. I understand what you've written, but it's just not something I think about much at all – it involves a very tiny portion of individuals and I would not want to overstate the influence. That is, of course, just my opinion/feeling about it.

Got it – thank you.

Re: the pipeline metaphor – well….she said with a smile. This is the whole thing! Palin and Obama (and others, esp. if you read The Fix and his article today about how hard a time the White House and Rahm are having recruiting people) demonstrate that that assumption about how a long the pipe might be re: # of election cycles is totally up for grabs. I, personally, think that that is NOT necessarily a good thing. But I also think it shows how we should ALWAYS be looking at candidates on a case by case basis – different things take different lengths of time to mature/ripen – political candidates/politicians may or may not be any different, don't you think?

I do both at the same time. The “labels” are accurate descriptors, not mere nomenclature devoid of anything in addition to their character elements.

I'll just note that in addition to misusing “activism” here too freely and loosely, this was a logical goof of the first order. What matters is the nature of the ACLU; it's irrelevent what you may believe, true or otherwise, about the behavior of other parties. (Also, even if the current Court _were_ activist, that is in no way a logical or ethical or any other kind of defense of the ACLU.) And we know the nature of the ACLU. (Like other parties such as unions, it's effective a left-Democratic auxiliary.)

But what is it that feminists want now (or demand, or dogmatically “require”, as C. Stanley put it so well?) Why substitute “well-to-the-left-of-the-public-as-well-as-often-blatantly-partisan-Democrat” for “people”?

(Note: This applies to other leftist groups in the Democratic Party camp, like black Americans. The Democratic Party and liberalism in this country isn't merely “inclusive” but demands ideological, political, and often blatantly partisan dogma as credentials of these “people's” _authenticity_, in their view.)

1. 49 comments so far. I told you that this is the best thread in quite a while (as measured, at least, by the number of comments it has attracted).

2. Judicial activism is a term that is quite clear, and doesn't merit being used if a courts' decisions merely aren't what you want (not liberal enough, or not liberal frequently enough). True critics such as I of the illegitimate practice know the difference between correct use of the term and misuse of the term, be it out of ignorance, to seek dimunition of the term's effect when correctly used, to confuse, or elsewise.

3. I deliberately chose not to comment on something, as I occasionally do in order to let others mention it first, and it has been mentioned now: abortion. Even those of us moderates and even those who truly are conservative who support abortion rights are repelled by the extremist, militant, and worse stance that is frequently taken by feminist groups, far out of the mainstream (government should provide abortion to all, even minors, demanding no parental consent or even notification, etc; blind, maniacal devotion to and defense of Roe v. Wade, which was an obvious truly activist ruling by the Supreme Court; pro-abortion, as-militant-as-possible “litmus test” along with absolute acceptance of Roe v. Wade for any candidate Justice of the Supreme Court, etc.), as well as the accompanying dishonesty and slander about people who oppose such extremism, and its frequently accompanying dishonesty and slander of such people that they are “anti-woman” [sic], with the implicit presumption that the militant extremists define what is the “true” [sic] position of and for women. This also goes for other occasional farther-left “causes” on which “authentic” women are expected to hold the (politically) “correct” position, such as the “comparable worth” cause.

4. I could also have added yesterday the bizarre phenomenon in academia of what is claimed to be “scholarship” related to feminism (and women's studies), which is a combination of schizoid word-and-phrase-salad psycho-babble and predictable adherence to a radical (sometimes militant and extremist) left-wing political ideology, along with related excursions into an alternative universe, claiming, similar to what the Afro-centrist kooks* have, that conventional, “establishment” science as well as the economy and society are “patriarchal,” wrongly contrived (typically to “dominate” or “suppress” women, minorities, etc.– Evil Western Culture) and there are legitimate alternative female versions of these, that in fact are superior), and that people should be “discovering” patriarchal “privilege” [sic] everywhere and feeling guilty about it and flagellating themselves to atone for this — but I didn't mention it earlier because these people truly are fringists and ordinarily don't merit attention. However, they are part of feminism's true baggage.

* Birds of a feather — PC-lockstep far-left types. Same “problems,” same “solutions” — quite typical.

Also, filling the pipeline is probably a useful metaphor, but keep in mind that the pipe is a lot longer than one election cycle. Equality can take a while to produce visible results.