This article isn't exactly about the downfall of feminism, but how it has changed. But I've also read other stories (sorry, no links) about the changing face of feminism, especially its apparent splintering and lack of focus. But doesn't that make sense? Feminsim largely accomplished many of its immediately pressing goals - sure, you can look around and complain about this inequity, or that stupid law, or this societal belief or factor, but for the most part things are much, much better than they were in the 1950s. My boss's boss, and even her boss, is a woman. R is a VP at a financial firm, and until recently reported to a woman. Maybe not perfect, but this is the real world. Maybe it splintered because (wait for it) women aren't all the same. My wife, sister and mother share biology, but otherwise enjoy vastly different leisure activites and pasttimes. In a time of subjegation a movement capturing all three exists. But today, no umbrella covers all three; let alone all women. Dressing up goals, calling it feminism and pretending to speak for all of them changes nothing. Some women are girly girls, some tough as nails; some like purses, some like punches.
Meanwhile, another article notes that while most European countries bar people from questioning the Holocaust, or even investigating it, or denigrating Jews, its open season on Muslims. It strikes me that this is largely the problem with such laws. The majority enjoys protecting itself while ignoring the law equally applies to some minority. I'm not one for bagging on on any group or minority, but if you want to make yourself look like an idiot in my eyes, bag away. Given that the article is from Slate.com I worried it would come out in favor of such laws. Thankfully, it argues that we either need to apply them equally, or more likely reject them entirely due to their possible abuse.
Meanwhile, another article notes that while most European countries bar people from questioning the Holocaust, or even investigating it, or denigrating Jews, its open season on Muslims. It strikes me that this is largely the problem with such laws. The majority enjoys protecting itself while ignoring the law equally applies to some minority. I'm not one for bagging on on any group or minority, but if you want to make yourself look like an idiot in my eyes, bag away. Given that the article is from Slate.com I worried it would come out in favor of such laws. Thankfully, it argues that we either need to apply them equally, or more likely reject them entirely due to their possible abuse.
