So it's just whatever you say it is, is that the idea?

Sorry mate, but I'm afraid I'm not a progressive by your definition.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that whatever is defined that way, it's entirely dysfunctional and based on a need to please rather than anything more cerebral.

Antipeptic,

You asked me for my view, I gave it. So sue me.

When you write,

" .... I'd go so far as to say that whatever is defined that way, it's entirely dysfunctional and based on a need to please rather than anything more cerebral."

what do you mean ? That human rights for women in Afghanistan is dysfunctional ? To what ? The god of culture ? Islam ?

Yes, it may well be, and fair enough too.

"A need to please". Is that your best shot against Afghan women ?

Joe

I've already pointed out why a blind, stupid drive to impose a recent and doomed to be short-lived vision of human rights on a society which has endured for thousands of years in the harshest of environments, under constant threat of assault from outside is doomed to failure and hence, dysfunctional.

As for definitions, you didn't give me one, you gave a me a short list of things you think indicate your own "goodness". all they really indicate is your denial of reality.

A definition might have been: "a social and political ideology that is based on the primacy of individual feelings and that the State has a role in ensuring that nobody who identifies as progressive should have to experience any bad emotion and that if a bad emotion is claimed to have been experienced, the State must punish the man who is identified as having caused the emotion. A key aspect of progressive ideology is the primacy of women in social, commercial and political activities. It is axiomatic that men are inherently opposed to the primacy of women because they have a sociopathic need to control."

Actually, that's not bad. I might submit it to New Matilda or The Conversation to use as a statement of principle.

Actually, that 'definition' sounds somewhat psychotic, certainly unnecessarily juxtaposing men against women, which I don't think is at all necessary for any genuine 'progress'.

But if that's how sections of the Right is thinking these days, who am I to stop you ?

Joe

It's like trying to hold a conversation with a parrot.

Joe, interesting that you seemed to think Antiseptics definition unnecessarily juxtaposing men against women. From your own earlier list

"extension of human rights, specially to women;

* protection of people's rights, especially those of women;

* expansion of opportunities, especially for women;"

Did you see all those especially statements?

I've lost track to some extent of the arguments you and Anti are making here, from the outside it seems to be slugging away but not hearing what the other is saying. Your earlier post stuck out because it fitted with a discussion on the man therapy thread regarding the message of men being disposable.

Not sure if you meant it that way but it stuck out for the way it put women against men.

R0bert