Dear Shadow Minister,

Poirot has got you with the facts.

You can try to claim whatever you like
however, from all the news reports and the
interviews of people - as seen on television - the
crowd outside the Sydney Town Hall was a wide mixture.
And, if you stop to think logically -
on the law of averages - those huge numbers that
were there could not all have been just Labor and
Greens. You're not presenting well reasoned arguments.

‘morning Poirot and Foxy (AKA the Piranha Sisters),

Back on topic, the question asked by GY was “Has the term feminism run its course”? It’s crystal clear from your responses that your answer is, “no we haven’t finished with it yet”.

That’s OK, you want it you can have it. Just remember that a growing portion of the public are well and truly over “PC totalitarianism” and all the words that go with it.

PC rhetoric has nowhere to go, when challenged you just offer even more of it and when that fails we get schizophrenia.

Having “felt” my critique on feminism, your response is it to call it “blathering”. But you understood enough of it to offer a rebuttal to what you thought it said?

<< I don't need to go prancing about on public forums reinforcing my "femininity". >>

Oh really? So OLO is not a “public forum” then?

In one of multiple responses to using the term “Sweetie” you say,

<< they would be the ones who call men out for indulging in faux terms of endearment to patronize the ladies? >>.

Is this really your understanding of why I used that term? Or was it used to demonstrate the sort of bait that causes the flaring schizophrenia of the Piranha Sisters?

Your Rebecca West quote is a belter. One of the greatest bloopers in modern PC rhetoric.

<< I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." >>

You say you know how she feels! Of course you do, isn’t that what we have been trying to tell you?

It’s a classic quote because it demonstrates the defensive hypocrisy displayed by PC totalitarians. Such comments have been translated many times with so many different PC words;

“I quite like feminists really”, “my best friend is a feminist”, “my son actually married a feminist”.

(Please substitute the word feminist for any other PC words of your choice, they all work the same).

Cont’d.

Cont’d.

To provide a little more context I’ll address some of the social attributes inherent in the adoption of emotive words by progressives.

Just to be clear, the words we are talking about are such sexism, feminism, islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia. This also extends to equality, compassion, human rights, discrimination and dare I say it, CAGW. I’ll refer to these collectively as ETW’s (Emotive Trigger Words).

I’ve already made the case for Conversation, Emotioning, Cultures and Cognition earlier, you can refer to these at;
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 3 November 2014 8:50:30 AM

The progressives’ “need” for the use ETW’s and rhetoric, tends to isolate them from wider communities, they treat “outsiders” with contempt and are likewise treated with suspicion. As a direct result they tend to polarize into like minded groups which are carefully crafted to support each self referential network. This is a domain where they can happily coexist, share “approved” opinion, establish defenses and from where they can launch attacks upon those who threaten their ETW’s.

The sisterhood, Emily’s List (The Piranha Sisters) and many other such networks all share the emotive association with the word “feminism” along with other ETW’s like “equality”.

Julie Bishop is not denigrated because of what she does or says, but because she threatens the adoption and “value” of their ETW’s. She does not need them. It’s a heinous crime to deny emotive attachment “their” ETW’s and must be attacked.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, has a special mission to save women, has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, causing conflict with the wider society. Group members, alone, are trustworthy, sharing a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of those outside the group, are obsessive, adopt victimhood, lose spontaneity and sense of humor and embrace groupthink.

Many such groups have already progressed to activism or “social bullying” which inflicts pain and social division on the wider community.

The Piranha Sisters now own the “Encyclopedia of Thought Terminating Clichés and Platitudes” from which all their posts are composed.

Feminism? I think we’re truly over it

spindoc,

Yeah, thanks for that : )

So, to sum up...here's a selection of your cogent argument - which (apparently) you conclude is the way to refer to women in debate.

"‘morning Poirot and Foxy (AKA the Piranha Sisters)"

"....Or was it used to demonstrate the sort of bait that causes the flaring schizophrenia of the Piranha Sisters?"

"The sisterhood, Emily’s List (The Piranha Sisters) and many other such networks all share the emotive association..."

"The Piranha Sisters now own the “Encyclopedia of Thought Terminating Clichés and Platitudes”....."

Hmmm....spindoc goes to immense trouble to dissect the psychology of feminism - and peppers his analysis with puerile epithets....and employs hackneyed cliches to do it.

How very grown up of him!

Gawd, Foxy, you've gone from a "sweetie" to a "Pirahna" in no time at all. Do you still think spindoc's "sweetie" was a term of endearment?

I'll paraphrase Rebecca West's quote, if yers don't mind:

" I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a Pirahna whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

Dear Spindoc,

Thank You for sharing your thoughts with us
so openly and honestly. I explained earlier
in my posts that I did not have a problem with
the use of endearments like "sweetie," only that
your use of terms like "piranas," made the
endearments somewhat suspect.

As for Feminism,
and whether its run its course? I think that
depends on each individual to decide what
significance it has in their lives today. Women
who benefit from the achivements of feminism
and then refuse to embrace the term is not a
position that many women would have a respect for.
Still, having said that, most women I know are
simply busy coping with their daily lives alongside
either their male partners or on their own.

As for Julie Bishop? She has risen and been accepted
in the LNP and why no other woman seems to be
following her is because she has made the choice of
not rocking the boat so to speak. Her choice apparently
is to continue to comply with the structure of power.

Of course
as a woman she is inforcing the powerlessness.
She exhibits the competence her parliamentary leader
lacks, without agitating against the structures that
promoted his lesser talent over hers. That is
unfortunate, and her feminist disavowel in reality does
not leave much for the future of talented women
in the party beyond a place that will be granted to them
by the men. But that's nothing new.

In her former life Julie Bishop chose to defend James
Hardie - for money. She had no qualms of climbing over
the corpses of asbestos victims. So her choices in
life as I stated earlier really are about looking out for
No 1.

Still Julie Bishop is looking out for No. 1.
And few can blame her for that.

Dear Poirot,

Nah. You were right all along.
The proof is in Spindoc's posts.
So obvious now.
And silly me!