In feminist theory there are many branches. There are two main branches that have sub-branches.

Liberal feminism - the idea that we are all equal through our capacity for rationality. Equality will come about through the practice and recognition of this equal capacity for rationality and as institutions change so too will women's capacity to demonstrate this. The reason that this currently can't be exhibited is because of a patriarchal system that views women as weak and soft minded. This leads lib fems to try to be "man-like" of mind so as to assert their equal status; girly but strong minded, ie. Thatcher(extreme example), Clinton, Rachel Maddow.

Radical feminism - Men are the oppressive class and women are the oppressed. (Try to deny it seriously. If not within the West then within the rest of the world) As a result women must form a opposition to this oppression by mens of taking sides. Women can still be equal of any attribute such as reason etc but none the less by virtue of their biological sex they are relegated to 2nd place based on that alone. The response is to form an equally if not more powerful class to overthrow the patriarchal system. Now this is where the original video things its anti men. It is anti patriarchy, anti a system millennia old that places political capital on birth right/biology. To argue against this risks committing a naturalistic fallacy whereby what IS is what is RIGHT. Through time we can cite all sorts of examples where that is not the case - slavery, pederasty, segregation. One way of addressing this patriarchy oppression is by banding together and attacking overt examples of gender/sex discrinination and oppression as is put forward in the video as reverse oppression (whatever). The other more radical feminism asks that women forgo their own proclivities and become political lesbians. This requires that they become a lesbian not only in solidarity with their sexed brethren but also actively reject men as a necessary part of a flourishing life.

So much of the discourse, on both sides, confuses the aims of which ever brand of feminism they prescribe (sometimes a mix of both) with instances of activism/oppression. Anecdotal evidence can only do so much in a systematic and ingrained norm such as gender roles.

The original video is laughably inane and self-agrandising in its selective use of anecdotes and conflation of one idea with another. It is as worse than radical-radical feminist arguments insofar as it cherry picks examples to highlight that which is unsystematic whereas rad fems point out things that are systematic but their ends are not understandable, or acceptable if understood, by most. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

TLDR; Lib fem, go with the flow and ask for gradual change. Rad fem, form a opposition of power and overthrow current system then restructure from what is divorced from historically contingient oppressive gender description.

"If They Melded" - Justin Bieber + Rachel Maddow Edition has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

"If They Melded" - Justin Bieber + Rachel Maddow Edition has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

It would only be surprising if all news networks independently choose to broadcast the exact same thing all the time. If there were an equivalent thing of Bush receiving some honour, no way MSNBC would show that live. Their audience would tune out, and they'd lose advertising revenue. Whatever Rachel is implying about Fox's motives, the truth of it is just economics.

Your video, Rachel Maddow Hammers Home Why Fox News Is Bulls#@!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Preaching to the small choir here, been saying this since their posts began littering the Videosift landscape. This type sensational, hack-reporting is their stock and trade, and they are very douche, er good at it.

Same ilk and schemata use their formula,from Sharpton, to Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow, Mike Savage....pick your flavor and there's a narcissistic douche-nozzle to satisfy, stroking it just right for your pleasure and somnambulance.

Should have watched more of the video...Rachel's appearance made it clear this was very old.

I think maybe Dawkins has become a bit frustrated and tired of the constant barrage of BS over the last decade or two...and thus less patient with naive or disingenuous interviewers.

That chick is a dead ringer for Rachel Weisz

Tags for this video have been changed from 'France Got Talent, Audition, Female Singer, WTF' to 'France Got Talent, Audition, Female Singer, WTF, rachel aspe' - edited by bareboards2

Bonjour lucky!

I've fixed two videos today, first one I didn't get the PP and second one said I wouldn't because I had already had one today. Also no alert came from siftbot onto my profile, so not sure whether this is a new thing I hadn't picked up or whether it's a fault. Then I tried to post a talk and it wouldn't let me do that either.

Thanks for all your help!

Rachel

>> ^shang:

Wow Ellen is turning into a blonde Rachel Maddow, they look like twins... they must be brothers


The Hell you mean "turning into"?

Have YOU ever seen them together at the same time?

>> ^rottenseed:

Make fun of Maddow all you want, but Ellen is sacred.>> ^shang:
Wow Ellen is turning into a blonde Rachel Maddow, they look like twins... they must be brothers



Would that make Oprah the golden calf?

Make fun of Maddow all you want, but Ellen is sacred.>> ^shang:

Wow Ellen is turning into a blonde Rachel Maddow, they look like twins... they must be brothers

Wow Ellen is turning into a blonde Rachel Maddow, they look like twins... they must be brothers

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by seltar.