Running Gator Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: It's easy to spin things when one wants to stick to a one-dimensional view of a word or term. Feminism is bigger than that definition. What's more important than definitions are word usages. Words are often used outside their textbook definitions in real life. Feminism is used one way to laud liberal women when they achieve the ideals of feminism and then conveniently either ignored or redefined when a conservative woman meets achieve those certain ideals. Again, if Kelly Anne Conway had said what she said in the context of a Hillary Clinton victory, Conway would be praised for her efforts, but in an effort to bow to political correctness and the hate-filled pressure fueled by the liberals/anti-Trump folks, the people at Merriam Webster decided to use their publication to make a political statement and slam Conway in the process. If everyone has their own definition of a word, that word is now meaningless. In order for language to work there has to be an agreement on what a word means. Again, hypothetical "IF" scenarios serve no purose and are just one persons' opinion of what might happen. I think we would be better served to focus on reality instead of our own imaginations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 33 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: If everyone has their own definition of a word, that word is now meaningless. In order for language to work there has to be an agreement on what a word means. It's not a matter of everyone having their own meaning of the word. I am speaking to how it is used, how it is applied in the real world. We often apply words in ways that do not comport with their lexical definitions. Quote Again, hypothetical "IF" scenarios serve no purose and are just one persons' opinion of what might happen. I think we would be better served to focus on reality instead of our own imaginations. Actually, no. We have enough history from the liberals to know exactly how they would act if Conway had been in in Hillary's Camp and had engineered her victory. We have history. Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are good examples of how conservative women are vilified even if they meet the ideals of feminism for women. Enough is there to accurately gauge how Conway would be treated had she worked for Clinton and had Clinton won. It's just the double standard that anti-Trumpers/liberals operate from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: It's not a matter of everyone having their own meaning of the word. I am speaking to how it is used, how it is applied in the real world. We often apply words in ways that do not comport with their lexical definitions. The "real world" is often just code for people when the really mean "how I see things". You see the word applied in this manner, I do not agree with you or Conway, and it is not how my daughter, who is from a younger generation(obviously) sees it used. This is the problem with such changing of word meanings. Quote Actually, no. We have enough history from the liberals to know exactly how they would act if Conway had been in in Hillary's Camp and had engineered her victory. We have history. Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are good examples of how conservative women are vilified even if they meet the ideals of feminism for women. Enough is there to accurately gauge how Conway would be treated had she worked for Clinton and had Clinton won. It's just the double standard that anti-Trumpers/liberals operate from. Despite all this, it is just speculation and not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Just now, Out of the Shadows said: The "real world" is often just code for people when the really mean "how I see things". You see the word applied in this manner, I do not agree with you or Conway, and it is not how my daughter, who is from a younger generation(obviously) sees it used. This is the problem with such changing of word meanings. No, the real world is the real world, and no amount of wanting to ignore how things work in the real world just to score points in a smear attack on Conway is going to cut it. The fact is that is that we all know what feminism is, and what feminists want and they are not keeping that a secret. That is well known to the average person who isn't living under a rock. And feminists operate from a double standard when it comes to conservative women and that is fact not speculation. And that double standard has been used more than one time in the past and it is being used now. And that's really the only correct way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said: Here is the definition of Feminism, can you explain how this excludes conservative women.. Definition of feminism 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests In the January Women's March in Washington, it seems some 'feminists' were excluded: Women's March Erects a Pro-Life Barrier Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewels7 Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 713 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2017 I wonder if Merriam Webster went to these lengths during other presidential administration's ? Ms.Conway is right in my opinion. Feminism's original definition is being corrupted today by misandry and radicals who hope to install the idea that women are the perpetual victim because of their sex. Quote This isn’t the first time that Wikipedia’s more boring brother has seized on Conway’s comments in an effort to go viral, jumping last month on Conway coining the term “alternative facts,” which, admittedly, was about as ill-advised as Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” speech: A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. https://t.co/gCKRZZm23c — Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) January 22, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 4 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: In the January Women's March in Washington, it seems some 'feminists' were excluded: Women's March Erects a Pro-Life Barrier Blessings, -Ed What so many don't realize is that the definition doesn't change; the APPLICATION of the definition changes depending on who is writing or speaking and who the subject is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts