Women didn’t need liberation - why, they could get jobs as secretaries or waitresses or nurses! And sexual liberation? They could have all the sex they wanted with their husbands! And sex they didn’t want too, since “marital rape” wasn’t a thing back then and anyway any women who didn’t meet her marital obligations was really just asking for those bruises. Happy times.
Nonsense - I recall them perfectly. Why, I can remember that one time Dad came home and tripped over the ottoman - how Mom and I laughed!
As an aside, it’s worth remembering that before the advent of all the labour-saving devices that are standard for most American households these days, housework was hard, backbreaking labor that took all day - and even moreso if you had a couple of young children around the place. The Fifties saw the advent of a lot of these devices but if the “male three-martini lunch and light workday” story is a myth, so is the “housework is easy and housewives lounge around all day” one.
The board’s liberals are also more comfortable with a single-payer health care system than the board’s conservatives. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s simply a description of a difference between the board’s liberals and conservatives.
My observation is not about hypocrisy. This is something that some of the board’s liberals named Bryan Ekers are evidently unable to grasp: the meaning of the word hypocrisy. Hypocrisy happens when a person espouses one position and then acts in opposition to that position personally, or when he benefits.
I’m not aware of any of the posters here who have done that. Many liberal posters here have directed hateful vitriol directed at dead political opponents, yes. But I’m not aware of any of them who have said, “Hateful vitriol directed at dead political opponents is wrong.”
BigT, a self-identified liberal, has indeed said that hateful vitriol directed at dead political opponents is wrong. But he hasn’t directed hateful vitriol at dead political opponents… so no hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy cannot arise there unless you liberals elect BigT as your spokesman.
I’d say there is an objective and a subjective component to the process.
The person’s subjective belief in the merit of their position is important, and I’d say that objectively, their position should be arguably meritorious.
Slavery would fail that second test.
But my problem with the liberal view I see here is that there is no real room for such concession on almost any social liberal issue – the saying that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas and liberals think conservatives are bad people comes to mind.
Schafly’s position was not akin to suppprt for slavery – reasonable people could and did agree with her. Indeed, the legislators in fifteen states could not muster majorities to agree with the ERA and the 35 states that did approve it did not do so unanimously. When opinion in the country is split as closely as that, I don’t agree that either side can claim to be self-evidently right.
Firstly, it’s worth noting that the statement “Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas and liberals think conservatives are bad people” is both untrue and self-negating, given that it’s often used to bash liberal people rather than liberal ideas. I will leave it to you to consider which usage is yours.
Secondly, your characterization of liberals as having “no real room for such concession on almost any social liberal issue” appears to suggest that such inflexibility (where it exists) is somehow unique to liberals. The current prevalent form of American conservatism is **far **less flexible on “almost any social conservative issue”, and the quest for conservative ideological purity is largely responsible for the current travails of the Republican party.
Which is not to say that liberals can’t be inflexible or dogmatic - it’s built into the human condition, alas - but it seems odd to selectively berate them for a trait that is also true of conservatives to an equal or greater extent.
The claim that liberals are the ones that refuse to be flexible is risible. The Left has done nothing but bend for decades. Only a conservative could define “Do it my way or else!” as compromise on the part of the Right.
Well, some liberals are inflexible - at the moment, certain elements of the “Bernie or Bust” movement could be characterized as such. But if anything the problem with the Left overall is that it’s too flexible, to the point of wishy-washiness and a lack of resoluteness.
ISTR there was a GOP/Tea Party politician who pretty much said that outright. Can’t remember if he got elected though.
Kennedy was a tireless servant of the people, with decades of accomplishments. Schlafly tried to keep women in the kitchen and keep homosexuals from having equal rights. I don’t see the equivalence there.
I agree she was doing what she thought was right. Who gives a fuck if you’re true to your beliefs, if your beliefs are odious?
Of course it is, or at least your inaccurate take on it, because your rhetorical skills are limited. The only problem in this case is that you were instantly called on it, forcing you to try to salvage a pathetic “No, that’s not what I meant” attempt at evasion, like a bad comedian who tries to come up with a different punchline after the hecklers interrupt with “yeah, yeah, ‘to get to the other side.’ BOOOO! YOU SUCK!”
Here’s where I disagree. Her tactics were slimy. She lied, called names, distorted the truth, and was cruel to people. She pressed the fire-alarm when the building wasn’t burning. She created fear, deliberately and dishonestly.
It is possible to have opposed the ERA in an honorable fashion. But Schlafly didn’t do that.
There are pro-life politicians I admire; there are anti-vaccination politicians I respect; there are climate-change-denying politicians who aren’t monsters.