Share this Blog
Progressive Bloggers
Canadian Bloggers
Your opinions...
 | Alan Scott on Babies in Hell |
 | Eugene Adkins on Babies in Hell |
 | Mystro on Babies in Hell |
 | Reneta Scian on The DWR Sunday Religious Disse… |
| Eugene Adkins on Babies in Hell |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Air Canada jet makes emergency landing in Toronto May 28, 2012
- Tories line up to argue CP Railway strike hurting economy May 28, 2012
- Missing Winnipeg kids found in Mexico back with mom May 28, 2012
- Canadian Everest climber's body recovered May 28, 2012
- Bullyproof: One classroom confession May 28, 2012
The Arbourist
The Intransigent One
Mystro
bleatmop
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 31, 2012 at 9:39 am
Vern R. Kaine
I think Allred does more to harm the movement than help it through her support of the “lawsuit lottery” and her political meddling, but i guess to each their own.
January 31, 2012 at 10:38 am
The Arbourist
My interest was piqued by your comment I went to Wikipedia and looked at her bio. It looks as if she has a lot of high profile cases in her history. But then again, many good lawyers do. Is there a particular incident you are referring to Vern? I’m curious. Mmy knowledge of Allred when posting the video went as far as what she was saying, as opposed to her other activities.
January 31, 2012 at 11:37 am
Vern R. Kaine
Her grandstanding with the woman who came forward against Herman Cain was one, and her grandstanding with Meg Whitman’s illegal employee was another. Perhaps a third was the waitress that Tiger Woods had an affair with.
I agree with you that many good lawyers take advantage of these high profile cases, but if they’re guys we usually consider them to be slimeballs for the most part. Jose Baez comes to mind, and if he were to all of a sudden stand up and start talking about “Mother’s Rights” I’d dismiss him in the same way.
Allred’s “lawyering”, marketing, and choice of clients aside, though, regardless of right/wrong there’s the matter of approach. As we’ve discussed before, I believe a better way to a much better end on this issue is less of an adversarial stance and one more of a partnership that starts with respect, not with contempt. In other words, follow the Aesop rule that persuasion is better than force.
Allred, to me, seems to be nothing but contempt and someone who immediately creates and adversarial relationship with whomever is on the other side of her issue. No man is a feminist, therefore he’s automatically a bigot? That’s pure manipulation and it’s picking a fight. And are we to equally claim then that all women who aren’t masculinists are bigots as well, not wanting to recognize the equal rights of men? It’s ridiculous.
Either way, we now have Newton’s Third Law coming into effect – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No man can truly be a feminist, so that makes him automatically a bigot? Does it make a woman who isn’t a masculinist automatically a bigot as well? At this point, who cares? She’s just destroyed any frame of reasonable and constructive conversation on the issue in the same way one tries to guard against any criticisms of, for instance, Obama’s economic policies by saying that anyone who disagrees with them must be racist.
Allred’s automatic rush to judgment along with her labeling and contempt are to me, a large part of why the movement overall hasn’t come further than it has, and because of that I believe she is more part of the problem than part of the solution.
In contrast, I watched Steinem’s “In Her Own Words” the other day on HBO. I actually enjoyed it. I disagree with her support of Allred and, for instance, her rush to judgment on the DSK case, however I found that she was someone that even if I disagreed with, I still respected and would easily listen to and try to understand.
Allred,on the other hand, I tune out on the minute she opens her mouth, same as I do when an actual bigot is speaking to me.
Anyways, nobody seemed to be commenting on the post so I thought I’d throw my two cents in.