There are many threads on “Alas” in which we hear from our opponents. There’s also a whole wide world, outside of this and other blogs, in which we hear from our opponents. Our opponents, after all, control three branches of government and much of the major media; we’d have to be hermits NOT to hear from them.

Having a few isolated threads in which we’re allowed to have a discussion amongst ourselves, is not logically the same thing as utterly closing ourselves off from hearing our opponents, in all circumstances.

While, I agree with you and all that I really have one question. How can we be any better than our opponents if we won’t even hear arguments from them, however stupid or ill thought out they may be. Just asking.

[I moved this comment to this thread, to avoid the chance of the other thread being digressed. –Amp]

Have I sat in time-out long enough?

The ‘third party candidate debate’ is an interesting one, and a debate that’s worth having, but maybe we shouldn’t have it here?

Do I run screaming for the exit now or later?

I’m not trying to play ’subject cop’ or anything . . . it’s just that I was about to write a response to you, Alsis39, and I suddenly had a burst of prescience and saw that if I did, there’s a good chance of serious topic derailment.

—Myca

What’s the old saying ? Don’t vote for freedom and justice, because you might not get it. Vote for tyranny and fear, because THAT, you’re sure to get. ;)

Robert, there is a group known as Emily’s List that has appeared to survive. They don’t qualify as radical feminists, but they do recruit women to run for public office as pro-choice Democrats and otherwise try to get women involved in public life.

Apropos what’s good about successful feminist groups, I believe they don’t support independent candidates because independent candidates often have squat for a chance to win. My recollection of Emily’s candidate selection criteria is that the candidate has to have a fighting chance at winning and they have to have the correct political credentials. I don’t think Emily’s will recommend a candidate that everyone knows is going to get smooshed.

The really uncool think about Emily’s is that they seem to sell their mailing list …

The other really uncool thing about them is that they don’t support women who run outside the duopoly. >:

Robert, there is a group known as Emily’s List that has appeared to survive. They don’t qualify as radical feminists, but they do recruit women to run for public office as pro-choice Democrats and otherwise try to get women involved in public life.

Emily’s List isn’t a group in the same sense that N.O.W. is a group, it’s more of a Political Action Commitee that isn’t actually a P.A.C. (though the Radical Political Wrong (heh) keeps trying to screw them over like they are one …)

The really cool thing about Emily’s is that they send you stuff in the mail about women candidates and then you do something about it. And hopefully after the election, you see the results. I think this “however much you can be involved is OK” approach is a big part of their success. That and their goals are much simpler — elect like-politically-mind women to office.

(The really uncool think about Emily’s is that they seem to sell their mailing list …)

http://www.emilyslist.org/about/

You’re right; “huffing off” was a disrespectful choice of wording. I withdraw it.

Thank You.

I’m not damaging libertarianism by having my own blog; but then, I didn’t used to be part of a bigger libertarian group that I couldn’t get along with, either.

But not every feminist on this board is literally a card-carrying member of any organized group, either. Some are, some are not. Some of us –like me– donate to feminist causes but unfortunately don’t really have other skills to contribute. That would be the difference between a blog run by me and bean’s blog or Countess’ blog. I would be the first to say that in concrete terms, both of them are doing more of the difficult, dangerous grunt-work of feminism than I ever could. But we’re all still feminists.

Oh, and the woman who has neither marketable skills nor room in her wallet to donate ? If she strives to live as a feminist and works as best she can toward the day where she CAN provide some kind of support to other women, she’s a feminist, too.

You’re right; “huffing off” was a disrespectful choice of wording. I withdraw it.

I’m not damaging libertarianism by having my own blog; but then, I didn’t used to be part of a bigger libertarian group that I couldn’t get along with, either. I do not know what Bean et al’s motivations are in setting up their own shops, and I wasn’t intending to specifically call them out as exemplars.

Thanks for the examples. I’m not sure that they really undermine the idea; the explicitly feminist groups you list either have savagely destructive infighting or are tiny splinter organizations. You are quite right that this doesn’t mean they can’t provide good services to women.

If you don’t perceive my original observation to be true, that’s fine. I wasn’t intending to start an argument, just to agree with another poster about the level of dissension.