Feminists

Other than facetiously.

What I have yet to see is an explanation of how someone who states flat out that she will throw women under the bus if she perceives women's interests as divergent from some other group's interests is any different from all the people who have done that to women for decades and decades.

Women have come a distant second, at best, to people of colour (who's your President? remember the Black Panthers?), the proletariat, winning elections ...

How come it's women who get that?

Does being doubly disadvantaged really mean that your disadvantage as a member of the other group is greater than your disadvantage as a woman? If that were the case, I'd expect to see gay men being more disadvantaged than women as a whole, or straight women. I don't.

Back before Adler wrote Sisters in Crime, I wrote a sociology paper called "Women Criminals / Criminal Women: Double Deviance". I'm familiar with the concept (and keep in mind that deviance is a construct, not a judgment). Women are deviant people; criminals are deviant people; women are deviant criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_school_of_criminology
(not an authoritate source, but serves my purposes)

Are women criminals more disadvantaged as criminals, or as women?

Was Clinton more disadvantaged by her sex than Obama was by his race?

Are lesbians really more disadvantaged by their sexual orientation than they are by their sex?

You do know that not all lesbians would say so. Perhaps they're just white and middle-class. Forgive me if I sound snide, but I don't see anyone using language to attack non-white non-middle-class non-straight people the way it is being used to attack people to whom those characteristics are being ascribed.



mostly i think you are sore at the lgbt community hear for getting banned from that forum, and are re-defining feminism and who can and cannot be a feminist because of it

Mostly I think you're deluded if you think I give a crap, but thanks for the further demonstration that personal attack is what you have to offer.

(But I can tell you my fingers are itching to get at your colleague with the idiotic statement "European countries interpret all bigoted speech (even without explicit violent threats) as 'inciting hatred' and thus a crime. I guess the 1st amendment can't work in every nation' that they win today's ribbon for most uninformed, ethnocentric statement of the week to date. And that's my informed internationalist analysis. But you can thank me for delivering you of the troll to whose remarks I was the only one to object.)