"The VERY worst that could happen is that the court finds a way to say that only an Amendment to the Constitution would clear the hurdle."

I kind of figured that might have been what was going on. Force the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional, and when they do we have instant automatic legal same-sex marriage everywhere no matter what bigots might think. If Congress is too afraid of going against their constituents to do what's right for the…

Not exactly. Judicial review is not the primary function of the judicial branch and it is not actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The primary function is to judge cases according to law. The idea of judicial review was interpolated from that primary function and it has come to be known as an effective…

Also for profit.

It doesn't matter how "well argued" the points are. The premise is flawed in its very core. If I wrote up an argument in favor of murdering disobedient children, I might be able to back up my ideas with "well argued" points, but the very core of the idea would still be incredibly unfair and immoral itself.

Only "somewhat"??????

I think a lot of people would describe any sex crime as "violent". Even cases like pedophiles with images who never touched a child.

Seriously? One nut calls into CSPAN and you'd paint all conservatives because of it?

Huh. This guy is a racist and hates the president, but not everyone who don't like the president is racist. Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like the guy, this particular caller just has a bad one.

"Recently"?

It doesn't matter as much what she thinks it means. It matters what EVERYONE ELSE thinks it means, including the toxic members within the group she's distancing herself from.

are you talking about the celebrity philanthropist rejecting a polarizing term

...this woman who said this has achieved a lot and has received multiple awards for her good work for gender equality.

And what about gender inequity issues which don't fit into the framework of "women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men"?

No, I have to facepalm. Why are people thinking that EQUALITY is such a dirty word?

Probably more like she is aware of all of the troubles that women might face and would rather not see her child have to deal with those problems. I can understand that line of thought.

Men make up about 50% of the population. They should not be wholly disregarded. They have some gender issues of their own, and if equality is to be achieved, they should be addressed as well, even if the issues may not be as extreme or as heinous as some of the ones women generally face. I don't think it's fair to…

If asked point-blank, I'd probably say "I don't like the word because of its historic connotations as being for women-only and the fact that it's a very broad term that's easily misunderstood, but my ideology matches up pretty well with third wave feminism."

I just wanted to post saying how much I agree with you and to reiterate that it is incredibly asinine to get upset at someone fighting for equality and saying they are in favor of equality. They are in favor of equality and making an actual difference, how the hell can you be against that?

Aside from what Thrwwaway already replied with, there's also the problem that patriarchy hurts ALL PEOPLE not just women. Transgender people and men get hurt in unique ways as well because of their gender identity, and if feminism is interested in equality, then those issues should be considered as well.