re: #639 Daria Emmons

That is only if you view the term ‘hawk’ as a negative.

But then, those who view the term ‘hawk’ as a negative would not go to LGF anyway. So the bottomline is that the article was a compliment to LGF for those who consider themselves feminist hawks, and derogatory of LGF for those who believe the term ‘hawk’ is a derogatory term.

But who gives a flying fig about the latter group?

The article was not facially derogatory.

The point, as others have said, isn’t whether we think the term “hawk” is derogatory. The NYT does.