re: #804 Daria Emmons

The National Organization of Women, under Bush, has taken a moral equivalence stance towards women issues in Islamic countries. Because they are against the GWoT, and because it is strongly arguable that the GWoT is necessary as a means of liberating women under siege in those same very countries, NOW and other such ‘feminist organizations,’ by being ‘dovish’ on the GWoT, have been dovish on misogyny.

I believe that is the underlying reason why the term ‘feminist hawk’ not only makes sense, but is a compliment.

Dovish? No. Like I say, I follow The Feminist Majority (TFM) closer than N.O.W. I’m not a member of either. I was a member of N.O.W. a very long time ago.

At any rate, you go to TFM and they devote at least half of the site to Afghan women. The first headline is this: Women’s Fingers Cut Off in Afghan Election Violence

My point really is that you don’t need those adjectives to describe feminism. It is what it is. Now you may want to use Dove or Hawk to describe political leanings. I’ve referred to myself as a hawkish Democrat, but I can’t see those terms characterizing feminism.