RBG airs tonight

[Trish]

Does anyone have plans to watch RGB this evening? I was thinking about the timing of this documentary. It seems to come at a time when we're focused on an upcoming confirmation hearing for Mr. Kavanaugh.



https://youtu.be/biIRlcQqmOc

[Peter1469]

No won't be watching it. Listening to Pandora Pink Floyd channel.

[nathanbforrest45]

Will be busy papering the inside of my refrigerator and won't have time.

[Hoosier8]

Meh, icon worship. Should have retired during Obama insuring he could put a liberal in the court to reinterpret the constitution. Now if she leaves Trump might replace her.

[Peter1469]

I am more interested in how will replace her. :wink:

[IMPress Polly]

Definitely planning to watch it!

[countryboy]

A movie about a left wing radical who managed to get placed as a Supreme Court Justice? I'd rather watch paint dry.

[Common]

Everything was timed to try and influence the midterms. Mueller and his do or die indictments and the several documentaries.

Trayvon Martin, this one etc

[Trish]

I am more interested in how will replace her. :wink:

Hahahahaha - be nice!

[Trish]

Everything was timed to try and influence the midterms. Mueller and his do or die indictments and the several documentaries.

Trayvon Martin, this one etc

I agree. I'm curious to see whether it will show what the process was when she was confirmed or if that will be a very small clip with the majority focusing on her path to and after becoming SCOTUS.

[Chris]

Sure, I'll watch it.

[Captdon]

I don't want to watch someone sleep.

[Chris]

I don't want to watch someone sleep.

That happens only when she drinks.

[IMPress Polly]

I think we got the days wrong. It's supposed to air tonight (Labor Day).

[Trish]

I think we got the days wrong. It's supposed to air tonight (Labor Day).

Yes, it's on tonight. Not sure how in the world I messed up the day but I completely fudged it. hahahahaha

[Common]

How come theres no documentaries about conservatives <snicker>

[Chris]

Yes, it's on tonight. Not sure how in the world I messed up the day but I completely fudged it. hahahahaha

Just messin' with us, aren't you!

[Trish]

Just messin' with us, aren't you!

NO!! I totally mixed up my days. hahahahaha

(I was waiting for someone to say they watched it and didn't learn anything new)......just kidding

[Chris]

How come theres no documentaries about conservatives <snicker>


MIlton Freidman's "Free to Choose" is still being broadcast: http://www.freetochoose.tv/broadcast.php

[Chris]

Interesting review: RBG’s RBG Is a Rebuke to Today’s Left (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/movie-review-rgb-ruth-bader-ginsbrug-rebuke-of-modern-left/).

[Trish]

Just finished watching RBG. I enjoyed it. I thought it captured the highlights in her life. It also spoke to how she felt she needed to move more left when the bench became more conservative. It's a good example of why we need our justices to be more centrist.

[Chris]

It was good. I like her even if I disagree with her. She's tough and smart.

[Tahuyaman]

RBG? Never heard of it.

I’m sitting on my deck with a glass of my home made red wine listening to some jazz.

[Trish]

RBG? Never heard of it.

I’m sitting on my deck with a glass of my home made red wine listening to some jazz.

That actually sounds pretty nice.

[Tahuyaman]

That actually sounds pretty nice.
It is. There’s no place I’d rather be right now.

At least until December.

[Cletus]

It was good. I like her even if I disagree with her. She's tough and smart.

She should have been removed from the bench years ago... the first time she said she looked at foreign law to weigh the constitutionality of various US laws. She is incompetent and unfit to sit on the Court.

[gamewell45]

I'd planned on watching it but ended up going out on a fire call and by the time I got back home, it was almost over.

[Trish]

Interesting review: RBG’s RBG Is a Rebuke to Today’s Left (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/movie-review-rgb-ruth-bader-ginsbrug-rebuke-of-modern-left/).

I found the review very harsh and pitiful. The young man seems to think taking pot shots constitutes a review. It held a tinge of sexism and lack of understanding about the era in which RBG grew up.

[Chris]

She should have been removed from the bench years ago... the first time she said she looked at foreign law to weigh the constitutionality of various US laws. She is incompetent and unfit to sit on the Court.

There's much to disagree with her and her approach. Her fight for equal rights before the law was/is a good thing, though it seems to cross the line at times into unnatural, government-created rights.

[Chris]

I found the review very harsh and pitiful. The young man seems to think taking pot shots constitutes a review. It held a tinge of sexism and lack of understanding about the era in which RBG grew up.

The point though was, I think, that while she stood for equal rights before the law, the left today has gone beyond that, thus her stance a rebuke.

[Trish]

There's much to disagree with her and her approach. Her fight for equal rights before the law was/is a good thing, though it seems to cross the line at times into unnatural, government-created rights.

I agree completely.

[Chris]

I agree completely.

She's a Mary Tyler Moore type of feminist. :)

[Trish]

She's a Mary Tyler Moore type of feminist. :)

Yeah, women did a lot of things back then that I don't think they thought through very well. it's kinda like burning the bra. I was like.....why in the world would women want to burn their bras. Don't they need them.....? lol

[Chris]

Yeah, women did a lot of things back then that I don't think they thought through very well. it's kinda like burning the bra. I was like.....why in the world would women want to burn their bras. Don't they need them.....? lol

Some of it was silly but they were fighting for natural rights, equality before the law, and that's fine. Today's feminists are too radical, wanting to change not the way the government treats them but all of society, undermine sex and gender, etc.

[Chris]

This states the difference: Fourth Wave Feminism: Why No One Escapes (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes/)


Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and behavior for men and women. Campaigns around “rape culture” and #MeToo police women just as much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and Mail essay in January entitled “Am I a Bad Feminist?”

“In times of extremes, extremists win,” she wrote. “Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.”

The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.

Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today’s #MeToo movement rehabilitates the argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need “safe spaces.” Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women’s disadvantage thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women—and men—such as working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are overlooked.

When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the women’s liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women’s liberation movement. Only now it’s feminism from which women need liberating.

[IMPress Polly]

I thought RBG was good! One of CNN's better documentaries. I especially appreciated how it highlighted that RBG was NOT the most radical Justice on the Supreme Court at the outset, but that she is simply just about the most liberal one remaining. Even just in the nature of the verdicts highlighted over the course of time, one senses a definite shift in their directionality after the turn of the century, from generally liberal (and pro-female) to generally conservative (and anti-female). This is the thing that makes her a star to some (especially female) members of my generation. I also have to say that I appreciated seeing so many female names prominently in the credits. One does not often in relatively high-profile documentary movies (or high-profile movies of any kind, of that matter). It was both appropriate and refreshing.

I feel that this thread predictably devolved into the bashing of feminism, as of course it would, being about a feminist icon of sorts. I'm not sure what fake, "government-created rights" people are talking about, but to judge by the contents of the documentary, it can't be anything outside the framework of equal pay for women, the right to access birth control, or equal access to education, so I don't think I agree. Ginsburg's views are not extreme and never were. The mere fact alone that she views the principal struggle for the emancipation of women as one to be won through the legal system rather than in the collective hearts and minds of the population (the culture) distinguishes here as clearly a liberal, not a radical as yours truly.

I would also like to correct a somewhat annoying misconception: contemporary feminism is not more radical than that of the 1970s and early '80s. To make this point perfectly clear, the outer edges of second wave feminism included women who called for such things as complete female separatism and political opposition to heterosexuality, rejection of male gods and male-centric spellings of words (e.g. perhaps preferring "womyn" to "women"), etc. Today's feminists, in contrast, seem unable to tolerate female-only bathrooms or the questioning of Islam. I'm not sure the degree of radicalism is comparable.

[Trish]

I feel that this thread predictably devolved into the bashing of feminism, as of course it would, being about a feminist icon of sorts. I'm not sure what fake, "government-created rights" people are talking about, but to judge by the contents of the documentary, it can't be anything outside the framework of equal pay for women, the right to access birth control, or equal access to education, so I don't think I agree. Ginsburg's views are not extreme and never were. The mere fact alone that she views the principal struggle for the emancipation of women as one to be won through the legal system rather than in the collective hearts and minds of the population (the culture) distinguishes here as clearly a liberal, not a radical as yours truly.

My disappointment with the women's movement was that I felt it piled more work on women. Women went to work, came home took care of the children, cooked, cleaned, ran errands........

I also understand that sometimes we have to take what we can get but it sure did put a lot of pressure on me to be super woman. Many women are still saddled with that role. I do see some shift and men taking on more of a role in the home and with the children but it took a looooooong time.

[Chris]

I thought RBG was good! One of CNN's better documentaries. I especially appreciated how it highlighted that RBG was NOT the most radical Justice on the Supreme Court at the outset, but that she is simply just about the most liberal one remaining. Even just in the nature of the verdicts highlighted over the course of time, one senses a definite shift in their directionality after the turn of the century, from generally liberal (and pro-female) to generally conservative (and anti-female). This is the thing that makes her a star to some (especially female) members of my generation. I also have to say that I appreciated seeing so many female names prominently in the credits. One does not often in relatively high-profile documentary movies (or high-profile movies of any kind, of that matter). It was both appropriate and refreshing.

I feel that this thread predictably devolved into the bashing of feminism, as of course it would, being about a feminist icon of sorts. I'm not sure what fake, "government-created rights" people are talking about, but to judge by the contents of the documentary, it can't be anything outside the framework of equal pay for women, the right to access birth control, or equal access to education, so I don't think I agree. Ginsburg's views are not extreme and never were. The mere fact alone that she views the principal struggle for the emancipation of women as one to be won through the legal system rather than in the collective hearts and minds of the population (the culture) distinguishes here as clearly a liberal, not a radical as yours truly.

I would also like to correct a somewhat annoying misconception: contemporary feminism is not more radical than that of the 1970s and early '80s. To make this point perfectly clear, the outer edges of second wave feminism included women who called for such things as complete female separatism and political opposition to heterosexuality, rejection of male gods and male-centric spellings of words (e.g. perhaps preferring "womyn" to "women"), etc. Today's feminists, in contrast, seem unable to tolerate female-only bathrooms or the questioning of Islam. I'm not sure the degree of radicalism is comparable.


I feel that this thread predictably devolved into the bashing of feminism....

Only the latest wave of feminuism.

Ginsberg's feminism is of an earlier wave. And not the outer edges.

[Chris]

A decent article on where feminism went wrong: How Multiculturalism Hijacked Feminism (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/05/how_multiculturalism_hijacked_feminism_137980.html ):


...Although women’s studies as a ghetto was absorbed by the academy, our woman-specific ideas never gained much institutional or ideological traction. Preoccupation with gender identity trumped gender. Women’s studies became “Gender and Sexuality Studies.” Race, class, and sexual preference trumped incest, rape, domestic violence, pornography, and sex slavery, despite the fact that women of all classes and races endure such assaults.

...Our Second Wave plain-spoken analyses have become neutralized by incomprehensible, jargon-clotted treatises that rail against objective reality and Western civilization and refuse to consider that other tribal, patriarchal cultures may actually be more misogynistic than our own.

Radical feminism has been hijacked.

Celebrity feminists oppose racism, imperialism, colonialism, historic slavery, climate apocalypse and support gay, queer, and transgender rights. Fine—but everyday sexism has been rendered less important; motherhood—forgotten; abortion rights—lip service only, little activism; domestic violence (male on female), and women’s economic inequality, minimally mentioned.

...The academy absolutely had to expand beyond the white male Western canon but oh, how far the pendulum has swung. The most prestigious universities now offer feminist courses titled “Transgender Cultural Studies” (Stanford); “Sexual Minorities From Plato to the Enlightenment” (Yale); and “Queer Theology” (Harvard)....

[IMPress Polly]

My disappointment with the women's movement was that I felt it piled more work on women. Women went to work, came home took care of the children, cooked, cleaned, ran errands........

I also understand that sometimes we have to take what we can get but it sure did put a lot of pressure on me to be super woman. Many women are still saddled with that role. I do see some shift and men taking on more of a role in the home and with the children but it took a looooooong time.
Oh dear Lord, I know exactly the kind of garbage you're talking about! During the late '80s, the '90s, and the 2000s especially, there was this whole thing of self-help literature and talk shows and such aimed at women explaining strategies for 'how you can have it all today' that was really embarrassing and painful to consume, and yeah the summary version is that basically you can have it all by doing all the work. But it was always put in laughably patronizing terms. That stuff is the subject of jokes in the places that I frequent like Feminist Current. (Here's a fun example (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/02/20/man-workplace-discrimination-staying-sexy-maintaining-healthy-marriage-dad/) where the site owner employs some role reversal by interviewing "The Man Who Has It All" on "workplace discrimination, staying sexy, and maintaining a healthy marriage while being a dad". :grin:) Those who were part of that trend just couldn't bring themselves to concede that the world was imperfect and that circumstances, rather than individual women, were what really needed to change the most.

But anyway, yeah, the women's movement is not to blame for the shortcomings of men. Besides which, the fact is that the average American woman today does, in fact, work fewer hours per day for about one-third more money (after you adjust for inflation) than in the old days before typically being permitted to hove proper careers and is also not exactly safe but nonetheless quite a bit safer from the prospect of male violence (I mean "gender violence"; yeesh, where is my obscurantist fourth waviness?), so it's hard to rationally argue that that transition has been a net loss for women overall. It's also not the end goal of the movement. There is definitely more to do in my book. So while there are definitely problems with the current state of affairs, at the end of the day, I think they're problems that most women would rather have than those of our mothers or grandmothers if one really understands just how bad things used to be.

[IMPress Polly]

A decent article on where feminism went wrong: How Multiculturalism Hijacked Feminism (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/05/how_multiculturalism_hijacked_feminism_137980.html ):

That's not a bad analysis. I have found the best one though to be this interview with lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/18/podcast-sheila-jeffreys-impact-neoliberalism-identity-politics-womens-movement/) from a couple years ago, the essence of which is similar, but more detailed and clear. Namely, it gets to the real heart of the matter, which is that the proliferation of things like gender identity politics, modern "intersectionality" theory, and so on that focus on bringing in men while dividing up women into sections rather than on cultivating an awareness of shared interests among women is itself an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival. It's a fascinating interview if you haven't listened to the linked podcast yet. I'd highly recommend it.

[Chris]

That's not a bad analysis. I have found the best one though to be this interview with lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/18/podcast-sheila-jeffreys-impact-neoliberalism-identity-politics-womens-movement/) from a couple years ago, the essence of which is similar, but more detailed and clear. Namely, it gets to the real heart of the matter, which is that the proliferation of things like gender identity politics, modern "intersectionality" theory, and so on that focus on bringing in men while dividing up women into sections rather than on cultivating an awareness of shared interests among women is itself an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival. It's a fascinating interview if you haven't listened to the linked podcast yet. I'd highly recommend it.

IOW, you agree with all the problems in feminism today but want to blame it on men.

Perhaps you don't realize how weak and helpless that makes women.

Historically, "gender identity politics, modern "intersectionality" theory, and so on that focus on bringing in men while dividing up women into sections" came from the left's neoMarxist postmodern movement in universities.

[Chris]

OK, I listened to Sheila Jeffreys. Indeed, she criticizes radical feminist in much the same way I have. The move from feminist or women's studies to gender studies. The adoption of postmodernism. It was the women themselves. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival." That's you speaking, not Jeffreys.

[Tahuyaman]

What is so special about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Is it because she's a woman? What distinguishes her from the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court?

[Chris]

What is so special about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Is it because she's a woman? What distinguishes her from the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court?

She was actually a very good lawyer and I think right up there where Scalia was in crafting decisions and dissents.

[Tahuyaman]

She was actually a very good lawyer and I think right up there where Scalia was in crafting decisions and dissents.
Was there a Supreme Court Justice who was not considered a very good lawyer?

Again, what distinguishes her from other justices?

[Chris]

Was there a Supreme Court Justice who was not considered a very good lawyer?

Again, what distinguishes her from other justices?

I don't think the others stand out quite as much in terms of legal mind and strength of writing. JMO.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think the others stand out quite as much in terms of legal mind and strength of writing. JMO.

Her writings and legal mind are in line with others. She's not remarkably stronger than anyone else. There's nothing which distinguishes her over another.

[Chris]

Her writings and legal mind are in line with others. She's not remarkably stronger than anyone else. There's nothing which distinguishes her over another.

Well, I guess I have my opinion of her and you have yours.

[IMPress Polly]

OK, I listened to Sheila Jeffreys. Indeed, she criticizes radical feminist in much the same way I have. The move from feminist or women's studies to gender studies. The adoption of postmodernism. It was the women themselves. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival." That's you speaking, not Jeffreys.

You quite clearly were hearing what you wanted to. Jeffreys is a radical feminist. Specifically, she is, among other things, an opponent of marriage, religion, gender, heterosexuality, the beauty industry, the sex industry, and an advocate for female-only spaces. Her criticisms were directed at the more liberal and Marxish strands of the "women's" movement and the ways in which their ethos has (d)evolved and taken over the women's movement, transforming it into something other than a women's movement in the process.

The sense in which the two women we've respectively highlighted agree lies in that they both feel that the women's movement has strayed too far from female-centeredness; that it has come to center issues that are not more or less female-specific. If you pay attention to what they say, I think you will find that to be the case. And the advent of neoliberal economics was at the very heart of Jeffrey's commentary that I highlighted. Among other things, for instance, she points out that the drying up of public funds for universities has pressured these institutions to open up women's courses to men and to broaden their focus away from female-specific topics, and that intersectionality theory provided a logical philosophical framework for that to happen. Just as an example that you will find remarked on therein.

I give up. There is no sense in trying to communicate with you. You hear what you want to hear and listen to no one else.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think the others stand out quite as much in terms of legal mind and strength of writing. JMO.
Is this an example of her strength as a legal thinker? The views she expresses here are shockingly sophomoric.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/amp/

[Chris]

You quite clearly were hearing what you wanted to. Jeffreys is a radical feminist. Her criticism's were directed at the more liberal and Marxish strands of the movement and the ways in which their ethos has (d)evolved and taken over. And the advent of neoliberal economics were at the very heart of her commentary that I highlighted.

I give up. There is no sense in trying to communicate with you. You hear what you want to hear and listen to no one else.



Her criticism's were directed at the more liberal and Marxish strands of the movement and the ways in which their ethos has (d)evolved and taken over.

Correct, though that would be neoMarxist, postmodern strands of the feminist movement--and she quite clearly blames the feminists of that strand.

Which is what I posted.

She does not blame "an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival." THat was what you wanted to hear.

You also misread my post.


BTW, "right wing" economics is still stuck on classical, free-market economics. Neoliberal economics is new liberal economics, of the sort Robert Reich preaches in The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387). Most socialists adopted that view back in the 1990s when they conceded the economic calculation problem.

[Chris]

Is this an example of her strength as a legal thinker? The views she expresses here are shockingly sophomoric.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/amp/

I'm not talking about her views, which I said much earlier that I disagree with.

[IMPress Polly]

Correct, though that would be neoMarxist, postmodern strands of the feminist movement--and she quite clearly blames the feminists of that strand.

Which is what I posted.

She does not blame "an outgrowth of the enactment of right wing economic policies over the last several decades that have forced public arenas to adapt themselves for survival." THat was what you wanted to hear.

You also misread my post.


BTW, "right wing" economics is still stuck on classical, free-market economics. Neoliberal economics is new liberal economics, of the sort Robert Reich preaches in The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387). Most socialists adopted that view back in the 1990s when they conceded the economic calculation problem.

Sorry Chris, I didn't expect you to respond that quickly! I edited my earlier post a bit, not anticipating you'd be there right now. :tongue:

[Chris]

Sorry Chris, I didn't expect you to respond that quickly! I edited my earlier post a bit, not anticipating you'd be there right now. :tongue:

You changed little.


The sense in which the two women we've respectively highlighted agree lies in that they both feel that the women's movement has strayed too far from female-centeredness; that it has come to center issues that are not more or less female-specific.

And again, we agree.

But that straying from an earlier cause is the fault of none other than the radfem movement itself Jeffreys notwithstanding.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm not talking about her views, which I said much earlier that I disagree with.


Like I said, she communicated her views in a sophomoric way. I'm sure that she is a very intelligent woman, but no more than anyone else ever to sit on the court.

She's certainly not in Scalia's class. He was truly one of the greatest legal thinkers in Supreme Court history.