USA TODAY: Miss USA denounced the word 'feminist,' leaving some fans confused

[I Won - Get Over It]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/05/15/miss-usa-kara-mccullough-under-fire-conservative-answers-healthcare-feminism/101702924/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what science does to people.

[7,052,770]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

[I Won - Get Over It]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

Yep. Normal one.
And "All lives matter" = "Black lives matter".

I wish all leftist were like her.

[ApatheticAustrian]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

[Devout Centrist]

"I'm an equalist" is the irl equivalent of "both sides do it "

[Chief Justice Keef]

"muh both sides"

[Helsinkian]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

If feminism actually meant equality then radical feminism would logically mean the most radical form of equality. But as we know, that's not the case.

[Sorenroy]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

If feminism actually meant equality then radical feminism would logically mean the most radical form of equality. But as we know, that's not the case.

I don't think you're wrong in saying radical feminism = radical equality, but I do think that you see radical equality differently from what some see it as. I personally see "radical equality" as not only equality, but a way to almost counterbalance the scales. For Jim-Crow era laws, radical equality might mean giving blacks 5/3 of a vote (something that has been argued); for Jews, that might mean carving a country out of the Middle East; for feminism, that might mean making women almost a superior class.

Not that I think that is the correct thing to do, but for me "radical equality" means giving the "oppressed" more rights than the "oppressors" and forcing the "oppressors" into the former position of the "oppressed".



Edit: I want to make it clear that "radical-equality", as I have defined it above, is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when done in the short term. My hope for the long term is that everyone is completely equal, but in the short term it may be necessary to give certain groups more extensive reparations to help them gain an equal footing with the rest of society. For example, the merits of the ongoing use of Affirmative Action (AA) have recently drawn fire from both sides of the isle (albeit less so from Democrats), but I doubt you would find much opposition to Affirmative Action coming out of slavery, when African-Americans definitely needed more help then whites to get a hand up. The problem of "radical-equality" arises when those short term programs overstay their need. As with today's arguments against AA, now that African-Americans are on semi-equal footing, the focus should shift from race to need. There are some ideas, like those that seek the oppression of the former "oppressors", that have no merit ever, and only seek to divide people in unnecessary ways by those that feel that the "oppressors" need to be in some way punished.

[Devout Centrist]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

If feminism actually meant equality then radical feminism would logically mean the most radical form of equality. But as we know, that's not the case.

As Derrida once argued, equality isn't always a positive.

[Jeffster]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

If feminism actually meant equality then radical feminism would logically mean the most radical form of equality. But as we know, that's not the case.

I don't think you're wrong in saying radical feminism = radical equality, but I do think that you see radical equality differently from what some see it as. I personally see "radical equality" as not only equality, but a way to almost counterbalance the scales. For Jim-Crow era laws, radical equality might mean giving blacks 5/3 of a vote (something that has been argued); for Jews, that might mean carving a country out of the Middle East; for feminism, that might mean making women almost a superior class.

Not that I think that is the correct thing to do, but for me "radical equality" means giving the "oppressed" more rights than the "oppressors" and forcing the "oppressors" into the former position of the "oppressed".

That sounds like punishing some people for the sins of other people in the past, and giving extra benefits to people today who didn't earn it, because of things that happened to similar people in the past. That will only perpetuate a cycle of victims and oppressors, because the new victims will then want their revenge when given the chance to become the oppressors and create another new class of victims and so on and so on.

[Classic Conservative]

Good, Western Feminism is Cancer.

[Santander]

She knows her place in the world.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, this refrain needs to die.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Come on, guys!

She said she is 'equalist', because the word 'feminist' was hijacked by Lefties.

The similar thing happened to the words fascist, Nazi, racist and HITLER!! - now it means, someone who don't agree with the Left and want strong border, law enforcement and something-something. The devalued it.

[Pyro]

"I'm an equalist" is akin to "All Lives Matter". What a dunce.

[KingSweden]

There's a semantic argument to be made that the term "feminism" now encompasses such a broad, diverse spectrum of theories and beliefs that it in and of itself borders on the meaningless, but that's obviously not what she's arguing

"Humanist" is usually what most people couch her argument in, which makes more sense (I guess)

[Sorenroy]

So she is a feminist. Feminism = equalism

If feminism actually meant equality then radical feminism would logically mean the most radical form of equality. But as we know, that's not the case.

I don't think you're wrong in saying radical feminism = radical equality, but I do think that you see radical equality differently from what some see it as. I personally see "radical equality" as not only equality, but a way to almost counterbalance the scales. For Jim-Crow era laws, radical equality might mean giving blacks 5/3 of a vote (something that has been argued); for Jews, that might mean carving a country out of the Middle East; for feminism, that might mean making women almost a superior class.

Not that I think that is the correct thing to do, but for me "radical equality" means giving the "oppressed" more rights than the "oppressors" and forcing the "oppressors" into the former position of the "oppressed".

That sounds like punishing some people for the sins of other people in the past, and giving extra benefits to people today who didn't earn it, because of things that happened to similar people in the past. That will only perpetuate a cycle of victims and oppressors, because the new victims will then want their revenge when given the chance to become the oppressors and create another new class of victims and so on and so on.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯   Yeah, pretty much.

[Cory]

I'm pretty sure she's doing it distance herself from the Neo-Dworkinite "SJW"/"campus" feminism that you run into these days.

By definition she is a feminist, but to suggest that the "SJW" (if you will, we all know the type) wing of modern feminism live up to the definition themselves, thus somehow making them the same thing, is utterly intellectually dishonest.

[KingSweden]

I'm pretty sure she's doing it distance herself from the Neo-Dworkinite "SJW"/"campus" feminism that you run into these days.

By definition she is a feminist, but to suggest that the "SJW" (if you will, we all know the type) wing of modern feminism live up to the definition themselves, thus somehow making them the same thing, is utterly intellectually dishonest.

Enlighten me as to what Dworkinite means, if you would

[angus]

For her final question, McCullough was asked whether she considered herself a feminist, responding that she preferred the term "equalist."

"I try not to consider myself this die-hard, 'I don't care about men' (type)," she said. "Women, we are just as equal as men when it comes to opportunity in the workplace. Firsthand, I've witnessed the impact women have in leadership in the medical sciences as well as in office environments."

Good for her.  Feminists and feminism should be rejected consistently.  This is nothing new and is something I've posted many times on this forum, but it's nice to see a high-profile female say that it isn't right.  Voted FF, but with reservations.  (I wish she had a better grasp of the English language.  "Equalist" isn't a word.  Well, it probably is now, because it has made its way into the urban dictionary and some other websites at least five years ago, but a word already already exists for what she's trying to say:  egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism is, in my opinion, a superior objective to feminism or masculinism.  I think she's trying to say that she's not a feminist, but an egalitarian.  Good for her. 

I don't know much about her, but after reading the article, I find other reasons to regard her as a freedom fighter as well.  She seems very opposed to political correctness and other newspeak.  We tend to think of "miss america" as a dumb blonde bombshell who looks good in a bikini, which is very unfortunate because a number of them have been exceptionally talented and insightful.  Kara McCullough clearly breaks the mold in so many ways and shows that Miss USA has a mind of her own. 

[Devout Centrist]

I'm pretty sure she's doing it distance herself from the Neo-Dworkinite "SJW"/"campus" feminism that you run into these days.

By definition she is a feminist, but to suggest that the "SJW" (if you will, we all know the type) wing of modern feminism live up to the definition themselves, thus somehow making them the same thing, is utterly intellectually dishonest.

I don't really know how to comment on this word salad.