Covering the Vatican elections, CBS news this morning had a spot with a guest referred to as “the Rebel Nun” (I could only watch it intermittently). One statement that she made was “feminism is the radical idea that men and women are equal.” Not only is this statement incorrect, it is every bit as erroneous and mis-informed as my favorite pseudo-liberal quip, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
In this case, the idea that men and women are equal is actually a modern concept referred to as “Women’s Liberation.” “Feminism” is about irreconcilable inequality: it is the post-modern idea that women and men have a necessarily unequal, and necessarily adversarial, relationship. That any woman who is not actively working to undermine or destroy anything associated with “maleness” (including marriage and families, which require both men and women for their existence), is actively working to enslave women into the bondage of men.
Like all post-modern movements, it is by definition irrational, being based on rejection of the modern values of intelligence and reason.
Home of the Little-Known Blogger 
my favorite pseudo-liberal quip, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, or conservatism or whatever other ridiculous label you wish to assign. That is pure fact, something which a man with your level of intelligence should not try to distort to further the silly political games America plays.
Be whatever you are, that’s fine, but we have enough agents of misinformation in our society, we don’t need more.
First, thank you for the compliment. But my motives are clarification of definition, not the furtherance of anyone’s “political games”. These terms do have definitions, and (especially among those who deal with these matters professionally) they are quite distinct:
A “freedom fighter”, by definition, is a person who FIGHTS to free one group from another, oppressive group. This may involve guerilla tactics–creating fear among them–but it does involve FIGHTING (against valid military targets).
Terrorists do not fight, nor do they seek freedom. They inflict mass casualties on CIVILIAN targets for the purpose of forcing a government to obey them. Therefore, both their methods and their goals are directly antithetical to the “freedom fighter”.
The claim conflating them is made exclusively by terrorists, those pseudo-liberals who are sympathetic to terrorists and wish to hinder the efforts against them, and those without background in military science who have been taken in by the previous two. Equating any legitimate military force (such as the US Special Forces, who have fought to free many repressed people around the world) with groups who deliberately and indiscriminately murder civilians for politics, is both factually incorrect and deeply insulting.
‘…those pseso-liberals!’ There is no possibility for a discussion with you, I unfortunately thought otherwise; you’re a propagandist who seeks to further a specific political agenda. The US Government is a terrorist today and a freedom fighter tomorrow. Palestinians are freedom fighters to their people and those opposed to occupations, but they are terrorists to others, the list goes on forever. Jewish terror organisations were once considered freedoms fighters, etc.,. Terrorist is not an occupation.
I won’t bother to rebut everything you’ve said; I don’t think it would be a productive conversation. However, you call me a “propagandist”. This means that you believe that I am deliberately disseminating false information to further a political agenda. But let’s examine what has been said in the conversation so far: I have offered specific definitions of two terms, used in the appropriate professional communities, which differentiate the terms based on tactics, objectives and methodology. You yourself have made the statement “…is a terrorist today and a freedom fighter tomorrow”, demonstrating that in your own mind, these are different. things.
Yet you will insult me for not accepting a false equivalence to which you have a particular emotional attachment. I’m not interested in having a big argument on the subject, but I will ask that you consider that fact that there are professional organizations which deal with this topic every day, and the possiblity that such would be more specific in definition than bumper-sticker slogans.