I was thinking that he meant that the views held by those who have decided they’re being persecuted were views that did not deserve respect.

It depends on who you ask. Saying something in public or doing something against some of the hot, left-leaning ideas of this time (feminism, or homosexualism) could very well get you fired. I'm sure you can think of examples...

Problem is that some people want to lump, for example, "abortion is murder" and "burn all niggers" together so nobody can ever make the former point.

>hot, left-leaning ideas of this time

>equal rights for women

>equal rights for people regardless of their sexuality

What is "this time"? The 1800s?

That feels like a strawman. When people want to debate feminism nowadays they don't want to talk about whether women should have equal rights or not. For example some people say abortion is part of feminism. Some are for it some are against it. That doesn't mean they want to keep women as sex slaves.

See, you're doing it too. You're assuming that ALL feminist ideas are morally invincible on the grounds that they are championing "equal rights for women" (whether that's actually true or not) and shaming GP for implying differently

I downvoted you (and I assume others did too) because your assertion is only half true and that makes it pretty misleading. The other valid reply presented was about "homosexualism" (not sure what that means exactly) and in that context "feminism" means "rights," thus "equal rights."

So ya, I think 1800s is a pretty fair (albeit satirical) statement/question.

Western feminism is no longer a movement that does any appreciable work towards equal rights for women. They, uhh, kind of already have that in the developed world.

The fact that "western feminism" doesn't appear to believe that women have achieved equal rights seems to me like maybe there's some more discussion to be had and changes to be made?

Feminists are still trying to change society and still have a narrative of being about "equal rights" as a concept. They have equality under the law by any reasonable definition. Reproductive health access and family leave laws are the best example I can think of, and even that's a stretch. Do you have better examples?

My impression of the situation is that while the law might confer equal rights, it doesn't result in equal lived experience.

Changing the law is one thing; changing culture and expectations is another.

Of course. Changing the law can grant or deny rights, changing culture and expectations can't.

Then why is there such pushback against the Equal Rights Amendment?