I felt the reason’s that Choice for Childcare was initially considered a feminist blog was because it pertained the issue of both choice for women, and for dealing with daycare (an issue that affects both single and married women). Unlike Small Dead Animals or some of the other conservative ‘feminist’ blogs, the arguments were based on economic principals under the assumption that these would benefit women, not something like religious reasons (that Suzanne provided for her arguments about abortion) or the simple fact that she was a woman. In fact, some of the ones eliminated were women, but appeared to me to be anti-feminist (a contradiction for the category they appeared in). One was a stripper, the others argued for free speech – which may have been a compelling argument for having them included in the feminist category if it was so heavily in favour of hate speech. Many didn’t seem to display an understanding of feminist logic. Choice for Childcare was using economic arguments for her position. In many of the classes I’ve attended, both in economic and women’s studies, this was the single most advancing portion of the feminist movement other than historical arguments themselves.
Update… Specifically, in light of what’s quoted above, my feminist moment:
…having a rule like that on the books could make it harder for women to get jobs because with a choice between a woman and a man employers might tend to pick the one who can’t sue the company because they believe they’re being underpaid because of gender discrimination – especially if it’s a small company that’s gotten burned before.