There's been all this blogging and commenting on Cinderella, and Hell, and Evolution, and Theology, and whether Lingamish supposes they all might not be "right." (Nobody even heard Daniel say something about how absurd the right-or-wrong sides must be who say you must be either right or wrong. And what one Chesterton says: "When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is . . . " What is it really, then?)
And one of "them feminists" says:
The subjective brings us to the objective. It's a different way to get to the same truth.
ps: only the subjective allows Lingamish to be my favorite blogger--he's still working on his theology of the body.
ps2: Aristotle started with the objective and figured out the chicken and the egg question--he also figured that women have fewer teeth than men, a terrible theology of the body that he was convinced he had to be "right" about.
ps3: I hate to be too obvious but the labels for this post are dedicated to Nathan, a fledgling feminist--but can men be feminists? Can God be feminist?