"Biden's likely pick to lead the Pentagon isn't a win for feminism"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

My points are simply that Flournoy is A) Obviously qualified by traditional standards and B) She is not being overlooked because she is a woman.

Thus, her appointment rates as a "win for feminism" because she is getting equal treatment regardless of her gender, which is the stated goal of feminism (at least long established mainstream feminism).

Obviously, the appointment of grossly unqualified females because of their familial relationships to their bosses wouldn't fit into such a category.

I remain critical of the US' continued and constant aggressive policies overseas as I have consistently stated for over 16 years on this Forum. I hope that Joe Biden will rein in such policies though there is reason for some skepticism that he will.

The political realities you and the Guardian author ignore I have already stated i.e. that the chance of a "progressive" being confirmed by the US Senate as Defense Secretary are about zero.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Regardless of the contempt the article spews for US progressives, they are not likely to support military interventions simply because there is a woman as US Secretary of Defense.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I didn't "lie" and you know it.

Neither you or the article addressed the present reality that a GOP Senate or one that is split 50-50 is certainly not going to confirm a "progressive" as Defense Secretary. The article's vague comments regarding the type of person who usually fills that role is not on point.

I will alert any further posts of yours that falsely claim I "lied".

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I read the article.

I comprehended the article.

It did not discuss the present political reality that the US Senate, which has to confirm the choice of Defense Secretary, is not going to the left of Flournoy. It might not even confirm her. "Problematic in some way" referring to their ideology is hardly recognizing this reality.

I would note the author is somewhat inconsistent in her criteria. While recognizing that Kamala Harris has some positions that progressives don't necessarily agree with, she said:

"Whatever happens next, Harris’s vice-presidency will make history. She will be the first black American and the first Asian American to hold the country’s second highest office. It is hard to overstate how powerful that is after four years of Trump."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/the-meaning-of-kamala-harris-the-woman-who-will-break-new-ground-as-vice-president

One would think the same analysis should apply to Flournoy's appointment as Secretary of Defense.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are being disingenuous; Mahdawi didn't merely state that Harris being Vice-President would "make history" but also said:

"It is hard to overstate how powerful that is after four years of Trump."

You seem confused about what feminism means. Please check back to the definition I generously provided you.

The appointment and/or election of qualified women into positions that they were traditionally denied because of their sex is a victory for feminism i.e. the idea of equal treatment for women - regardless of whether the women so appointed/elected consider themselves and/or are considered by others as "feminists".