Post: #26

In the words of Yuri Bezmenov, those people will only change their minds when they die.

They're not the ones who need to be worried about. The goal is to achieve widespread rejection and condemnation of these poisonous ideas that have created massive suffering and unhappiness around the world. Having an articulate, intelligent woman speaking out against that is invaluable because there are a lot of women out there who will listen to the message more seriously if it is coming from another woman.

Post: #27

(01-03-2013 01:31 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 01:02 PM)rivex Wrote:  I'm not sure why she still calls herself a feminist since she's so out of step with their hivemind.

I was wondering the same thing. I guess I'd have to read some of her books to get her full perspective but judging from the election interview it seems like she wants women to step outside of themselves to be more well rounded human beings and broaden their horizons... meaning she wants them to will themselves to do this rather than blaming patriarchy for their ineptitude.

She is a self-described "second wave, pro-sex feminist" and a social libertarian. It's actually a very coherent ideological belief set. Basically, she believes there should be no legal or political obstacles to women achieving, or attempting to achieve, the same things as men in the professional, financial, material realms. Equality in opportunities but not necessarily in outcomes. The central tenet of this feminism is that women are adults with agency, and we should let them express their agency, and let the chips fall where they may. But with agency comes personal responsibility, and so the failures of adult women cannot be blamed on men. It is also opposed to the modern school of feminism that infantilizes and coddles women (and other minorities) - safe spaces, presumption of guilt for the rape accused, speech codes, anti-porn - because that is a denial of female agency.

Additionally, she is only a political feminist, not a cultural one. In many of her essays she reaffirms that gender is inherently biological, that gender differences are incredibly important and irreversible, and that one should let social culture be an expression and outgrowth of natural human gender differences. She thinks entire spheres of human life - sex, marriage, family, community - should not be tampered with by a political ideology, and the desire of modern feminists to do so is why there is so much female dissatisfaction in life.

All of this is just common sense to me. If you call this 'feminism,' then in that sense I am a feminist. It's basically just classical liberalism and humanism taken to its logical endpoint.