I'm excited to read the book. That said, I think you should change the title and cover. It comes off as disingenuous, and propagandistic. It's the type of thing I'd be embarrassed to be seen reading among people who weren't already fans of your blog posts.
I couldn't disagree more. Feminism is an ideology that receives enormous support from the most powerful segments of our society, despite causing so much harm. Normalizing its opposition is one of the best things this book can do.
I've only read the blurb on the back, but I wonder if you address the idea that caring too much about women, to the point of intrusiveness, can actually cause oppression. Indeed, I would argue that some of the most objectively misogynistic practices, like barring women from work, female seclusion, and purity culture, are indeed based on over-protectiveness!
Furthermore, I notice The Blank Slate on the cover (along with the profoundly anti-liberal 1984). Has anyone ever contended with the argument that women who are less materially successful, independent, intellectual, etc. etc., having fewer children (which would lead to sex differences) is actually evidence of sexism, not evidence against it? If these traits are not prized in women (the way they are in men), and they face material penalties as a result (fewer children and fewer mate prospects), then isn't that by definition sexism?
Horseshoe Theory in action. It's not feminism per se that is the problem, but rather that some of its 31 flavors (on the extreme end of the spectrum) come dangerously close to, and sometimes even overtly become, anti-feminist. Protective paternalism and patronizing only recapitulate the very same patriarchy that they claim to dislike, and they cannot seem to see the irony here.
I don't think it's unreasonable to view policing women's behavior (which may take the form of unambiguously harmful practices such as female seclusion or veiling) as an attempt to protect women from untoward men's advances. Amy Wax, no liberal, said it herself:
"Historically, young women have been sheltered, restricted, and protected from men for a range of reasons, including to safeguard their sexual innocence and to minimize the birth of out-of-wedlock children who place burdens on the community. That many women experienced these restrictions as stifling, limiting, and oppressive has led to their relaxation over time."
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s We Should All Be Feminists was assigned reading for my daughter and, I suspect, many other high school students. It ought to be permissible to argue the contrary in clear language.
I love the idea of the book, but would really appreciate one change in the cover. The girl shouldn't be standing on the books. Books are things to be read and not stand on, and standing on a book can be read as a sign of disrespect.
All I can say is that as a father, I am pretty appalled at how women and girls are treated in the U.S. They are still judged by their looks first and then by if they have offspring. Men are judged by what they do.
If you support open borders, would you be against sending your daughter to the middle east or Africa for an exhcange program?
If yes, why? Those are the cultures you want to import with your deranged open border policies. And at least then you would be only endangering your own daughter, instead of everyone else's daughters in America.
And you decry socialism, but if the new, foreign majority that forms in America after open borders wants socialism, then America is becoming socialist. You can write all the pseudo-anti-woke little book you want against it, but if they disagree, then you lose (actually, you may not even be able to do that - free speech is mostly a policy supported by white people).
The blurb is such a disappointment. It should become a norm that economists should stop spewing words around ideas they have no clue about. Also, are the economists now defending whites and men, although historically and even today, discrimination and oppression on the basis of sex is kicking alive and robust? It's embarrassing.
Lmao. White men are the most feminist (large group of) men in the history of the world.
White men created everything of value in the modern world. You're welcome to go live in Africa or South Asia and tell me how wonderful life is, especially for women, away from all those awful white men.
If you want exposure, you should debate Destiny in a one on one on stream. He's pretty large as a content creator and you guys largely agreed on many issues while on stage, but both of you disagree on a number of things like education. He's looks for someone to disagree with him too.
I'm excited to read the book. That said, I think you should change the title and cover. It comes off as disingenuous, and propagandistic. It's the type of thing I'd be embarrassed to be seen reading among people who weren't already fans of your blog posts.
I couldn't disagree more. Feminism is an ideology that receives enormous support from the most powerful segments of our society, despite causing so much harm. Normalizing its opposition is one of the best things this book can do.
This is how you announce you're not a serious person. What harm has come from feminism aside from you getting less dates?
"This is how you announce you're not a serious person."
Thanks for showing us.
Ok incel.
How feminist of you to judge someone based on a perceived lack of sexual success.
So being a "serious person" = using braindead twitter insults for people who disagree with you?
Cry more.
I've only read the blurb on the back, but I wonder if you address the idea that caring too much about women, to the point of intrusiveness, can actually cause oppression. Indeed, I would argue that some of the most objectively misogynistic practices, like barring women from work, female seclusion, and purity culture, are indeed based on over-protectiveness!
Furthermore, I notice The Blank Slate on the cover (along with the profoundly anti-liberal 1984). Has anyone ever contended with the argument that women who are less materially successful, independent, intellectual, etc. etc., having fewer children (which would lead to sex differences) is actually evidence of sexism, not evidence against it? If these traits are not prized in women (the way they are in men), and they face material penalties as a result (fewer children and fewer mate prospects), then isn't that by definition sexism?
Horseshoe Theory in action. It's not feminism per se that is the problem, but rather that some of its 31 flavors (on the extreme end of the spectrum) come dangerously close to, and sometimes even overtly become, anti-feminist. Protective paternalism and patronizing only recapitulate the very same patriarchy that they claim to dislike, and they cannot seem to see the irony here.
So wanting to protect women means you hate them? Interesting idea I guess...
I don't think it's unreasonable to view policing women's behavior (which may take the form of unambiguously harmful practices such as female seclusion or veiling) as an attempt to protect women from untoward men's advances. Amy Wax, no liberal, said it herself:
"Historically, young women have been sheltered, restricted, and protected from men for a range of reasons, including to safeguard their sexual innocence and to minimize the birth of out-of-wedlock children who place burdens on the community. That many women experienced these restrictions as stifling, limiting, and oppressive has led to their relaxation over time."
Great title!
Feminism will always fail.
https://technium.substack.com/p/why-feminism-will-always-fail?sd=pf
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s We Should All Be Feminists was assigned reading for my daughter and, I suspect, many other high school students. It ought to be permissible to argue the contrary in clear language.
What's the last book on the cover?
I hope you'll make a set package with the eight books. I'll probably buy the set
Sounds like a good read! I will pick up a copy for my girls.
This sounds pretty exciting!
I love the idea of the book, but would really appreciate one change in the cover. The girl shouldn't be standing on the books. Books are things to be read and not stand on, and standing on a book can be read as a sign of disrespect.
All I can say is that as a father, I am pretty appalled at how women and girls are treated in the U.S. They are still judged by their looks first and then by if they have offspring. Men are judged by what they do.
If you support open borders, would you be against sending your daughter to the middle east or Africa for an exhcange program?
If yes, why? Those are the cultures you want to import with your deranged open border policies. And at least then you would be only endangering your own daughter, instead of everyone else's daughters in America.
And you decry socialism, but if the new, foreign majority that forms in America after open borders wants socialism, then America is becoming socialist. You can write all the pseudo-anti-woke little book you want against it, but if they disagree, then you lose (actually, you may not even be able to do that - free speech is mostly a policy supported by white people).
The blurb is such a disappointment. It should become a norm that economists should stop spewing words around ideas they have no clue about. Also, are the economists now defending whites and men, although historically and even today, discrimination and oppression on the basis of sex is kicking alive and robust? It's embarrassing.
Now defending whites?
Lmao. White men are the most feminist (large group of) men in the history of the world.
White men created everything of value in the modern world. You're welcome to go live in Africa or South Asia and tell me how wonderful life is, especially for women, away from all those awful white men.
Really looking forward to this one!
If you’re going to tell harsh truths, you shouldn’t put the reasoning far away from the claim, like behind a paywall and a few weeks.
Just awful.
If you want exposure, you should debate Destiny in a one on one on stream. He's pretty large as a content creator and you guys largely agreed on many issues while on stage, but both of you disagree on a number of things like education. He's looks for someone to disagree with him too.
Caplan already debated Vaush and Destiny (and the moderator) at Student for Liberty’s Freer Future Fest in Nashville back in October
I wouldn't call that a debate. They largely agreed with each other, and the mod did a poor job of facilitate discussion.