Hi Laurie, please read the following if you have the chance:https://academicatheism.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/setting-feminism-straight/I make a of the same points, but elaborate a bit. Love your article.

Thanks for sharing that - a very interesting and informative article!
You draw attention to what I take to be one of the biggest misconceptions about (radical) feminism: "A radical feminist isn?t against the patriarchy solely because of its oppression of women, but also because of its oppression of men. They recognize that the patriarchy harms men also." When people criticize feminism for either hating men/boys or for simply not caring about them, it's more a reflection of their own ignorance than anything about feminism itself, even if, as you say, there are some feminists who misrepresent the movement.
我也喜欢你在这个背景下对无神论的讨论。当人们仅仅因为你是无神论者就认为你是哈里斯、道金斯等人的粉丝时，这是很烦人的。无神论者吗?是的。山姆·哈里斯的粉丝?当然不行!
我对你的文章有一个疑问，你所说的第四次浪潮就是我(和其他人)所说的第三次浪潮。你认为前三波浪潮是激进女权主义、文化女权主义和自由女权主义吗?如果是这样的话，这种分类似乎并没有遵循女权主义的历史顺序，我一直以这种历史的方式来理解谈论“浪潮”而不是单纯的“类别”。
Anyway, if you can tune into the live broadcast this morning, our guest on the show is the "Factual Feminist," Christina Sommers. You can hear it at 10am Pacific here:http://kalw.org/listen-live

So what did you expect from the American Enterprise Institute?

Hi Laurie,
感谢您花时间阅读我的文章。非常感谢您的反馈。至于你提到的第四次浪潮，我之所以用第四次而不是第三次，是因为人们对这种新浪潮的认识越来越深。这并不是说第三次危机已经结束，而是说我们可能正处于一个明显的转变之中。Kira Cochrane, writing for The Guardian, has this to say:
"This movement follows the first-wave campaign for votes for women, which reached its height 100 years ago, the second wave women's liberation movement that blazed through the 1970s and 80s, and the third wave declared by Rebecca Walker, Alice Walker's daughter, and others, in the early 1990s. That shift from second to third wave took many important forms, but often felt broadly generational, with women defining their work as distinct from their mothers'. What's happening now feels like something new again. It's defined by technology: tools that are allowing women to build a strong, popular, reactive movement online."
What she's conveying here is that the fourth wave is driven by the use of technology. YouTube, blogs, Facebook, etc. are the avenues feminists are increasingly beginning to choose. As we've seen, feminism can be badly misunderstood and/or communicated, but there are feminists online who both understand feminism and convey factual information about and related to the movement. Cochrane adds that:
"As the philosopher Nina Power notes, there are teenage girls today, growing up with Twitter and Tumblr, who have a perfect grasp of feminist language and concepts, who are active on a huge range of issues ? some of those I talk to are starting to work on economic analyses of women's predicament, the ways in which neo-liberal policies such as the rolling back of the state and low taxes for the rich, have shaped modern inequalities.?"
Having started a blog on Tumblr a few years ago, I've come across teens and young women with an excellent grasp of feminism, the political assault on women's rights, e.g., Planned Parenthood, etc. They understand feminism from a historical point of view and they're also aware of the intersectionality starting to take hold within the movement. I think the fourth wave will be fully realized once digital media becomes the means by which women organize, campaign, protest, and so on. Also, when it's fully realized, we will hopefully see women from say the U.S. urging women in the Muslim world to resist the patriarchy that currently binds them. Their current struggle resembles that of women in the middle centuries: they find themselves pinned under a theocratic authority that undermines their rights in several ways. They have to, in turn, pay a similar price to the one paid by the women you mentioned in your article, so that their descendants inherit better lives. Though I recognize that there's a digital divide, technology will be the manner that eventually enables us to reach these women. It's imperative that we do.

对于女权主义作为一种政治或社会运动的策略，我没有意见。但在我年轻的时候，我觉得它走了一条错误的道路，尽管这也许是时代的需要。也就是说，在我看来，六十年代和七十年代的女权主义旨在为女性提供机会，让她们以男性的方式与男性竞争，却丝毫没有改变“男性世界”的状态。在我看来，女性应该努力创造这样一个世界，在这个世界里，每个人的性格都能获得最高水平的成就，而不必接受既有的角色。女性的权利不应低于男性，但这并不意味着在所有方面都享有同样的权利。女性确实有不同的生活经历，她们有权利以自己的方式充分利用这些经历，在一个允许甚至促进成就的世界里，她们最自然地成为谁，或者在法律范围内选择成为谁。一些人认为，如果女性在管理中发挥更大作用，世界将变得“更美好”。但这不是问题所在，我的观点是，情况会有所不同。但重点是，这样会更公正。人们，所有的人，都应该尽可能少地约束自己，成为自己以外的人，或者达到自己的最大成就。 But how to achieve that is tactical, and tactics I leave to activists. What others want out of life, or how to get it, is not my place to opine on.
但堕胎问题有一个特殊的方面，我认为它被忽视了。剥夺妇女的生育权利等于剥夺在所有其他情况下都明确捍卫的自由权。生命权是一种社会或公共责任，而不是私人责任。不应该为了追求另一个人的生命权利而牺牲任何人的自由。民政当局只有在被指示采取保护生命行动的人事先有双方同意的承诺的情况下才有权要求采取行动，如消防队员、救援队或警察。一个女人，仅仅因为是女性，就没有作出任何双方同意的承诺，牺牲自由来换取未出生孩子的生命权。民事当局有责任将可存活的生命作为一种权利来拥有它的生命，但这只意味着通过禁止他人剥夺这种权利来侵犯自由。反堕胎活动家声称堕胎就是这样。但是，如果这只是以妇女的自由为代价来阻止，那么国家就没有强制性的责任来肯定一项权利高于另一项权利。只要个人权利是个人的，而维护个人权利的公共责任是集体的，就不存在二者的从属关系。 in a real sense the unborn is not innocent. It infringes upon the a woman's liberty. And the public responsibility is not to subordinate one right to the other, but to distinguish them. And where the pregnancy is not at a viable stage this means there is no viable life for the public to protect as a matter of public responsibility, whereas the woman has a liberty right the public can and must protect. It's all about whether a woman has a liberty right as inalienable as a man's, and whether the unborn is a living person before viability just doesn't come into it.
文化吗?在我年轻的时候，女人们不戴围巾是不会出门的。但他们并没有从政治角度出发。应该有人画一幅穆罕默德和法蒂玛的漫画，让法蒂玛在围巾里戴卷发器。关键是，这只是一个问题，因为其中包含强迫。没有其他理由可以肯定它是一种“权利”。更不用说面纱了。这不是由被奴役的人来支持奴隶制的条件。有些妇女可以自由穿戴围巾或面纱吗?文化是一种权利吗? If it is not spontaneous it is not inalienable. The earliest talk of right was about the right to self-defense. The point there was that no law can prevent it, and so it was taken as a demonstrable fact of natural law supreme over human laws and customs. Cultural constraints are not a natural and spontaneous expression of rights. A recent film on arranged marriages (I do not know its title) portrays an ex-patriot Indian community desperately clinging to social norms that are fading in India itself. Should their right to be sticks-in-the-mud be regarded as an inalienable right? Indigenous cultures should not be protected from the future, they should be provided the means to adapt to it in their own terms. Assimilation is a two way street, we adopt them as much as they us. The only crime is where it is unilateral and coercive. Absent that coercion and that implacable resistance to being influenced by the stranger, two way assimilation is the future for us all, not just those who feel they need to be protected from it, or from "them". Go to Iran and watch the girls push back their scarf when they think no one is looking, but quickly pull it over their hair when they think officials might be present, and then tell them it is their "right" to wear it. In France the scarf is outlawed in public schools. Does this go to far? Or do they have a point? After all, they don't allow visible Christian symbols either.
But, why do I get the impression that what Laura really wants to discuss is why there is so little participation by women in philosophy. My own feeling is that, being a man's world after all, too much that passes for philosophy is a matter of proving something rather than explaining it. The gender division in this, I think, is not unreal, though it is highly prejudicial that it be thought so. Men are more instinctive/intuitive than they admit. The point is, an explanation requires a fine-tuned sense of what others understand.

Gary, I agree with you that feminism that wants women to succeed on men's terms, by adopting traditionally "masculine" traits etc. was the wrong way to go. I see Simone de Beauvoir as guilty of advocating this in many ways. But then there was a swing in the opposite direction that I also think is wrong-headed. The idea that logic and rationality are "masculine" and that therefore science is oppressive, or that women would be better leaders because they are more nurturing by nature, are just as wrong because there's a kind of essentialism that is assumed here that is just as limiting. What we need is to value the positive traits of individuals, whether they are traditionally associated with being "masculine" or "feminine" and let both men and women pursue the kinds of careers they want and never assume they ought to do something in virtue of their gender.
And yes, I was thinking about the dearth of women in philosophy while preparing for this show. We did a segment on that in one of our annual Examined Year shows, but maybe it's time to do a full show on that soon.

Intersectionality of equality, now we're talking justice for all!
While there are those who rightfully fight for the equation of this that or the other, would it not be far far better to fight for the equitable right, for the justice of All?
Perhaps Laura, it is that very sectionalism of the struggle for right, be it gay rights, women's rights, black rights, migrant rights, animal rights, wild horse rights, tree rights, river rights, etc., that keeps those sections divided from all the other rights? And rather then creating unity which is equality, there is only greater division. When One argues for the right of a few, does One not separate the few from the One?
There is great merit in this intersectionality or unification of rights, as surely unity is equality is justice is right. Isn't it time for a new wave or just One wave, a wave for the equitable right of All?
It is Dr. King's promised land that we are really after here, the light at the end of the tunnel. And like Dr. King I can't promise to take you there because we already are there, All we need to be is One!
The future of feminism is equalism,
= is

I've been a fan of Phil. Talk for a couple years, but today's show was appalling. To have a "feminist scholar" from the AEI is like having a scholar on racism from the John Birch Society. How is it the only mention of the pandemic of violence against women is in the last humorous (?) minute in which the commentator ridicules the problem on college campuses? Try some facts on for size, for example these from the World Health Organization:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/Or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control: 1 in 5 women raped during lifetimehttp://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf
Please have an actual feminist on to counteract the mishmosh on today's show.

I agree with Celia35 overall, though guest Christina Hoff Sommers did offer at least one positive takeaway: the empowerment of refusing to remain a victim. However, her response to some questions seemed to reveal an unfamiliarity with the full spectrum of feminism. For example, when asked to address the assertion that men earn more than women, her answer seemed sincere but bordered on ignorance. She said that women don't go into the field of petroleum engineering, which is where the biggest bucks are, so they therefore earn less than men. Maybe Sommers didn't understand what feminists mean when we say, "Women don't get paid as much as men." What we mean is that, too often, if a man and a woman with the same education, training and experience are doing the same job, the man's pay is higher.
Sommers also seemed unaware of what constituted feminism in the late 1970s and the 1980s. Feminism was not meant to benefit only white women, or only women in general; instead, it questioned the economic and hierarchical basis of our current society. Feminism aspired to create more equitable conditions for people suffering from all types of oppression -- including poverty and prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion or ability. Feminism questioned the underlying capitalist structure of our society and the way it supports putting power in the hands of a few, mostly, men. Feminists from that era -- and perhaps their influence is still felt in the career choices of today's young women -- would not choose petroleum engineering because it reflects a capitalist drive to dominate nature for the extraction of resources.... The question whether women have full equality will only become obsolete when we can ask, in all seriousness, "Do men have full equality?"

I'd recommend reading Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich. Too much feminist talk centers around access to the middle class, rather than on the plight of entry-level wage earners. The fact is that in America most employees are at the mercy of their employers with no established recourse against mistreatment of all sorts.
But sexual misconduct is on a slightly different footing. Sexual crimes should be a matter of prosecution, not just of reforming the equity of the workplace.
在电影《外星人》中，艾略特在他的科学课上制造了一片混乱，在混乱中他鼓起勇气亲吻了他心仪的女孩。但要做到这一点，他必须站在一个盒子上。显然，我不是唯一一个注意到在孩子的一生中，女孩比男孩大的时期。这通常被认为是女孩的早熟或男孩的不成熟。这当然会为女孩们带来她们还没有准备好的性兴趣，而且我想知道，在一段时间内，这可能会在女孩身上注入的力量感，是否不会在男孩长大时导致气馁。但我的想法是，这种发育的延迟保护了男孩，使他们免受与更成熟的男性争夺同龄女性的直接竞争。在这段时间里，男孩们肯定表现得好像他们受到了威胁。它们分开，聚集在秘密的地方，树屋和“堡垒”，通常有警告女孩远离的标志。在这里，他们练习凶猛，摆出从电影暴力中学到的惊人姿势，并结成联盟对抗一些真实或想象中的危险。我们应该在这个阶段进行干预，因为正是在这个阶段，甚至在更早的发展阶段，男孩形成了文化价值观，支持了后来的性暴力习惯和性别歧视态度。

No one is denying the achievements of the early feminists, they have done great things in regards to social equality.
这条路走到....我对现代女权运动的不满超越了社会平等，而是这种权利观念和扭曲的事实。首先，工资神话是建立在虚假数据之上的。与受教育程度相同、工作时间相同的男性在相同的领域工作的女性收入并不会减少。这是一个事实。认为1/4的女性是性虐待受害者的想法是错误的(用像“你是否在醉酒时发生过性关系?”这样的问题来回答是肯定的，然后，如果一个男人喝醉了发生性行为，他们就不认为这是性虐待。他仍然是施虐者。关于家暴的概念，女性发起家暴的次数比男性多，但男性不会/不能举报，因为男性遭受身体虐待是社会的耻辱(无论是男性还是女性，这都是可耻的)。这些只是女权运动所推动的一些被忽视或歪曲的事实，但在我看来，它们并不是重要的。
More importantly its the fact that they push this independence agenda, this concept of self-empowerment and autonomy, but when it comes to observing feminism the actions speak the opposite. State-funded contraception, "safe spaces", collectivism (my fiance is a feminist AND wants to be a stay at home wife, yet is shunned by the feminist community for that decision), their desire to shut any voice for being "offensive", which is a totally ambiguous concept in itself. Feminists don't seem to act as if they want to be empowered or independent, they just want others to cater to their every whim. From a philosophical standpoint it is inconsistent, at best and at worst, self-destructive.
To balance the argument a bit, men are not off the hook either. I have a deep disposition for the "Mens Rights Movement" as much as the modern feminist movement. I tend to find men as being mentally and emotionally fragile, they let their wives walk all over them and as a result, they huddle to the computer screen to vent on Reddit behind their wives backs. The Redpill/MGTOW movement is especially flawed, what I have gathered from these "men" is they're upset that they can't get laid anytime they want and happened to have been screwed over by a girlfriend or two and now scream "misandry!" every chance they get. These guys are incapable of standing up for themselves, of learning from their own mistakes and becoming better people as a result. Nope, they'd rather maintain their bitter attitude toward women and blame all their problems on everyone else but themselves.
简而言之，社会运动(在我看来)是麻烦和琐碎的，尤其是基于性别的运动。

There is a difference between a movement and the conduct of the people in it. You don't have to like the latter to support the former. We don't make enough effort to understand each other, but this is never a one way street. Men spend a life being rejected, and getting mad as a result. But women spend a lifetime hiding their sexual feelings much of the time because men get the wrong idea and once fixated won't take no for an answer. I happen to think women should never use the interest they inspire in men, intending to or not, as a weapon to cause pain or humiliation. But this is an issue of sexual etiquette, not work and wage equity. What I meant above was to point out the culture of intimidation men grow up in and tend to perpetuate throughout life, out of ignorance of a better social order. I would like to live in a world where women could be honest with men about their sexual interest in them, but such a world would be one in which men are not so craven about their interest in women. I suspect that in societies where gay rights are fully observed the culture of intimidation adolescent boys feel compelled to create would not be so prevalent. And that, therefore, feminism and gay rights are not unrelated. Gay orientation as a recognized normal mode of sexuality confuses the tendency of heterosexuals to a stark delineation of roles. But, in sum, I don't see why the rights of women cannot be different and yet equitably recognized in most social settings, and certainly in the workplace, even while the war between the sexes merrily rages on.
When making a factual claim, a note on one's source wouldn't go amiss. This is supposed to be a philosophy discussion, after all.

Laura, a question:
The ERA failed by one state. One state (Tennessee?) reversed its ratification vote. Was this the one vote? If so then the failed ratification may be appealed. But even if not, there seems to me an important issue at stake. If a state can reverse a recent ratification vote, can it do so on older votes? Can a state reverse its ratification of the Constitution itself? Secede? I think we fought a war on that one. So it seems to me the only proper way to reverse a ratification vote is to offer a new amendment repealing it and then vote on that. A state cannot unilaterally undo a passing vote even if it is the same body and members and even the same session of the legislature that does so. So, that is, that reversed vote does not stand, whether it would make the difference or not, but if it does, then the ERA is law.
I suppose we could all become dervishes, or just do the Hokey-Pokey. But I think you put your left foot in your mouth this time, and maybe shouldn't move it all about. I wonder why post a two year old thread that's been archived and does not permit comments? Well, how does the kinesthetic derive the Katastematic? Husserl would endorse it, I suppose. I seem to remember reading a book that went on and on about Husserl and 'kinesthetic invariance', by a woman (sorry, but I can't not think "aint it just like a girl"). Invariance, you see, is not the basis of knowledge, no more than is replication the basis of life (in a complex organism replication is cancer). No, it is variance that changes course or even revises all fundamentals in a way that feels more at home than stasis ever could. But this is not dance. It is more like stumbling. But if it is the very presumption of stability or 'invariance', whether kinesthetic or katastematic, that leads to the fall, then it is the fall that is the meaning of it all. Vertigo is closer to knowledge than dance.

Comments automatically close after a month but we repost old blogs when the show repeats, usually with the comments reopened. Comments on that blog are now open again.

The hosts seemed taken aback that the guest supported capitalism. That seemed to suggest an obvious question. How can we expect feminists to become CEO's or captains of industry if their ideology prevents them from supporting capitalism?

最近有很多文章批评“白人女权主义”。Here's an interesting one I read today by Kirsten West Savali:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/10/sister_suffragette_slave...
这让我想起了玛格丽特·沃德(Margaret Ward)写的《不可管理的革命者》(unmanaged Revolutionaries)，这本书讲述了女性在19世纪末/ 20世纪初爱尔兰独立斗争中所扮演的角色，这一角色在后来的爱尔兰民族主义运动历史中基本上被遗忘/忽略了，就像黑人女性似乎已经被这个国家的妇女投票权运动历史抹去了一样。

人们总是持有不一致的观点，所以有可能相信自己既是女权主义者又是资本家。