'Feminists against progress': article from Prospect magazine

Infuriating dense pseudo academic word salad.

My not very articulate take is it's another man upset that some women think differently to him! Why aren't all women more grateful for what left-wing men allow them to do and supporting progressive parties without exception!

And for a supposedly politically neutral magazine, this article does seem to think Conservatives are utterly beyond the Pale and fascist adjacent. Do people like this never realise how offensive that comes across and is off-putting to voters?

It's a poor article and badly argued. There is no engagement with the ideas of Perry and Harrington, just a general condemnation because they are conservative. I agree with Harrington that the Sexual Revolution has not done women many favours, certainly not increased either happiness or freedom (and this was obvious in the 70s if one cared to look - sadly, I did not). Worth reading both writers. Harrington is particularly pointed on transgenderism and what she calls 'meat lego' i.e. thinking one can change ones's body with surgery and hormones. She's not that keen on the ideas of e.g. Elon Musk, if I remember correctly, calling it transhumanism.

They're also both very good at taking an idea for a walk and seeing where it leads them. This is an underrated skill. There used to be a sports journalist in America, I've forgotten his name, who would say "I think I think" when he wanted to float an idea without committing himself to a position. It's not a bad approach once you concede that you don't have a definitive answer to everything.

This is all lost on tribalists who do believe they have the definitive answer to everything, and if you can stick a label on someone else then you don't have to engage with their ideas.

He basically argues they are just conservatives, and worse lying about it, to trick silly people into listening. And takes it for granted listening to conservatives is unnecessary.

No actual engagement with what they have said.

It's a poor article. As you say, it is mostly ad hominem and there is very little engagement with what Harrington and Perry actually believe. When he does mention their opinions, it doesn't really seem that he's understood them or is disagreeing in good faith. There's a lot of trying to position them as just any other boring conservative, which I don't think they are at all.

Whether you agree or disagree with Perry's views, I recommend listening to her podcast just because she's clearly highly intelligent. Her book was also really well-argued I thought. She doesn't claim to have all the answers to the problems she's noticed, but I do think the idea that ultimate sexual freedom is not good for women (as a class) is an idea worth exploring.

I'm completely over all this tribalism. I wish the writer of the article would properly examine some of their ideas and properly tell us why he disagrees.

Thanks for the link, I gave up half way through though, it was a right word salad. I don't think Perry is all wrong she's right on somethings, the 'sexual revolution' was not good for women or girls.

I think feminist blew it when they decided equality meant being the same as men, prostitution and pornography are not good things and should never have been promoted as empowering for women.