In response to Feminism and ideological evolution:
That’s an intriguing notion, Ace. I suspect most feminists of the movement’s early era would readily agree with your three-point summary of their ideas. So would a lot of average women who consider themselves loosely or actively feminist today.
But the hard-core movement leaders would probably get angry at you for distilling it to those three logical elements.
Most people don’t watch MSNBC and Hannity every night. We’re not like other people, you and I, and those reading this. Most people do not spend their time pouring over the claims made by passionate partisans and ideologues in our never-ending digital Rangnarok.
They’d accuse you of attempting to shanghai the Movement
What an outrageous notion! I swear it true, the vile thought had never so much as dirtied the doorstep of my mind!
What your outline of feminism is missing is tribalism. You don’t have that sense of a shadowy, powerful, oppressive Other who must be fought at all costs. We had some laughs over how absurd their efforts to conjure the Other were… but they worked, at least well enough to preserve a sense of group identity with political utility. To modify Eliot: I will show you fear in a binder full of women.
Most women don’t have this need of an all-powerful Devil Figure for their ersatz religion, either, because they’re not batty, and they’re not seeking to patch up voids in their own lives with a bubblegum manifesto.
When conservative women try to retake feminism, they are portrayed as agents of the Other.
I have no doubt you correctly predict their reaction, but again, So What? Obama’s a “centrist,” hadn’t you heard? Less-political people don’t really listen to us, but they don’t listen to them, either.