26 Comments

I usually enjoy everything you write, but this framing around your daughter is just cringe. I feel bad for her that she's being dragged into a political debate against her will. I also feel like it will just make her want to do the opposite of what you're saying.

Expand full comment

It seems unlikely that you're, or anyone else's daughter, will become a feminist. If by feminist we mean actively supportive of social justice/equity on gender issues. Maybe the temptation is worse because your community is more leftist.

It's slightly more likely that girls will pick up a few anti-male talking points and grievances, but unlike say racial tensions there is too much fraternizing with the enemy for that kind of resentment to work with most people.

I want my daughters to marry well and have a family. There are many other pursuits that might bring them live satisfaction, but I suspect if they don't nail those two it would be a big failure (I believe the same for sons, but think market based accomplishment is more of a prerequisite for successful family formation).

The biggest things that could get in the way of that "feminism" wise are too much focus on career, narrowing the dating pool to male feminists/progressives, not being feminine enough to attract a decent mate, and/or being slutty.

Personally, I think peers will probably be a bigger influence on all that than essays, but have at it.

Expand full comment

I don't think you can write this kind of book well without fixing the feminist "definition trap" you've fallen into. This crystalized to me as I again read your argument about what the definition of feminism is and why you're deviating from it. But by deviating from it, you lose the rhetorical battle you're trying to wage and concede legitimacy on the folks you deem illegitimate.

From a moral perspective, as scientists, think of it like this:

1. We want to know the truth.

2. Language is imperfect, and we need to speak in a consistent, agreed upon way to convey truth.

3. A fundamental rhetorical trick (a crooked, unscientific argument) is the shifting of an argument by shifting the definition of the words being used. This is something to be avoided and countered.

3. You go wrong when you throw out the consistent, agreed upon definition of "feminism", that which is found in the dictionary, for one that's basically a rhetorical device.

4. Your argument for doing so, that most already think of "feminism" as its rhetorical definition doesn't seem compelling to me. Wouldn't it be better to say, "this word controversial because it's often misused, but as a matter of clear communication, we are going to use the plain meaning of the word." Once you lay out the dictionary definition, most of those who disagree would find it immediately appealing. Oh? That's what feminism is? Then yeah, I agree.

5. On the other hand, this would force responses to your writing to signal what changes they would make to the term openly instead of simply changing the definition ad-hoc and claiming it means whatever they want.

To me, the rhetoric of being honest and agreeable is best. Start with accepted definitions and on common ground, and you have a better chance of changing minds. Start off by telling people they're flat out wrong, and they won't listen one bit.

Much like that cartoon you've recently been posting, if the first impression you make is one of disagreement and dislike, you can hardly be surprised when people tune you out.

Expand full comment

>And since I am your father, you know I’m not evil.

WTF? Most evil people are fathers. Is this your level of logic?

>Sure, feminists believe in the blueness of the sky – but who doesn’t?

Just because people say something doesn't mean it is true. Most people *say* they aren't racist, but tons of people *are.* One example -- my wife, a brilliant and award-winning teacher, was told by several men (not at her university) that she only got the job because she was a woman. They said this to her face. How many men thought that?

And I'm sure all of them agree “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.”

Within my lifetime, many (or in most cases, all) women in the US were NOT able to:

Get a credit card in her own name.

Be guaranteed that they would not get fired for getting pregnant.

Serve on a jury.

Fight on the front lines.

Go to any Ivy league school.

Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment.

Decide not to have sex with their husband.

Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man.

Take the birth control pill

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/28/fact-check-9-things-women-couldnt-do-1971-mostly-right/3677101001/

But the problem, in your eyes, is that women and men want to improve our society, for real, rather than just in lip service. And they will be opposed by angry, resentful men who read you as an ally in their hatred of "uppity" women.

This essay, as represented in the excerpts, is such whiny garbage it pains me. Moreso, it is blind to the realities in our world -- the realities your kid and my kid face. (And our wives, etc.)

Here is just one example of many:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/07/22/487069271/episode-576-when-women-stopped-coding

Expand full comment
Jan 26, 2023·edited Jan 26, 2023

Wish my dad had written me such a letter. Many fathers who think along these lines are hesitant—or lack the skills—to articulate it clearly and persuasively.

P.S. Valeria a la the sister of Poplicola, who implored Coriolanus’ mother to plead with him? (Or.. the first priestess of Fortuna Muliebris?) In any case, good name.

Expand full comment

Amazing. The only cringe is in this discussion thread. Am I the only one who understood that this is not actually addressed to his own daughter?

Expand full comment

I agree with all you're saying, and I will buy the book.

I still don't think you're doing yourself or the subject a favour with the title.

Main concerns are:

> Many people will be skimreading your book titles, and not read any of your work because of the title of this one book

> Many people who otherwise like your work, but don't like to be seen reading a book with that title. They don't want to justify reading it or argue with people - they just want to read it

Expand full comment

Ordered. Here's to having yet another Caplan book on my shelf that I have to explain why "It's not what you think" to visitors.

Expand full comment

I can’t wait to read it

Expand full comment

Bet on it: what odds would you give me on your daughter identifying as a feminist at age 21?

Also, could you're real motive for writing *this* essay be that you've a contrarian and streak and flair for self publicity ;)

Expand full comment