Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we slay the echo chambers, one issue at a time. Today, we're going to look at the issue of contemporary progressive activism, especially what passes for online feminism these days. Recently, progressive feminist Laci Green made a video titled 'In Defense of Online Feminism'. I guess it would be good for me to do a response to Laci's case. I certainly don't share her optimism about progressivism, but I do see where she's coming from. If we want to find common ground, we need to see where they are coming from.
I guess most classical liberals and even moderate conservatives feel uneasy about Laci's praise of progressive activism. But then, I'm going to look at it with an open mind, and I hope you do too. It's always worth listening to, and responding to, different opinions, so that we have an effective free market of ideas, and so that we don't descend into an endless cycle of culture wars. This is what I do every day: if you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel. So let's listen to her in more detail:
(Clip included in video)
So Laci thinks that there is value in divisive movements, because they are effective. Now, before we get too worked up about her view here, let's face the fact that, many people on the left probably hold similar attitudes. We are talking about perhaps a third of the West here, and perhaps even a majority of those under 25. They are hungry for what they see as 'social justice', and they are going to back whatever program that gets us there. If we want to find common ground and communicate with this population, we need to see where they are coming from, and deal with their concerns.
I think the question we need to ask about divisive movements and identity politics is, do they REALLY work? Laci may think they work because she is sort of stuck in the left-wing side of society. I mean, she has made a great effort to reach out, but our view of the world is often shaped by the people we hang out with. What Laci is perhaps less aware of is that, in other parts of society, such movements are making people reactionary and turning people against the idea of social justice completely. With divisive events like the Colin Kaepernick controversy, progressives are preaching to the converted while alienating the rest of us. As I often say, progressives are making naturally conservative people allergic to social justice. And it's OK to be conservative! Seriously it's OK to be conservative. Something I often say on this show is that political orientation is somewhat inborn, and conservative people are nature's way to keep dangerous change from happening. Therefore, if moderate progressives want to get a discussion going, they need to include conservatives, and make them comfortable in the process. And Laci seems to agree here.
(Clip included in video)
I guess if moderates like Laci want their message heard, they should draw a clear line between themselves and the more radical parts of their movement. We certainly respect, and many of us actually support, moves to get more women into STEM fields, and moves to end the glass ceiling problem, for example. There is potential common ground for broad based co-operation. But we can't stand the whole 'struggle against oppression' attitude, and the bullying behaviour it sometimes leads to. As a moral libertarian, I am focused on individual-level equality, and I am essentially allergic to class or group analyses. If the moderates could draw a clear line here in ideological terms, it would be helpful. I mean, we used to have liberal feminism and radical feminism, and many people could clearly support the former but reject the latter. Nowadays, the line seems to have become blurred, and I am concerned about that.
Which brings me onto a related point. I am sorry to disagree with Laci that the presentation and the substance are separate: it's not. I am a classical feminist who believes in gender equality for both men and women, and modern feminsm has too much of an oppressor vs oppressed dynamic, both in theory and in practice. For example, whenever I suggest that the feminist movement should have a discussion with the Men's Rights movement to achieve real gender equality together, I am almost always with plenty of backlash, and there is often quite a bit of the oppressor vs oppressed language coming out of that. From what I see, the whole oppressed vs oppressor theory and the inability to have a civil discussion in practice are essentially cause and effect
p.s. For those people who don't get the context, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the very real effects of economic class. The kind of 'class analysis' that I oppose here refers to identity-based pseudo-classes.
