What we, and a new feminist movement, need to do is concentrate on the benefits of working together. Marriage is best, and history has shown that the best husbands are the one’s who don’t have the “fun” the feminists accuse us all of having.

I agree with Mount. Man;all women are not in lock-step with feminism. Pat’s assuretion to the contrary show an obvious naivte; Pat must’ve been raised in a place like NYC’s east side of Cambridge: areas where the only peoplee present, academically and ideologically, are the ones who believe the same. Pat is a idealogic hick-so far out in left country that it’s clear everybody knows these things. I know lots of women who disagree with you, Pat, and I don’t mean the few I know personally. I know of millions of women who decry the feminist religion, but because of the media and academic bias in this country, their voices are shushed and belittled into silence.

Again it seems that you want to obfuscate the issues. Your last sentence is emblematic of the situation. You say, “I don’t see the necessity of pretending that women are seriously divided over feminist politics and goals in any meaningful way” as if women were some sort of seamless bloc and were all moving the same general direction with the only difference being tactics.

Once again I will say, this is absurd. 150 or so million women in this country, and every one of them feminists marching in lockstep towards the same goal? Preposterous!

The “tactics” used by radical feminsts are not advancing the cause of feminism (as if the cause of feminism itself contained a uniformity of philosophy). Radical feminism is a destructive influence in society, simply because they do not intend to advance feminism, they want to advance leftism.

You’re correct that NOW and other feminist organizations make outrageous demands and statements and it’s done deliberately to anger you. But, that’s very necessary to make the tactic work – drama and conflict focus attention. The old dragons that define and direct feminist politics are aware of how effective such tactics are for obtaining political power and economic security for their constituents; the tactics are proven, they worked for the Civil Rights movement and have been adopted by the Gay Rights movement. They follow the same pattern in the various movements, even down to the use of demonizing labels for opponents; “white racist”, “male chauvinist pig”, “homophobic heterosexual male” for example.

And, the tactics aren’t meant solely to focus attention on their demands, they are deliberately constructed to pave the way for eventual compromises that will enact new laws and grant special economic privileges (for women only, of course). The conservative feminists act as the psychological counter to the so-called radicals and play their role in legitimizing the need for compromise. The resulting compromises always advance the feminist cause, even when the original demands aren’t fully met. Despite the moderating role adopted by the conservatives, the new rights and special privileges gained are never repudiated by either group, women as a whole benefit.

Abortion is the ultimate example of this, as Coulter pointed out. Coulter thought it was hypocritical of conservative feminists to lecture others on the immorality of abortion, solely for the purpose of drawing attention to themselves, since they obviously had no intention of doing anything concrete to eliminate or reduce abortions. This may seem counter-intuitive, but actions, or inaction in this case, speak louder than self serving rhetoric.

American males have their part to play, even when it’s not obvious. Feminism isn’t tolerated in certain societies; witness the boogeyman of Muslim “enslavement” of women. Even tough minded intellectuals like Coulter become slightly hysterical when contemplating what would happen if Islamic fundamentalism continues to spread through western societies. American men are expected to stand by the philosophy of feminism and provide the brute force to counteract the reactionary practices of patriarchal societies.

Apologize also for this long response, but I don’t see the necessity of pretending that women are seriously divided over feminist politics and goals in any meaningful way; there’s just no evidence that is the case.

There is a fanatical feminism out there, the kind that believes that all sex is rape, that all men are potential abusers, that men are always at fault in divorces, and that the purpose of society is for patriarchal men to keep women as second class citizens.

Radical feminists have hooked up with an extreme liberalism that most people, men and women, find repugnant. They believe in big government, socialized medicine, pacifism and abortion on demand.

True feminists want equality and fair treatment. Radical feminists want payback. They hate men, or more precisely, they hate men who won’t kow-tow to their shrill demands. They spout incomprehensible rhetoric about “gender politics,” “power and class vs. the femine ideal,” and being “liberated by lesbianism.”

NOW and its clones have never been about feminism. They have always been about liberal politics. Ask a radical feminist if they would support a conservative women’s group and they would laugh at you.

NOW did do an admirable job for American women. Their tough, battered, old leaders would make outrageous demands and statements while the majority of women sat safely back to gauge the public reaction. NOW didn’t achieve every goal, but you might have noticed that compromises reached always advanced the political and economic status of American women relative to the previous status quo. NOW’s political tactics aren’t even original, they’ve been successfully practiced in various cultures over the past few centuries.

The Ideal Feminist (the article’s title) concept is a myth and the paragraph in the article about how men exist in a form of contented slavery illustrates the emotional dynamic employed by the author. Any man fortunate enough to have a loving wife and able to fully participate in raising children is happier, healthier, wealthier and more spiritually fulfilled, regardless of how the politics are viewed. This book is obviously aimed at conservative men; the male interviewer is a dead giveaway. It’s intended to relieve the emotional threats felt by men over the political gains of women. Men can read the book and laugh at the foibles of feminism and gloat over the unavoidable, downside consequences which are always a byproduct of new political freedoms. This book’s “politically incorrect” approach to the argument is a subtle attempt to manipulate the male viewpoint. My concluding comment was that all this subtlety isn’t really necessary; men should insist on hearing obvious truths within the public dialog and recognize their existing social position for what it actually is.

The government didn’t force legal and economic benefits on women: they wanted them and worked hard to secure them. As Ann Coulter pointed out, abortion is exclusively a woman’s issue. If women wanted the laws changed to prevent abortion or reduce the number of abortions, a “10 million women” march on Washington would have changed the laws long ago. The issues were never about abortion, the issues were about securing emotional and financial benefits under the law related to reproductive and child rearing issues. The majority of American women support abortion and will continue to do so.

True independence was never the goal; women consistently rejected any roles as combat soldiers and focused instead on equality of economic opportunity in the military, without any downside risks. The aforementioned isn’t an indictment of women, but rather a realization of the special needs and the unique role women play in the reproductive process. Women understand this to a far greater degree than men and feminism is the logical outgrowth of a matriarchal society. Pretending otherwise, as this interview seeks to do, destroys any basis for dialog or understanding the core issues.