If you are even just the smallest bit interested in this idea called “feminism”–read this article. It identifies “social feminism” as contrasted with “egalitarian feminism.” Most to all of the totally wacked out (inside voice, Andrea!) feminists in today’s public square, in academia and in politics are “egalitarian feminists.” This means they downplay or don’t believe in gender differences. Those feminists are trying to erase social feminists from history, says the author Christina Hoff Sommers. Or they villify them, because they stood up in favour of women’s rights whilst expecting that women still could conduct themselves as ladies. Hence the post title from one such social feminist, Frances Willard, who said that “with the vote, women could protect the homes they dearly loved. Indeed, Willard referred to the vote as ‘the home protection ballot.'” Interesting.
Whereas social feminists ask for an even playing field–equality of opportunity–while allowing women and men to turn toward their natural inclinations.
This is where my moment of eureka came in. Because egalitarian feminists don’t appreciate women’s natural inclinations (or men’s, but that we already knew). They want me (and the rest of you, too) to be an engineer “just like my mom.” Where a woman’s inclination is more inclined toward hearth and home, where women’s inclination takes them out of the business/political (public) world, then an egalitarian feminist can’t support that, because this would perpetuate the idea that the world is “run by men.”
Exposés on feminist theory that are reasonable (as opposed to shrill or bitter) are hard to come by. I recommend this (long-ish) article.