Have I ever told you that my late maternal grandmother was friends with William F Buckley, Jr? He was also my uncle’s godfather. (Ironically, I’ve scarcely read a word he wrote.)
Like you, I’d like to call what we’re doing “Aristotelean feminism” but that may be even less evocative for most than 2026 Women’s Convention.
Thanks for this post, Rachel - really enjoyed reading your reflections and glad you thought it a success. Can’t wait to publish your remarks!
I did not know this! How fitting! (Buckley's greatest achievements really weren't *as a writer* anyway, though he wrote plenty if you've got a mind to explore it.)
"Aristotelian feminism" is my preferred description, yes, and I do explain that for people who understand it. But right, not a lot of retail value in that term. People often reply, "So, some sort of conservative feminists?" Sort of. Sure. You can call *me* a conservative feminist if you want, but I won't force it down anyone else's throat.
Hi Rachel! It was great catching up with you after what, 19 years? The whole weekend felt like being surrounded by more than a hundred kindred spirits. Definitely a shot in the arm after despairing at the state of discourse on social media aka The Place Where Nuance Goes to Die.
"He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry" St. John Paul II, pray for us.
It was nice to meet you last week. I would like to know more about this statement below. It could probably fill a book. You don’t need to write anything to satisfy my curiosity. But if you have already written something that fleshes this out (commonly held premises of this sort), I would appreciate you pointing me toward it.
“It can take real work to persuade people that they are in fact eager to see women as the morally inferior sex. (And often, by extension, wanting to conclude that marginalizing or exploiting us may therefore be somewhat acceptable.) Most people deny this, and one rarely moves the ball by flinging angry accusations, so you have to show people that the conclusion falls pretty naturally out of their own premises, then work backwards to the question of why they embraced the premises in the first place.”
Thanks, sure, I can drop in a few links that point in the general direction. Here's one responding to Carrie Gress, suggesting that her form of "complementarianism" really isn't compatible with both Aristotelianism and the moral equality of the sexes. I sometimes explain it like this. Suppose you have three things on the table: a robust gender complementarianism, an Aristotelian account of human nature, and the moral equality of the sexes. You can pick two.
Gress doesn't openly jettison (3) but she's sufficiently committed to the first two that I think that's truly the most natural way to harmonize it. Likewise, coming from the opposite direction, Tony Esolen's "No Apologies," on men. I think he would agree if asked that the sexes are morally equal, but the easiest way by far to harmonize everything else he's committed to is by rejecting that premise. Here's me on Gress' book:
As for Andrews, her Great Feminization theory creepily mirrors narratives favored by racialists and antisemites ostensibly just "noting differences" but... well...
Have I ever told you that my late maternal grandmother was friends with William F Buckley, Jr? He was also my uncle’s godfather. (Ironically, I’ve scarcely read a word he wrote.)
Like you, I’d like to call what we’re doing “Aristotelean feminism” but that may be even less evocative for most than 2026 Women’s Convention.
Thanks for this post, Rachel - really enjoyed reading your reflections and glad you thought it a success. Can’t wait to publish your remarks!
I did not know this! How fitting! (Buckley's greatest achievements really weren't *as a writer* anyway, though he wrote plenty if you've got a mind to explore it.)
"Aristotelian feminism" is my preferred description, yes, and I do explain that for people who understand it. But right, not a lot of retail value in that term. People often reply, "So, some sort of conservative feminists?" Sort of. Sure. You can call *me* a conservative feminist if you want, but I won't force it down anyone else's throat.
You summed it up really nicely, Rachel! And it was great hanging out with you.
Such a pleasure, Angela! Your work has been immensely helpful to me, really fun to get to hang out awhile.
Likewise! You are a beautiful writer and have a great phlegmatic personality, much needed with these issues lol.
Sounds wonderful! Next time make it multi-generational and invite your Moms!
You would have been very welcome! If another such event happens you should definitely come!
I do like to bask in my children’s glory!
Hi Rachel! It was great catching up with you after what, 19 years? The whole weekend felt like being surrounded by more than a hundred kindred spirits. Definitely a shot in the arm after despairing at the state of discourse on social media aka The Place Where Nuance Goes to Die.
So wonderful to catch up, Sandy! I feel like it may not take 19 more years to bump into you again, but we’ll see…
"He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry" St. John Paul II, pray for us.
It was nice to meet you last week. I would like to know more about this statement below. It could probably fill a book. You don’t need to write anything to satisfy my curiosity. But if you have already written something that fleshes this out (commonly held premises of this sort), I would appreciate you pointing me toward it.
“It can take real work to persuade people that they are in fact eager to see women as the morally inferior sex. (And often, by extension, wanting to conclude that marginalizing or exploiting us may therefore be somewhat acceptable.) Most people deny this, and one rarely moves the ball by flinging angry accusations, so you have to show people that the conclusion falls pretty naturally out of their own premises, then work backwards to the question of why they embraced the premises in the first place.”
Thanks, sure, I can drop in a few links that point in the general direction. Here's one responding to Carrie Gress, suggesting that her form of "complementarianism" really isn't compatible with both Aristotelianism and the moral equality of the sexes. I sometimes explain it like this. Suppose you have three things on the table: a robust gender complementarianism, an Aristotelian account of human nature, and the moral equality of the sexes. You can pick two.
Gress doesn't openly jettison (3) but she's sufficiently committed to the first two that I think that's truly the most natural way to harmonize it. Likewise, coming from the opposite direction, Tony Esolen's "No Apologies," on men. I think he would agree if asked that the sexes are morally equal, but the easiest way by far to harmonize everything else he's committed to is by rejecting that premise. Here's me on Gress' book:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2024/01/92099/
As for Andrews, her Great Feminization theory creepily mirrors narratives favored by racialists and antisemites ostensibly just "noting differences" but... well...
I wrote on that here:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/3862729/great-feminization-falls-short-theory-of-everything-women-woke-culture/