Reviews for Sexual correctness

The average rating for Sexual correctness based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-11-08 00:00:00 Pam Neil McElroy criticises a lot of things that seem to be obviously in need of addressing, for example she argues that fighting sexual harassment is against men's right to freedom of speech. She is also preoccupied with the idea of modern feminism being all about 'political correctness' and not equality.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-09-12 00:00:00 David Lentz A decent book by a dissident feminist, taking a critical look at modern feminism from a free market and individualist perspective. At the beginning it defines the terms: Gender Feminism: the ideology that views men and women as separate and antagonistic classes. Men oppress women. They do so through the twin evils of the patriarchal state and the free-market system. The goal is not equality: it is gender (class) justice for women. Individualist Feminism: an ideology based on the principle "a woman's body, a woman's right." It makes no distinction between civil and economic liberty, between a woman's right to pose for pornography and to act as a surrogate mother. Both are matters of contract and consent. Government--the institutionalization of force--is seen as the greatest threat to women's freedom. Those two definitions nicely summarize the book. It focuses on the way gender feminists have been hostile to individual women's choices for the cause of class justice for womankind. Specifically, gender feminists claim that pornography, prostitution, and commercialized in-vitro fertilization and womb surrogacy, should not be made available to women because these women aren't capable of informed consent. Basically, they're in the business of telling women what they're allowed to do with their own bodies. Hence, this author's claim that gender feminism is antagonistic to the old fashioned feminist principle of "a woman's body, a woman's right." This book makes a lot of persuasive arguments. It made a strong case for the free market. I haven't read much yet about the feminist stance on pornography and prostitution, so I found that part very interesting. The book got better and better as it progressed. The end was cool. She basically showed that the gender feminists' arguments about IVF and surrogacy collapse on its own absurdity, and that the logical conclusion of these arguments is that all of contract law would have to be tossed and that no human being has the capacity for informed consent. What I found extremely disappointing was its gross lack of fact-checking. Between Who Stole Feminism and Ceasefire Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, I've become spoiled by dissident feminists' relentless fact-checking. This book just doesn't even try, not even for the most man-hating claims. The worst example of this is the claim that 1-in-4 women have been raped. All dissident feminist books debunk this with solid fact-checking. But all this book does is say, "even accepting the statistics, three out of four women will not be raped." She only seems interested in disputing the claim that all men are rapists: "If another group of radicals claimed that 'all whites/Protestants/bisexuals are sadists,' while their own statistics indicated that 75 percent of the accused group are nonsadists, no honest observer would accept their argument." Really? You're just going to let that ridiculous number slide because it still allows for most men not being rapists? 25% is still outrageously high. It still means as many as one out of every four men are rapists (the actual number is lower due to serial rapes). Pick out 12 of your male friends and family at random, people you care about and trust. Are you really okay with a hate group accusing three of them of being rapists? It's a horrifying statistic, which is why feminists still use it, but fortunately, it's false. The claim has already been debunked. Why does this book just let it slide?