*Don't Be A Feminist*: Judge This Book By Its Cover
Don’t Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice releases today. When I announced the future publication of this book, I met a storm of criticism. Most was just hostile, but a large minority of the critics had my best interests at heart. Two good friends privately staged mini-interventions. “The title of this book will alienate readers, sully your reputation, and undermine your earlier work,” they warned.
In all sincerity, I deeply appreciate the friendly criticism, especially the mini-interventions. Friends cared enough about me to candidly share their concerns. I listened, and I reflected. I was glad I had weeks to weigh their objections.
Still, I’ve decided to stick to my original plan.
Why, you ask?
The title accurately and politely expresses the theme of the book’s most important essay. The version of “feminism” that I target is extremely widespread, and my central claim is that it is grossly mistaken. Therefore you shouldn’t believe it. “Don’t be a feminist” is no more uncivil than “Don’t be a socialist,” “Don’t be a nationalist,” “Don’t be a lawyer,” or “Don’t Embrace Mistaken Belief System X.”
You could reply, “In our imperfect world, potential readers use statistical discrimination to decide what to read. This title fosters the false belief that you are a right-wing hack. Why not pick a title that cuts this misperception risk?” Because I don’t think any accurate title would be noticeably less prone to this misperception. While I could try a bait-and-switch, that would be wrong and probably wouldn’t work.
Others sarcastically objected, “This is a great title if you just want to attract right-wing readers.” Reply: I welcome right-wing readers. As long as my arguments are correct, I am happy to win fans of almost all persuasions. Nor am I merely telling right-wing readers what they already believe. Even if they accept my conclusion from the get-go, I am supplying them with new and improved arguments on the conclusion’s behalf.
Statistical discrimination is a two-way street. Don’t Be a Feminist contains many essays that stereotypical right-wing readers will not initially agree with. I think that my willingness to unapologetically take their side when I deem them correct will spur them to take my disagreements on other topics more seriously. Ideally, I will be known as someone who follows logic and evidence wherever they lead, so readers are gratified when I agree with them and troubled when I don’t. Yes, I wrote Open Borders and I wrote Don’t Be a Feminist - and I’m proud to have both on my CV.
Disbelief in feminism is widespread, and not merely among self-identified “right-wing” people. So the audience of potential readers that I am not alienating is vast. And honestly, a large majority of those allegedly alienated by the book’s title would be alienated by the book’s substance regardless of its title.
Above all, I commissioned a book cover that ought to swiftly and painlessly remove reasonable doubts about my good intentions. Peer at it closely: I am not making fun of women. I am not making fun of anyone. I am not angry at women. I am not angry at anyone. I am teaching my own daughter economics, psychology, philosophy, and critical thinking. As I do in real life. I love my daughter with all my heart. I want her to excel and live life to its fullest. And I am convinced that being a feminist would stand in her way.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I have pondered these issues for many years. This is my considered judgment and I stand by it.
Propaganda surrounding feminism and feminist ideas is so pervasive that for probably 70% of the population cognitive dissonance will leave them cognitively incapable of processing the message of the book.
The title isn't aggressive enough.
You should have called it: Feminism Is Bad and Feminists Are Worse: The Lies You Believe About Economics, Politics and Social Ethics.
It's not clear why you should have to defend yourself against accusations that your book will make you liked by right wingers. Most intellectual content caters to left wingers, and there is never the expectation that authors should be required to apologize for this bias. Why this should be different for a book that at least ostensibly leans right?