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?
Presumably, if the book is read only by right-wingers, it will end up changing no one's mind. If the book's purpose is to preach to the convinced, fine, but then the title seems off.
You've had a lot of success with provocative titles and theses. Your books have been anti-education, anti-parenting, anti-democracy, and anti-national borders. Refuting sacred cows is your trademark. Why stop?
Sorry, this comment is pretty hostile. Feel free to ignore it.
The title seems to be framing for heat instead of light. I think you know its going to cause conflict, turning the book into a new mini-front in the culture war. It annoys me a little, because I think you knew that the title was going to cause lots of people to spend that much more time hating each other over their opinions on the book, but you don't care because you think that is on them and not you. Even if you knew it would happen.
A title chosen for being non confrontational might have spread the idea in a more useful manner.
The problem as I see it is that the title "Don't Be A Feminist" engages just as much wordplay as the misguided "feminism" you seek to discredit.
You say, "The version of “feminism” that I target is extremely widespread, and my central claim is that it is grossly mistaken."
OK, but your title lumps in all the other versions of feminism in with that one. Even your own. Because, really, this book and your advice to your daughter constitute your own brand of "feminism" in the practical sense.
Better to sidestep the whole thing and offer your positive vision of how a woman should live a just life. Like, "A Letter to My Daughter, and other essays on living a just life in an unjust world."
I think he wants to say that feminism is bad because feminism is identitarianism and identitarianism is bad--even if it is motivated by good intentions to treat women equally. So it’s provocative, but that’s the point. Sort of like challenging BLM or even “anti-racism” despite the rhetorical powers of those terms.
"Be a Buddhist" and "Don't join ISIS" aren't really the same message.
It doesn't really matter which ideas his title "lumps in" to "feminism" as long as the individual readers he's trying to reach *also* associate the ideas with "feminism". Not *all* readers will, but no book is for everyone.
I think your friends were right. You may stick to your guns, and perhaps if it catches the right breeze, it'll get traction amongst some groups. However, I am convinced that if your objective was to persuade the largest number of people, you needed to have picked a less inflammatory title as this is going to filter out too many people who might have changed their minds. As it stands, the title is indistinguishable from one that'd be used by a staunch misogynist and it'll probably be used to offhand label you as such.
Here's the problem with that line of reasoning: if you're on one side of a debate, you inevitably attract the most extreme kinds of people on that side of the question. So, if you persuasively argue against affirmative action, you'll be 'beloved' by white supremacists, because of course white supremacists oppose affirmative action. If you support it, you'll be 'beloved' by Nation of Islam types (who have a long history of cozy relationships with even moderate left-of-center New York politicians). This is why guilt by association arguments are almost always absurd. Contrary to what most people seem to believe, there is basically no position, even a perfectly reasonable, moral, correct position, that don't coincide with the interests and values of someone bad.
Please point me to the public figure (with a similar level of fame as Bryan) to whom it cannot be truthfully said (in the same whining harpy voice you just used, of course) "SoMe oF THe PeOplE thaT liKe YOu aRE BAAAD!!1!"
I assume you make an economic case defending rape and wife-beating? Because if you aren’t a feminist, you have to be in favor of rape and wife-beating.
Caplan is like all right - wingers, a lying hypocrite. He wrote an essay a few years ago arguing that no one should go to college and that high school was probably a waste. I’m sure his daughter graduated or will graduate from both. He writes a book now condemning feminism but is married to a woman with an interesting career in a once male-dominated profession. Let the rubes live in poverty with boring housewives doing shit jobs; Caplan and his family will enjoy all the fruits of liberalism while shitting copiously on what provides those fruits.
Things can be privately optimal, but socially not. When we subsidize education, we make it so that is the only serious path to higher earnings. Were we to draw back on education funding, people would go to less school — and this would have no effect on earnings, because everyone would be doing less school.
Caplan and his family have very high IQs and their incentive structure is probably different than 95% of the population. Going to college is an objectively dumb move if you're low ability and going to spend a lot of money to do so. That covers most of the population and probably half of people in college today. It's not a dumb idea if you are super smart, got into a good school, and have a scholarship. Recent changes in the ideological bent of university may be relevant to his insights, but weren't as big a deal when he went to school.
I can't say what hardships Caplan's wife's career might have brought, but they weren't enough to get in the way of his having four kids. In other cases, whether it be a high powered career that prevented family formation, or a lower end career that is largely a pointless 100% marginal tax trap that generates little value for the family, then yeah putting career first is dumb.
Among normal people, the title of the book won't be a big deal. For the vast majority of people - even most self-identified feminists - it is understood that feminism, like most 'isms,' is a debatable topic, and won't be peculiarly alienating.
Among academics, it will absolutely be alienating. In my experience, not identifying as a feminist in academic circles is often taken as equivalent to being a misogynist and generally bad person. So as far as general readership goes, the title is fine; as afar as academic faculty lounges go, it'll be taken as discrediting.
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?
The people who brought you masking their own toddlers for two years to own Drumpf are offended you would associate with the Orks.
Presumably, if the book is read only by right-wingers, it will end up changing no one's mind. If the book's purpose is to preach to the convinced, fine, but then the title seems off.
To be blunt, it seems like nearly all of Bryan's work is to preach to the convinced. A lot of strawman bashing.
The only exception I can think of is his pro-TFR stuff. Maybe someone somewhere had another kid because of it.
You've had a lot of success with provocative titles and theses. Your books have been anti-education, anti-parenting, anti-democracy, and anti-national borders. Refuting sacred cows is your trademark. Why stop?
Sorry, this comment is pretty hostile. Feel free to ignore it.
The title seems to be framing for heat instead of light. I think you know its going to cause conflict, turning the book into a new mini-front in the culture war. It annoys me a little, because I think you knew that the title was going to cause lots of people to spend that much more time hating each other over their opinions on the book, but you don't care because you think that is on them and not you. Even if you knew it would happen.
A title chosen for being non confrontational might have spread the idea in a more useful manner.
+1 Go Caplan
If there is one thing we need more of, it's not caving to women's tears.
Its a catchy title, gets right to the point. I am a fan of keeping it.
The problem as I see it is that the title "Don't Be A Feminist" engages just as much wordplay as the misguided "feminism" you seek to discredit.
You say, "The version of “feminism” that I target is extremely widespread, and my central claim is that it is grossly mistaken."
OK, but your title lumps in all the other versions of feminism in with that one. Even your own. Because, really, this book and your advice to your daughter constitute your own brand of "feminism" in the practical sense.
Better to sidestep the whole thing and offer your positive vision of how a woman should live a just life. Like, "A Letter to My Daughter, and other essays on living a just life in an unjust world."
I think he wants to say that feminism is bad because feminism is identitarianism and identitarianism is bad--even if it is motivated by good intentions to treat women equally. So it’s provocative, but that’s the point. Sort of like challenging BLM or even “anti-racism” despite the rhetorical powers of those terms.
"Be a Buddhist" and "Don't join ISIS" aren't really the same message.
It doesn't really matter which ideas his title "lumps in" to "feminism" as long as the individual readers he's trying to reach *also* associate the ideas with "feminism". Not *all* readers will, but no book is for everyone.
I think your friends were right. You may stick to your guns, and perhaps if it catches the right breeze, it'll get traction amongst some groups. However, I am convinced that if your objective was to persuade the largest number of people, you needed to have picked a less inflammatory title as this is going to filter out too many people who might have changed their minds. As it stands, the title is indistinguishable from one that'd be used by a staunch misogynist and it'll probably be used to offhand label you as such.
Does it bother you that you are beloved by misogynists? Angry men who truly loath women?
I'm not making an argument about your case on the merits. Just that the company you attract might be worth ... considering.
Here's the problem with that line of reasoning: if you're on one side of a debate, you inevitably attract the most extreme kinds of people on that side of the question. So, if you persuasively argue against affirmative action, you'll be 'beloved' by white supremacists, because of course white supremacists oppose affirmative action. If you support it, you'll be 'beloved' by Nation of Islam types (who have a long history of cozy relationships with even moderate left-of-center New York politicians). This is why guilt by association arguments are almost always absurd. Contrary to what most people seem to believe, there is basically no position, even a perfectly reasonable, moral, correct position, that don't coincide with the interests and values of someone bad.
Please point me to the public figure (with a similar level of fame as Bryan) to whom it cannot be truthfully said (in the same whining harpy voice you just used, of course) "SoMe oF THe PeOplE thaT liKe YOu aRE BAAAD!!1!"
Some people will notice that this is a very high-agreeableness point to make.
I assume you make an economic case defending rape and wife-beating? Because if you aren’t a feminist, you have to be in favor of rape and wife-beating.
> “Don’t be a lawyer,”
Isn't your wife a lawyer?
Caplan is like all right - wingers, a lying hypocrite. He wrote an essay a few years ago arguing that no one should go to college and that high school was probably a waste. I’m sure his daughter graduated or will graduate from both. He writes a book now condemning feminism but is married to a woman with an interesting career in a once male-dominated profession. Let the rubes live in poverty with boring housewives doing shit jobs; Caplan and his family will enjoy all the fruits of liberalism while shitting copiously on what provides those fruits.
Things can be privately optimal, but socially not. When we subsidize education, we make it so that is the only serious path to higher earnings. Were we to draw back on education funding, people would go to less school — and this would have no effect on earnings, because everyone would be doing less school.
Caplan and his family have very high IQs and their incentive structure is probably different than 95% of the population. Going to college is an objectively dumb move if you're low ability and going to spend a lot of money to do so. That covers most of the population and probably half of people in college today. It's not a dumb idea if you are super smart, got into a good school, and have a scholarship. Recent changes in the ideological bent of university may be relevant to his insights, but weren't as big a deal when he went to school.
I can't say what hardships Caplan's wife's career might have brought, but they weren't enough to get in the way of his having four kids. In other cases, whether it be a high powered career that prevented family formation, or a lower end career that is largely a pointless 100% marginal tax trap that generates little value for the family, then yeah putting career first is dumb.
It’s safe to assume you’re not married. No woman would have you.
As a father of daughters, in no small part because of your Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, I am excited to buy this book.
Among normal people, the title of the book won't be a big deal. For the vast majority of people - even most self-identified feminists - it is understood that feminism, like most 'isms,' is a debatable topic, and won't be peculiarly alienating.
Among academics, it will absolutely be alienating. In my experience, not identifying as a feminist in academic circles is often taken as equivalent to being a misogynist and generally bad person. So as far as general readership goes, the title is fine; as afar as academic faculty lounges go, it'll be taken as discrediting.