The reason why I "burden Finlayson with defending boylove" is because she is publishing a book specifically championing child liberation! This is to some extent a test case on the issue of whether we can expect a feminist academic to back sexual rights for the young. And the reason why I "treat her failure to do so, if she fails to do so, as discrediting feminism generally" is because the most plausible explanation for her failure (if she fails) is that sexual rights for children will conflict with the feminist narrative of power imbalances that she has evinced in her writings. It is because this is something of an experimentum crucis that I suggested the wager - which, it seems, Pharmakon is disinclined to take. I imagine the reason for this is that he does in fact expect that a feminist academic like Finlayson will attack us rather than defend us. But then this basically concedes that I was right to think that contemporary feminism and youth rights are opposed. If Finlayson, or any other modern feminist academic, is prepared to stand up for children's capacity to consent to sex, then I will indeed have to rethink my opposition to feminism. It is a pity that no amount of contrary evidence can shake Pharmakon's faith in the benignity of a movement that has so far been conspicuous for its persecution of us. If we must wait for feminist writers to embrace the sexual rights of youth before moving out of Mirkin Phase 1, then all the evidence shows that we shall be at Mirkin Phase 1 until the last trumpet. |