Casper was not home. Yes! It was worth it to come here. And even though I hate coffee, I would drink some if she made it. I asked Daffine where Casper was, even though I didn't care where he was. She told me he was hanging out with his fraternity friends. 

"Do you know what they do there?" I told her what Glen told me and she told me that she knew. I was surprised that she knew that. 
"Does that not bother you?"
"No? He's my friend, not my partner. He can do whatever he wants,"

"How is Casper as a roommate?"
"We are too different but we still make it work,"
"Give me examples,"

"I'm a morning person, he's not. I like dogs, he hates them. I prefer classical music, he listens to punk rock. My side of the room is very organised, he is very messy. He sleeps around a lot and he is not into commitment. I am looking for something serious. I date to marry,"

"Marriage is so unnecessary though. It's just a piece of paper,"
"A piece of legal paper that gives you legal protection in case things go south,"
"Why would you need that if you love and trust someone,"
"Because people change. I can't promise you that I'd be the same after ten years,"

"Even if you were in love with me? Hypothetically?"
"I'd still want to marry you, even more," I smiled and he looked down as he mumbled, "Well, as long as women are able to choose what exactly they want, I don't care,"

"The idea that "women should be able to choose, as adults, what they want to do with their lives," sounds beautiful and obvious and true. Dive deeper into it and there are some implications that are either untrue or worrisome,"

"Like what?"

"Like the historical implication. The implication is that men, as a class, have always been able to choose what they want to do with their lives and women, as a class, have not. If that was historically true, this would be a great injustice. But it's not. NOBODY has ever been given infinite power to choose what they want to do with their lives. Everyone has been encouraged and directed in particular directions, and faced some social disapproval if they refused that path and chose a different one. It's not explicit, but this worldview often comes with the idea that social disapproval is equivalent to strictly enforced laws. I disagree with this perspective. 

Amelia Earheart is a fantastic example of a woman defying social norms. Women could and did defy social norms all the time. Feminist history tends to pretend these women didn't exist, which irritates me. Social norms aren't destiny, they're just a suggestion. Obviously there are some cases where strictly enforced laws exist regarding "proper behavior", there are no exceptions, and defying the law can trigger execution. That's very bad. But I think it's absurd to call that in any way equivalent to the neighbours glaring at someone breaking social norms,"

"Well, feminism requires a belief that human history is a dystopian hellscape for women that stretches back to the beginning of time, and women just sat around like doormats accepting this until feminism came to save them," He said.

"Yeah, and as a woman, I find that incredibly offensive and disrespectful to my female ancestors.

The only norm regarding women that stretches to the beginning of time is the reproductive asymmetry that goes with being mammals. That is, we give live birth. Unfortunately, this is the real "oppression" that feminism complains about. Feminism tends towards antinatalism. Fundamentally, "women should be able to choose, as adults, what they want to do with their lives," comes from the moral foundations of individualism and hedonism. Hedonism is a moral system that whatever is individually pleasurable is the highest moral good. Interconnection with others is bad, especially if it involves any kind of sacrifice. It's a dehumanizing weakness. But love comes with sacrifices...and that's why it is always brave to love. 

Real humans are independent actors, rational consumers seeking their own pleasure. Human females have the capacity to be literally two people for 9 months. The interconnection of pregnancy is the most profound and complete form of interconnection possible. This presents a problem for a worldview that sees interconnection and sacrifice as inherently bad. Dehumanizing even. Dive deep enough into feminist theory and these themes recur repeatedly: "Pregnancy is dehumanizing. Childbirth is dehumanizing. Connection to children is dehumanizing." This raises serious questions about how feminist theory defines human beings. And for many women who have given birth, it sounds shockingly misogynistic."

"I mean, I can play the devil's advocate and reframe it," He offered and I asked him to do so, "Well...Instead of "women should be able to choose, as adults, what they want to do with their lives", how about this: "Human beings of both sexes are interconnected. Those interconnections should recognize the unique traits of each human being, and honor all human beings as having equal worth. Humans beings should be supported and encouraged to seek interconnections in ways that are healthy and sustainable, respecting their agency and their right to make mistakes."

"You're right. Defining any group of people as having less value or agency is harmful. I think this mostly gets at the desire for fairness that makes the feminist position sound superficially appealing,"

He looked at me for a long time, before we broke eye contact. He had finished his coffee. As he was leaving, I thanked him for listening to my little rant and he told me he enjoyed it. 

"I never speak much about anti-natalism because I'm not a woman, I cannot give birth,"
"You can speak about it because you have also been a fetus," I said.
"You know what, you're right. I have," He smiled and I smiled back at him. 

"Goodnight, Daffine,"
"Goodnight, Max"

-To be continued