Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.
Main | Joan Walsh vs. Caitlin Flanagan »

Irin Carmon vs. Caitlin Flanagan

I have never met Irin Carmon and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends, but her feminism is excessive.


Here are the articles I am analyzing today and where you can find them:

“Girl Uninterrupted.” Irin Carmon. 01/13/2012.

“The Creepy Condescension of Caitlin Flanagan.” Irin Carmon. 01/19/2012.


Both of these articles by Irin Carmon are critical of Caitlin Flanagan's book, Girl Land. You can find an archive of Flanagan's articles at


Carmon – a feminist writing for Salon – is out for blood. She writes that Flanagan has a “professional vocation of annoying feminists” and her analysis is “dangerously nostalgic”. Carmon goes far beyond a normal book review to bash Flanagan because she isn't a hard-core feminist.


Carmon writes:

Flanagan has a retrograde vision of the safe home, guarded by a male protector, that seems utterly ignorant of how lives are more often lived. The most bafflingly terrible portion of the book is a series of tips at the end on how to preserve the endangered Girl Land. Tip No. 3 is “Get her father involved in her dating life,” because that renders adolescent girls “far less likely to be targets of the kinds of boys who become emotionally, physically or sexually abusive.” Really? What if her father, or equivalent thereof, is also any of those things, a sad truth of many girls' (and boys') lives?


Flanagan is providing much needed advice and support for the vast majority of families who are being pushed off the rails by nihilist feminists, but Carmon finds a way to undermine her because she didn't mention sexually abusive fathers, or equivalents thereof.


It is a typical feminist dirty trick, trying to intentionally miss the point by finding an uncommon occurrence and then blaming the author for committing an oversight. Of course an abusive parent is a terrible thing and everybody already knows that, but, again, Carmon is out for blood. Take another look at her description of Flanagan's affirmation of the importance of fathers. A “retrograde vision of the safe home, guarded by a male protector”.


Here is another example of Carmon finding a small percentage of exceptions in an attempt to undermine the book, “it's worth mentioning that non-heterosexuals do not exist in [Flanagan's] book.” You see, Flanagan spends way too much time focusing on non-gayers.


So much talk about the importance of fathers is enough to make a feminist choke. I hope all of you have figured it out by now that when Carmon writes “dangerously nostalgic” and “retrograde”, she means, shamefully, a traditional, heterosexual, two-parent family.


Carmon writes:

“Society has let its girls down,” Flanagan insists, by denying that “female sexuality is as intricately connected to kindness and trust as it is to gratification and pleasure. It is in the nature of who we are.” Just take her word for it.


This one, short, quote puts Flanagan in opposition to a lot of what feminists preach. Who in society has been letting girls down this way? Feminists. It is a huge obstacle for feminism's ideology that there might be a difference between the sexes by nature, not nurture. A feminist must reject all of this.


“Just take her word for it”? Flanagan's observation gets support in plenty of articles written by women. Here is just one example: “Why are young feminists so clueless about sex?” Margaret Wente. Oct. 24, 2015. I haven't read it, but here is a book with similar subject matter: Unprotected, by Dr. Miriam Grossman.


Carmon writes:

Another helpful tip that should already be notorious is for parents to type “porn” into Google to prepare themselves for what terrors lie ahead for girls....[Flanagan] has already warned about “the endless hard-core and even fetish pornography” available online. Yes, that's right, the Internet also features sexual subcultures!


Flanagan is trying to help and protect families and girls, but Carmon responds with ridicule throughout her articles. Why? Because if Flanagan is warning about fetish pornography, she is making a judgment that some sexual practices are worse than others. This really bothers feminists like Carmon who believe in the absence of morality. To feminists, all sexual practices are equal, with a few exceptions for whenever legal moralism is favorable to them.


Carmon wants to fool her readers into thinking that Flanagan is the one who is “utterly ignorant” about society's problems. I'm sure Flanagan understands the problems and has moved on to proposing solutions for the problems. It is one of the biggest differences between feminists and intelligent, full-grown adult women. Feminists undermine and second-guess others, adults propose and debate credible solutions to problems. Flanagan is ten times the Girl (woman) and is ten times a better writer than Carmon is right now.