Why Liberalism Failed: Patrick J. Deneen on Women's Liberation

[Anonymous No.15847491]

From pages 186-187:

"Part of moving toward a postliberal age is recognizing that while liberalism's initial appeal was premised upon laudatory aspirations, its successes have often been based on a disfigurement of those aspirations. Its defenders often point to the liberation of women from conditions of inequality as a significant example of liberalism's success, and regard any critique of liberalism as a proposal to thrust women back into preliberal bondage. Yet the main practical achievement of this liberation of women has been to move many of them into the workforce of market capitalism, a condition that traditionalists like Wendell Berry as well as Marxist political theorists like Nancy Fraser regard as a highly dubious form of liberation. All but forgotten are arguments, such as those made in the early Republic, that liberty consists of independence from the arbitrariness not only of a king but of an employer. Today we consider the paramount sign of the liberation of women to be their growing emancipation from their biology, which frees them to serve a different, disembodied body - 'corporate' America - and participate in an economic order that effectively obviates any actual political liberty. Liberalism posits that freeing women from the household is tantamount to liberation, but it effectively puts women and men alike into a far more encompassing bondage."

Is he right, /lit/? How are we to define liberation, particularly with regard to the family, whether nuclear or extended?

[Anonymous No.15847528]

>>15847491
All practical and obvious 'liberation' has already been achieved, there is no further ground to gain there, hence why Liberalism is so totalitarian now, it is continuously trying to find a new enemy and front to liberate, but has none. We're at a late stage of liberal, capitalist development that will come to an end soon.

[Anonymous No.15847577]

This is what lit has been spamming for weeks? Yikes.

[Anonymous No.15847602]

>>15847577
It's actually a good book, it's just been used by OPs who haven't read it to try to trigger the libs.

[Anonymous No.15847608]

>>15847577
What's your problem with the quote?