In view of Lee Daniel's pronouncements on the irrationality of feminism, I suppose the following question is in order: How is feminism irrational?
Looking at feminism in its original form in its inception in the early 1900s, it seems based on a very practical logic. 51% of the population had been cut off of avenues of economic self-sufficiency and cultural resources such as the right to own property, the right to vote. If one did any work, legally your husband owned it and all of its proceeds.
The logic of feminism in its original form: The fact that 50% of the population is cut off of economic and cultural resources has no rational basis, but is, rather, based in religious dogmas and cultural superstitions.
Granted, feminism has branched off in several directions, and perhaps some of those new paths stray from the basic logic. But why expend so much energy complaining about that, when the vast majority of feminists worldwide are still strongly focused on the original goal? How much of a threat is Andrea Dworkin to you personally? Aren't we, as transhumanists, committed to a memetic diversity?
(who is slowly tiring of this topic, but not quite yet)