>>17477
can't say i share that view at all. on the contrary, i think that ken is surprisingly charitable towards men, given a) her awful experiences with them and b) her willingness to take on fringe/radical beliefs. i can't recall a single instance where she's made sweeping statements about men being uniquely terrible or lamented the horrors or the patriarchy or whatever (i could of course be wrong here; fellow kenologists feel free to correct me)
all her -isms (disorders, ideology, religion) seem to converge into some sort of unwavering belief in the inherent decency of mankind, a sort of "love conquers all" hippie gloop. naive, blinkered, confused? perhaps, but ultimately commendable
her anti-work stance is not predicated on gender imbalances, but her pie-in-the-sky variant of communism that with a wave of the red wand turns labor into playtime

>>17479
>>17480
sorry, this is shit