Do you think it is necessary to have good analytical and critical thinking skills be a feminist?

... wait a moment, refusing to have sex with a man because he is black would be racist, so ... in your perfect world, should men be legally able to rape women who refuse to have sex with them for morally wrong reasons?

I'm not dignifying that with a response.

Are you seriously suggesting that a woman who is so racist that she would abort a baby solely because it would be mixed race, would ever consent to sex with a black man? Seriously?

Yes, of course. There's every kind of nutjob you can imagine out there.

Or okay, suppose she doesn't want an ugly baby? Or she doesn't want an unintelligent baby? Or she only wants a blonde baby?

You could selectively breed learning disabilities out of existence could you not? How's that as an idea?

What I have a problem is not women having abortions, but the idea that abortion has NO possible moral implications at all on the basis of the liberal concept of 'choice'.

There is no such thing as an amoral choice.

... wait a moment, refusing to have sex with a man because he is black would be racist, so ... in your perfect world, should men be legally able to rape women who refuse to have sex with them for morally wrong reasons?

So if that woman had got pregnant by a black man and didn't want to give birth to a mixed race baby that would be absolutely fine? There would be no moral problem with that AT ALL?

Are you seriously suggesting that a woman who is so racist that she would abort a baby solely because it would be mixed race, would ever consent to sex with a black man? Seriously?

At least be honest and describe a situation where a white rape victim wants to abort the pregnancy that is the result of her rape by a black man.

Listen, I don't have any patience for you. You are trying to derail threads on here by claiming that feminism isn't focusing on the "important" problems.

But as soon as someone points at the central problem, you start to derail with idiotic arguments.

For me, yes. A huge problem. But pro choice means pro choice. Even if I find the choice reprehensible.

The will of the woman carrying the child. Nobody else has any rights in the matter at all.

So if that woman had got pregnant by a black man and didn't want to give birth to a mixed race baby that would be absolutely fine? There would be no moral problem with that AT ALL?

By the way I'm not arguing per se against abortion there,

... only that you totally do.

What do you mean by "morally circumscribed"?

"Decided by people other than the person who gestates", I would assume.

Yet you come here and complain that feminists aren't doing feminism right. .

"Because otherwise, what is the criteria for deciding who comes in to the world and who doesn't?"

The will of the woman carrying the child. Nobody else has any rights in the matter at all.

what is the criteria for deciding who comes in to the world and who doesn't?

The criterion is that the woman gestating the baby decides whether she wants to do this. That's it. No one comes into this world (or ought to) except by a woman freely undertaking to gestate and birth him or her.

By the way I'm not arguing per se against abortion there, only that such a choice has to be morally circumscribed.

Because otherwise, what is the criteria for deciding who comes in to the world and who doesn't? Would you abort Downs babies? Gay babies?

The plain fact is that if women had full reproductive autonomy, this would mean that we alone decide who comes into this world and who doesn't. That is something men can't abide. 'Choice' doesn't begin to cover this awesome power for which there is no analogue in the male experience, and IMO women are always going to be treading water at best on abortion rights while we pretend it is something that can be secured by appeals to privacy or male conceptions of bodily autonomy.

Good point.

The plain fact is that if women had full reproductive autonomy, this would mean that we alone decide who comes into this world and who doesn't.

Sound a bit eugenic to me.

Does anyone have full autonomy in any respect at all?

Just wanted to answer a couple of points Blistery brought up: Yes, I think radical feminists have come up with the correct analysis about the roots of women's oppression, in the same way that I think Marx is right about the way capitalism functions.

Although radical feminism is a western school of thought developed by mostly white women, IMO the analysis they've developed to explain how and why men oppress women is largely correct, and is applicable to the specific mechanics of women's oppression across time and cultures. Which is not the same as saying that radical feminism explains all issues pertinent to all women everywhere - of course cultures vary and sex is not the only axis on which women are oppressed, and in many respects women from different countries or races or social classes may have little in common and/or be directly antagonistic to another woman's liberation. But this ancient and widespread control, brutalisation and denigration of human females by human males, does deserve its own specific analysis, and does, on the evidence, have the same root (as well as often remarkably similar expression) across time and cultures. Believing this isn't the same thing as homogenising women or saying that other forces like racism or capitalism aren't relevant to women's lives or deserving of their own female-specific analysis.

WRT liberal feminism, I agree with Catharine MacKinnon that it is basically liberalism applied to women. You mention that:

as for gender, liberal feminism was founded on the premise that women's oppression arose from the construction of gender roles and that these roles were largely created rather than innate.

but you don't say how or why these gender roles came about, or who benefits from them. As one radical feminist blogger put it, simply saying that gender is a social construct doesn't get us very far:

But there are several questions left unanswered: why did men have more of a say than women in the first place? Why has male domination happened across almost every culture on Earth? Why do these cultural stereotypes have the universal features of violent men and nurturing women? Is it innate? How can it be innate when so many people, especially women, are disaffected with gender? If it’s not innate, what do these universals mean? It is all well and good to say these social constructs exist, and that ideas accumulate over time – but where did they come from? How does the transmission chain start? In other words: what is the root? Leaving an analysis of social constructs to the realm of ideas alone does not answer any of these questions. These social constructions still need to be grounded in material reality. This is the domain of materialism and radical feminism.

www.aroomofourown.org/gender-is-socially-constructed-upon-material-reality-by-umlolidunno-2/

Liberalism applied to women is insufficient, IMO, for our liberation, partly because its basic unit of analysis is the individual rather than the group, but also because liberal principles as formulated by men are unable to encompass women's lives and the specific vulnerabilities and powers that come with having a female body.

For instance, women have been unable to secure abortion rights by appealing to liberal principles of individual autonomy or privacy, because when men talk about these things they are not talking about people capable of gestating another human being in their bodies. As soon as women try to claim the same rights to our bodies, the fact of our female reproductive capacity - being the only way human beings come into this world - comes bang up against this liberal idea of the sovereign male individual. Liberal feminists have tried to skirt this with the euphemism 'pro choice', as if abortion were a private matter akin to any number of personal choices a person might make. When in fact it is the biggest and most socially significant matter in the world. The power to decide when and whether to gestate and give birth is not just a matter of 'choice' - it is the power to control the reproduction of the human race.

The plain fact is that if women had full reproductive autonomy, this would mean that we alone decide who comes into this world and who doesn't. That is something men can't abide. 'Choice' doesn't begin to cover this awesome power for which there is no analogue in the male experience, and IMO women are always going to be treading water at best on abortion rights while we pretend it is something that can be secured by appeals to privacy or male conceptions of bodily autonomy.

I'm not dismissing the gains that liberal feminists have achieved for women, nor am I dismissing all liberal principles (I agree, for instance, on the importance of free speech as both an individual right and an essential mechanism for ensuring a healthy, functioning society).

And while I agree with you and other posters that today's third wavers are not the same as second-wave liberal feminists, and it may not even be appropriate to refer to them as liberals anymore (they are anti free speech, for a start), I do see a direct line between the liberal equality feminism of the 70s and the third-wave anti-feminists of today, specifically in their denial of the deep, material roots of patriarchy and in their avowed commitment to a vague 'equality for all' instead of a bold female-centric stance for the liberation of women and girls.

Interesting Pencils. There have always been points of agreement between the feminist left and the Christian right - principally on pornography and the wider culture of female objectification. Famously, Dworkin found an uneasy ally in moral conservatives.

There's a guy called Jonathan Van Maren who is Christian and pro-life but here acknowledges common cause with the feminist left - particularly anti-porn campaigners like Gail Dines, who he specifically mentions. I have to say, much (though of course not all) of what he says sounds far more reasonable than you would imagine.

Oh God Pencils asking the lecturers to explain their arguments in simpler terms was one very quick way to getting you kicked off Literary Theory...

(This was last century when deconstruction was all the rage).

Absolutely right wing women are not opposing gender for the benefit of feminist concerns. Absolutely they are still our enemy in lots of important ways.

Forming an alliance is a tactic and possibly a very risky one - there has been criticism. They are however providing the platform at a time when the left are not. As Natasha Chart says, if liberals think it’s very strange for feminists to work with conservatives, they should probably stop telling us to “drink bleach” or looking the other way as online mobs demand that we be fired.

Transactivists also have their alliances with right wing christians. Think of all those gender non-conforming children who are transed by right wing parents in the states because it's preferable to having a gay child. Extremist muslims too - Iran is just so progressive for trans rights.

A while ago, I was raising concerns on this board because people were linking to (very sensible) articles about trans that were on US right wing christian sites. My concern was that people were linking to these without realising the nature of the sites. It didn't take away the sensibleness of the articles about trans but I was worried people could face a lot of flack they weren't expecting if they shared them.

I think it's preferable if alliances are made with our eyes open, fully aware that we disagree on other very important issues and being totally up-front about that. To be able to say 'yeah, we know, but it's urgent this debate is had somewhere so we'll take what platforms we can get' - it takes the wind out of the sails of people who would use lazy arguments like 'you must be wrong because you agree with the christian right'.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me. As I said, it's a tactic and it has risks.

Women on both sides of that alliance are very consciously setting aside their other fundamental differences in order to stand together against gender ideology as a single issue. I do not for one minute believe those women think they're all friends now. No they don't and I agree. But on their side it's the men doing the paper signing. It's the men with the power who have taken it on, to decide what those women want. The very same women who thought what trump said was ok and they would feel safer in his hands than the hands of a woman or someone else. We as women, happen to fall into the same category as woman with those who supported him and those they would like to control.
"my enemy's enemy is my friend" At the bottom line of the issues, that very same enemy is still our enemy. They have no intention of alliance with us because we would be a hindrance to their goal of male domination. Getting the little power they think it slipped. They are not very forgiving when it comes to others. I would not fall into the trap they are doing it for my benefit.

If this way of thinking is ok, then I can only assume why trump won. The women who voted for him didn't see pussy grabbing as a bigger issue. But saw trump talking about building walls to prevent more Mexican, whom trump labelled rapist and thought it was a bigger issue because it affects them. It also, has potential of happening to them personally, rather than trump grabbing another woman's pussy. Without looking at the bigger picture, that white men can be rapist and misogynistic too. That they are more than likely to be raped by someone they know in their own home

I was referring to your point about the responsibility of hiring domestic employees falling on women.

I know a number of people who do. Of those where the point has been discussed with them given one is allowing a stranger into one's home, it has been the case that as it is rather important both are happy with the person concerned, both have been involved.

When we first employed nannies it was my male boss who gave me advice on what to look for in a nanny.

So far as work being done by couples themselves as I said I don't understand this assumption that if a person is at home that work done at home for the benefit of both parties and their children is "unpaid wife work " or "drudge work".

Once the partner who works outside the home returns it is really up to them to organise how they allocate chores.

Sorry Lass but I'm going to turn that around. Other than your own personal set up, what evidence do you have that women don't do the majority of domestic work, either themselves or being responsible for finding other women to do it ?

And even the hiring and overseeing of women to work in the home is done by women so regardless of who does the work and who pays who, domestic work still falls to women in the majority of cases

Does it? On what evidence do you base that?

Firstly it never crossed my mind that our nannies were poorly paid women doing drudge work because they weren't.

Secondly my son has worked in a pre-school nursery. It never occurred to me he was doing drudge work.

Thirdly 3 of the "drudges" I employed to do domestic work were men.

Some jobs are low paid, whether done by men or women. That will always be the case unless you think everyone should be paid the same wage no matter what they do.The mail room in my office is currently staffed by men. I know we pay the living wage rate but it will still be low. Are they doing drudge work?

And even the hiring and overseeing of women to work in the home is done by women so regardless of who does the work and who pays who, domestic work still falls to women in the majority of cases.