Patrick Strudwick on why feminism should include TW

It's not just feminism that springs from the middle-classes: most - if not all - revolutions / revolutionary thought is led by the middle class as we're the ones who have the resources to observe, think, read and organise.

The bourgeoisie is the most revolutionary class in history - as my overview of Marxism prof used to say.

I'd like send out an honorable mention, though, to my dropped out of school older sister who worked her way up to upper working class and took some very fine radical positions, and all women like her.

I think there is a whole other debate to be had about standards in modern academia.

I have been closely involved in such meetings this year, and was amused when a very senior, no nonsense, female professor turned up absolutely at one of my meetings bemused that during the first lecture by a newly hired member of the department, students had asked why she wasn't "including trans". The new Prof had replied with, "because, I don't care!"

Precisely.

Although the entire issue of trans rights split the political left and right, and the LGBT community itself, like no other contemporary argument it also divided women and feminists. Not that a casual onlooker would have known — the fight was framed, baldly, as feminists versus trans people.

All disagreements within these groups were overlooked, with, apparently, all trans people on one side and all feminists on the other. Nuance evaporated.

It meant also that a large group of people were ignored: feminists who support trans rights.

This would have been a much more interesting and balanced article if it had also looked at the other sidelined group, trans people who are concerned women's rights are being trampled. This is so one-sided it just looks like sloppy journalism, failing to show that there are other nuances within the debate.

Also disappointing that the academics interviewed seem unable to string together a logical argument, based on verifiable, observable facts. I think there is a whole other debate to be had about standards in modern academia.

But I guess once you've nailed your colours to the mast on this debate academically and committed your thoughts to published papers then there is no way you can really question this now or back down. These profs are just going to dig deeper and theorise even more to back up their stated position.

Read the article. These academics are gender theorists and there were alot of assertions that indicated they hadn't thought very hard about biology or criminology. There are many very specific questions they should have been asked but that wouldn't have suited the agenda of the article.

It's not just feminism that springs from the middle-classes: most - if not all - revolutions / revolutionary thought is led by the middle class as we're the ones who have the resources to observe, think, read and organise.

If you are a poor subsistence farmer or work 15 hours a day in a factory chances are your resources will go on feeding yourself and your family and keeping a roof over your head.

Maybe the idea that most feminism is a middle class preoccupation stems from the fact that those that level this accusation have only, or mainly, come across feminist thinking via the broadsheet media. Via columnists in the guardian etc.

Probably have never really engaged with the history of the women's movement; nor read any seminal texts; let alone engaged in activism of any sort.

I'm dumfounded by these assertions, by the likes of Peter Tatchell, that feminism has always been about just middle class white women.

That's not an original idea.

The assumption that all women who have time to be feminist are bored white, suburban housewives has been around for a bum's age. In the US, male journalists labelled the entire 2nd wave era the Me Generation -- and the only reason I can figure is that mommy wasn't home to bake pies all the time.

After all, if a woman has a husband who brings home a decent salary, why would she want to work? And if she does work, why would she need equal pay for equal work? And aren't child care centers just a vanity project for middle class women?

Those are the only issues feminists are concerned with. If those aren't the only issues, then people would have to confront their own misogyny, the rates of violence, the absence of rights and respect for 1/2 of the human race, the homophobia in their assumptions, etc etc etc and that would just be too uncomfortable.

They're virtue-signalling SJWs. Or, as you put it, hackmum, terminally stupid. Both definitions work.

Seems some academics forget about the white abolishionist women, often from very privileged backgrounds, who at personal cost and risk, fought against slavery and for women's rights. To name a few:
Lucretia Mott;
Elizabeth Margaret Chandler!
Sarah and Angelica Grimke;
Lydia Maria Child and
Abby Kelley.

The people who accuse feminists of being white and middle class are invariably white and middle class themselves. They’re not just misogynists, they’re terminally stupid misogynists.

Should be a question mark after the end of my second sentence in my last paragraph of course

EJennings that forum is great, thank you for linking. Not black so only had a quick browse. The arguments there are not much different from here.

Disrespectful thanks for links - very clear why MRAs want to erode women’s rights and silence their voices in countries with a strong history of feminism (which is not only white middle class, of course). Making women’s rights feminism synonymous with middle class white women is historically inaccurate - not least because you can find black women and Asian women’s voices from mid-nineteenth century onwards and indeed also working-class women.

Middle class white women have however historically had greater opportunities to act for change, so what were/are they supposed to do? Nothing because they are white or use their position to help all women. Of course there is lots of work to be done and of course black, Asian and working class women can organise too, but you know, if you are a single working parent, as I am, then you know, it is actually helpful that those with more time and money travel to meetings and leaflet and protest, because they are able to and I cannot very easily.

Here is the link www.businessinsider.com/the-best-countries-for-women-us-news-world-report-2018-3?r=UK&IR=T#2-sweden-falling-one-position-from-its-top-spot-in-2017-swedes-have-the-most-progressive-attitudes-towards-gender-equality-according-to-a-report-from-yougov-20

By contrast, Best Countries to be a Woman:

Denmark.
Poland.
Portugal.
Italy.
Spain.
Japan.
United States.
Ireland.
France.
United Kingdom.
Austria.
Luxembourg.
Germany.
New Zealand.
Australia.
Switzerland.
Canada.
Finland.
Netherlands.
Norway.
Sweden.

Source: [[https://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-countries-for-women-us-news-world-report-2018-3?r=UK&IR=T#2-sweden-falling-

'white' has become a similarly safe group to behave badly to. When you call a group 'white middle class' you are dog whistling that you can take off the safety catch of all normal standards and go for them as hard as you like

That is true. For everyone who sneers about "white men", let me ask you: which countries have the best records for women's rights? Would it be countries like Sweden, which is overwhelmingly white? Which countries have the worst outcomes for women? Would they be: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, which are overwhelmingly not white? Which countries were the first to grant women the vote? Would they be New Zealand and Australia, which were / are largely white?

I see that Syria, which is a country with a tiny / virtually non-existent white population was nominated as this year's Worst Country to be a Woman.

The others:

Niger.
Sudan.
Mali.
Iraq.
Democratic Republic of Congo.
Central African Republic.
Pakistan.
Yemen.
Afghanistan.

Source: www.thisisinsider.com/worst-countries-for-women-2018-3#1-syrian-arab-republic-10

The sneering at ‘middle class’ feminists seems to come mainly from elite universities and university towns. The ‘right’ of women with penises to urinate wherever they want isn’t a priority for your average warehouse or callcentre worker who is lucky to get a toilet break at all.

Yy Ereshkigal. Absolutely.

another relevant point is that many of the people doing the sneering are also white and hmiddle class. And many people being sneered at in the gender critical cohort as a whole are not middle class.

Very true. The labels being applied aren't accurate - its an attempt to pull a veil of acceptability over what is happening by linguistic gymnastics.

YY:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203804-The-Deptford-People-Project-and-the-impact-of-self-ID-and-transactivism-on-working-class-women

It has been not only permissible but down right virtuous to sneer at and talk in ways about the 'middle class' in ways it isn't ok to talk about anyone else, and 'white' has become a similarly safe group to behave badly to. When you call a group 'white middle class' you are dog whistling that you can take off the safety catch of all normal standards and go for them as hard as you like.

I agree with this point, but another relevant point is that many of the people doing the sneering are also white and hmiddle class. And many people being sneered at in the gender critical cohort as a whole are not middle class.

I'm dumfounded by these assertions, by the likes of Peter Tatchell, that feminism has always been about just middle class white women.

It's bollocks of course, but it's quite intentional dog whistling.

It has been not only permissible but down right virtuous to sneer at and talk in ways about the 'middle class' in ways it isn't ok to talk about anyone else, and 'white' has become a similarly safe group to behave badly to. When you call a group 'white middle class' you are dog whistling that you can take off the safety catch of all normal standards and go for them as hard as you like.

Those of us who have been trying to point out since Blair's New Labour brought all this in that if you believe in discrimination, dehumanising and removing the rights of the group of people you've currently justified as deserving of it then frankly you've learned nothing from any of the world wars or any other atrocities. You are no more virtuous than they are, you believe in exactly what those people believed, you've just picked a different target group to focus on and successfully lied to yourself that this is ok.

Mr Tatchell is not big on things like other people's needs, rights and feelings being allowed to get in the way of them being used by those whom he would like to privilege with great freedom and power. See his comments on the age of consent. He and many others would like to separate society into the givers and the takers.

Love how they comment in shock at how uncivil the trans / feminist debate has become. Just awful.

How did the debate get so unpleasant? Anyone know? Does it have anything to do with trans-activists hunting down and harassing gender critical feminists on Twitter, no platforming them, vilifying them and accusing anyone who does not stick to the trans woke gospel of hate speech?

I fear I may actually combust with rage at Brian Paddick’s unreconstructed misogyny, after reading those links/his tweets.

And I was feeling quite chipper about it all earlier, what with that tweet from Oliver Burkeman re Mermaids. Like maybe sanity might just start to prevail.

The Lord giveth. And the Lord taketh away.