Online conference on the failures of liberal feminism

I just know that if I take what they write at its face value, CW are very into essentialist gender roles, male breadwinners and female homemakers. They say as much and in very explicit terms. Yeah, I guess I could tie myself into knots and try to present their argument as a feminist one but it would be clutching at straws a bit. I wouldn’t call my position purity politics. Conservatives have never embraced feminism so I’m not surprised they are pissed off with it. There’s at least one article about how feminism means that women won’t find a husband because who would fancy a feminist. For me, it’s all a bit 1950s, thanks and I’m happier fighting for liberation from gender roles and a more equal division of labour in the home.

Reality, I wasn’t very clear, I admit, I asked for receipts that CW want us all to be housewives (as implied by my subsequent comment about economic arrangements). I still have problems believing that that is a serious political goal of British conservatism. Even a theocracy like Iran has substantial female employment rates.

Household duties (!) prevent me from doing a full textual analysis of the linked content but I’m guessing these are knee-jerk jeremiads against mainstream feminism, possibly blaming feminists for problems that have complex causes. Does that mean we should never engage with these arguments? Isn’t it worth analysing why some conservative women feel so pissed off with feminism in its current state? What is the definition of a ‘feminist’ argument? These days, I disagree quite strongly with some feminists, does that mean I should shut up and stay in my kitchen? You’re scared by pro-natalism (encouraging women to have many children - a position actually embraced by some suffragists), I’m scared by purity politics.

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/in-praise-of-the-brave-female-anti-feminists/

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/lets-salute-the-men-who-fight-the-dark-forces-of-feminism/

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-feminists-trashed-the-husband-and-breadwinner-role-men-are-not-coming-back/

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-dogs-are-more-desirable-than-feminists/

Just a selection of what they offer. No doubt I will be told that this actually is feminism and that I’ve just misunderstood.

Oh and I think the domestic sphere should be given more attention too. I don’t think domestic work is inherently ‘female’ and I find anything to do with encouraging women to have kids for the wider public good quite scary.

I know nothing about the ins and outs of “official feminism” but I am pretty bemused to read that someone would consider MH not feminist. I must be missing something? Her comments resonated with me, I had the feeling she cares about the issues that I care about and I am female ... please, what is the issue? I didn’t think she was advocating for returning all women to the domestic sphere. I thought she just suggested that the domestic sphere needs to be paid more attention, something that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Is MH a feminist? She identifies as one, for sure. Is she principally concerned with women’s position in society? Yes. Does she care about women’s interests and well-being? It appears so.

And do you really want to get to the point when a woman intellectual whose arguments are dismissed with “you’re not a feminist!” just shrugs and says “whatevs”?

“Not a big fan of MH as she writes for Conservative Woman who are about as anti-feminist as you can get and want us all to be housewives”

Even if that were true (receipts?), our current economic arrangements would not allow it.

Immigration brings problems, sure. I don't accept Mary's implied message that the "native" population should reproduce, otherwise there will be economic consequences that cannot be offset by immigration because "xenophobia".

Yeah that sounds a bit worrying. Not a big fan of MH as she writes for Conservative Woman who are about as anti-feminist as you can get and want us all to be housewives. The world is massively overpopulated so telling everyone to have loads of kids is irresponsible.

Immigration brings problems, sure. I don't accept Mary's implied message that the "native" population should reproduce, otherwise there will be economic consequences that cannot be offset by immigration because "xenophobia".

The less robust and stable the community is to begin with the more difficult that process will be. But even a very stable community will have limits on what will be possible in a limited amount of time.

There is also the problem that this kind of immigration is in part talking about bringing people in to stabilise the ponzi scheme that is modern capitalism. And the people on the bottom are usually going to suffer in that situation. That will create rightful resentment on their part, and guilty resentment at the top. Not a good combination.

(You could also as a lot of questions about the degree to which a place like the UK which has quite high population density can accommodate more people, or the ethics of taking people from other places to serve the needs of your own wealthy population and leaving the other place poor and underserved.)

I think a robust refugee system is important, and also allowing people to immigrate when there is marriage or family connections. But I'm not convinced that it is normally a real answer to economic problems.

I would say this is one of the things that has plagued feminist thought, and I don't mean liberal feminism either - resulting in a set of views that can be all over the place and not very consistent, not very reflective on social structures that someone decided were non-liberating, etc.

Harrington is quite interesting on those topics, but in some ways I am surprised she's been accepted as a feminist thinker at all simply because she asks them - there has been a strong tendency for some feminists to ring-fence what counts as acceptable feminist thinking by women - many of those women have stopped calling themselves feminists and simply stopped engaging in that discourse, they've taken it to other forums where they will actually be treated as having something to contribute. Which has been very damaging overall IMO as it's left feminist thought without the internal challenges it requires to have real intellectual power.

Chestnut

Am conscious that my posts are quite long, but it's true that old-fashioned liberals are put off by the authoritarian tendencies of certain social movements but, because they are fundamentally on board with empowering individuals, they can't see the larger problem.

The larger problem being to always instinctively adopt the position "Who am I to judge?" (how about "you are a human being capable of rational thought and moral judgment, so why not exercise it?") and to celebrate anything that can make a claim to "liberation" without asking about the costs and consequences of said "liberation". Which brings us back to the way in which women have been "liberated" from having children/looking after children and the question whether that has been an unadulterated good for everybody involved. It feels transgressive to even ask the question, we're touching on real societal taboos here, right?

Regarding immigration

First generation immigrants (not speaking about refugees) make their choice to move countries knowingly and know that they will benefit from it overall. I think in return they accept that they are treated slightly differently and maybe don't expect their experiences or interests to outweigh those of the existing population. It's much harder for second-generation immigrants who had no choice in the matter and - rightly - do not feel they should be treated any differently. So there is this generational side to the issue.

It has long been an argument of social scientists that the Nordic countries were able to develop such generous welfare states because their societies were so homogeneous. There does seem to be a link between the level of taxes that people are willing to pay and the internal ethnic or racial diversity of a society because humans tend to be less generous to people who they regard as 'not like me'. I make no value judgment on that, it seems to be what the data suggests. So if you have mass immigration, you can expect less generous welfare systems. Women depend on the welfare state quite a bit because they tend to have fewer assets than men (maybe they are also more reliant on public healthcare?)

Then there is the cost of immigration. I agree that the point "immigration causes xenophobia" needs elaboration. You don't have to be anti-immigrant to acknowledge that a diversifying society incurs some costs, especially in the absence of assimilation. Of course you also have some benefits, and it is probably very difficult to conclusively answer the question which outweighs which. Angela Nagle has engaged with this question in a (IMO) thought-provoking article called "The Left case against open borders." Worth reading. The point is that the benefits of immigration are not necessarily distributed equally.

Finally, there is the more basic point about democracy and self-determination. Should a majority in a democratic society have the right to say "we do not want more immigration"? I think, on balance, and with qualifications, the answer is yes.

What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

I think we (as a country and as a continent) seem to have given little thought to how to reduce the risk of xenophobia through immigration. It seems to be that we have policies around border control but then once people are in the country there is little thought given to how to encourage integration and community cohesion. I say this as someone who has lived as an immigrant in other countries that have given a lot more thought to this. In other words, xenophobia is not an inevitable consequence of immigration.

It's been interesting to me that certain classical liberals are among those who are pushing back on this stuff, usually with an emphasis on what they call "enlightenment values.". Though they are not the only groups by any stretch.

I thought Mary Harrington's arguments about the economic damage caused by declining fertility amongst "the native population" were weak. The obvious answer is immigration. She says this isn't an answer because "xenophobia". What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

I have be longing to hear someone address the issues of motherhood and interdependence which Mary Harrington covered so eloquently

Yes, I'm still reflecting on her contributions to the seminar. Her starting point about the "Mother-shaped hole" in feminism was powerful. I think actually it's a "Mother-shaped hole" in our society.

Our working culture, for example, is organised & structured around the male body, and the male life pattern that comes from the male body. Work without a stop from 23 to 65, then retire.

We've somehow squeezed women into that working culture, by dint of women either doing two shifts (and mostly daring not to speak about being a mother in the workplace), or sacrificing motherhood pretty much altogether, or by using money to buy in caring services - although that is also a man/father's responsibility although we rarely berate MEN for buying in caring services.

Somehow this is another thing that women with children, and who also work (for money outside the home), have to feel guilty for ...

But the thing that really stopped me in my tracks, and has made me go back to watch the recording was Ms Harrington's thinking about the future, in response to one of Ms Perry's question about falling fertility rates, at around 43 minutes in. Ms Harrington's answer is in 2 parts, and in the 2nd part, she muses on a possibly dystopian consequence of falling fertility rates in the UK.

In summary, she wonders about a political pressure on falling fertility rates having an effect in 2 or 3 generations on women's ability to undertake education & careers ie limiting women's opportunities. She acknowledges it's a possibly dystopian thought, but she then links it to incel politics and pressures on women ...

Worrying & fascinating.

I thought Mary made great points about the nature of motherhood and it’s absence from „mainstream“ feminism. It’s a massive, massive, deal. Whether or not it is truly a „choice“ to have children in this day and age, we have to recognise that many many women do, and indeed are very keen on doing so, and this has very significant consequences for those women. For me also a glaring omission in current public policy is any serious attempt to make fathers financially responsible for their offspring. Failure to support could be pursued far more vigorously, criminal penalties imposed etc. Instead it seems conspicuously absent from policy debate.

Thank you so much for posting this, it was fantastic.

I have be longing to hear someone address the issues of motherhood and interdependence which Mary Harrington covered so eloquently. I hope to hear more about it.

Thank you to all the speakers, I loved listening to you all and thank you OP for posting the video here.

I agree, and to me, mainstream feminism in the UK has become incredibly parochial. The recent focus on race is welcome but if the women that are now being heard are identical to white, wealthy, educated women in every other respect but ethnicity, then that’s incredibly one-dimensional. I often wonder about the experience of women from Eastern Europe in the UK. It’s a large group but where are they in mainstream media?

But I want to come back to the ‘liberalism’ issue because that’s the overarching political framework. I know we talk about gender identity a lot on this board but there is a bigger, systemic issue here, and gender identity activism and the way in which it is detrimental to women is only one symptom of a wider political malaise (at least I think that’s what Mary Harrington was implying).

Sadly, I can’t discuss this with most of the smart women I know because they don’t accept that gender identity activism has been detrimental to women (lala lala, fingers in ears etc. etc.)

Thanks for linking this.
Big fan of Kathleen Stock.

In Spring 2019 there was a huge Supreme Court case in Kenya around gay rights. Kenyan gay rights campaigners were working tirelessly to try to overturn laws criminalising homosexual acts but the Supreme Court upheld them all. This was huge news in Kenya and yet I didn't hear a word from many so-called LGBT activists in the UK. It's become clear to me that many of these "activists" are actually just out there to promote themselves via the latest bandwagon. I can completely understand Nimko's frustration.

listening to Nimco Ali really hit home how non-trivial this all is. It’s literally a life-or-death issue.

During the week I was reading about a public health education initiative in a country I'm not going to name. Part of the background for it was that in an education year group of girls, 20% will have been raped in the last year -

The reality of the life of African women and girls a brutal example of Jeffrey's sex castes and is non-trivial.

It was quite upsetting and infuriating to hear Nimco Ali talk about how FGM discussions are being derailed by trans activists because they think it's transphobic to be focused on the biological realities of African women and girls.

I will never forgive nor forget this ideological movement in its incessant disrespect and disregard for the lives of women and girls. 'Intersectional feminism' my arse.