Interesting Heather Brunskell-Evans interview

I agree that most of women not progressing is not about misogyny in the workplace (in the U.K.). I used to assume that nobody actually thought this and it was a straw man anyway.

But I am seeing more and more now that this is a belief in grievance studies.

I consider the feminist goal to be not to get women to the top in all workplaces, but to make sure that the other choices women make don’t have as necessary consequences a high risk of extreme poverty, deprivation and violence.

I'd qualify by saying (i) 'purely' the result of choice then and (ii) also point out that 'choices' are often situated and structured - and that one of the organising structures is patriarchy (and the gendering of men and women respectively).

As it happens - I LOVE trains. And planes. And rocks. And space. However, when I was a child, a young girl, I was mocked for these interests. I was not allowed the presents I wanted (mainly scientific) and was taught about femininity. Last time I approached a trainspotter to ask what he was expecting by I was talked down to (so I crossed the tracks and saw the vintage railcar anway).

Like I said - choice is complicated.

I've personally got very little time for Lindsay and Pluckrose. I do not see them and the 'grievance studies' cabal as feminist allies at all.

There was an interview I saw with some of this group (they were on a panel) with a young man who worked for Google. They were discussing discrimination against women in the workforce and they were arguing against the glass ceiling (in effect) and challenging that workplaces were sexist and misogynistic and arguing that women's lack of presence in male-dominated workplaces and advancement in others was the result of 'choice'.

Fundamentally, they are still liberals and advocates of a choice ideology - I do not see them as feminists. Their lambasting of feminism is fairly broad and is not restricted to queer theory.

I heard her on something else- might have been unspeakable.

She has very much taken against Cynical Theories.

Cynical Theories is very clear and easy to understand. I don’t really understand what Brunskell Evans is trying to say. She says Foucault is really useful for GC feminists but gives no straightforward explanation as to how or why.

Her brushing off Foucault’s promotion of paedophilia as him not applying his own theory properly is ludicrous.

Her argument seems to be that people who have done all these terrible things inspired by Foucault misunderstood him, and Foucault misunderstood himself.

His theory can’t be that great then, if it led to this massive misunderstanding.

Thanks I'll have a look - a bit above my head but will help!

I've just watched Boyce's new Will Malone video which is excellent and underlines the lack of data for the (pro) medicalisation of children as well as the lack of allowed debate.

Probably covers the same ground in her essay here:savageminds.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-michel-foucault