Oh dear. A split.

Thanks for posting the link, Screaming .

I don't see the point of the original Tweet, what is SD trying to say? GC people have been lumped in with feminism, probably because of the TERF slur, so some may wrongly consider themselves to be so? Or that GC people think that this is the only feminist issue, and therefore name themselves as such without understanding whatever other issues feminists want people to understand and adhere to? Why not just say that instead of being PA about it? Gender critical does not equal feminism (although I don't think you can call yourself feminist without being GC), and that's a good thing. It's strength is that is is a broad church, because it is based on reality, not ideology. What stupid, divisive tweets, and what a way to alienate your donors!

That post reads to me as sneery about SAHM. That may not be what Serwotka meant but she should have clarified. It's all a bit mean girls

I've not RTFT so it might have already been posted but I found this and particularly the replies to it to be very informative:

twitter.com/ruthserwotka/status/1471136318260404228

Thanks Screaming.

See, I read that and I don't get the 'domesticated' to be a dig a women who have the need or the opportunity to make paid employment work around child rearing or do not choose to work in paid employment to raise their children.

I read that as someone being a 'zombie' because they seem to have not thought deeply about what they are saying. But are not going to kill anyone, and can be influenced or ordered to do and say things for the cause.

I agree though, these tweets are not aimed at bringing people who are new to the discussion into the discussion. They do seem rather 'gatekeepers'.

And I am basing this on two tweets and without wider context at all (making me a bit of a domesticated zombie).

Totally agree with you, CharlieParley

Nothing more domesticated than taking your husband's name, Ruth Serwotka.

Sorry about my crap typing at the moment! I need to cut my nails

Here is rhw domestic lated zombies tweet, and in context - which doesn't make it any better.

It's not the first time Sarah Ditum has been sneery and gatekeepery either.

Still, we march onwards, sometimes rubbing shoulders with people we don't agree with or don't like.

Feminism as a whole seems to have an uneasy relationship with motherhood and domesticity.
I agree with this and felt it from my own position in the past wanting time to bring up kids.
Ive been trying to unpick the whole complex issue of childcare, feminism and its place within capitalism in a few pithy sentences but am struggling and think someone else might do it better! I think Posie is introducing the whole class issue and she has a point, though there are other things she has said in the past that Ive disagreed with.
As people say, we dont all think in unison like a lot of nodding dogs and thank god for that.

Because some posters like to be able to say that people pointing that out are all in an 'echo chamber' rather than acknowledge that their arguments are just plain old ill thought out and don't stand up to scrutiny unless people are being 'kind'. Because they don't have any foundation to their arguments except emotional manipulation (and condemnation in some instances).

Hence - the echo chamber / all feminists agree / you are all [insert whatever slur you have seen used by those with poor arguments].

Hence - threads like this expressing faux surprise that some of us disagree with other people.

When you are fully committed to believing in mantras, it is rather hypocritical to tell feminists they are in echo chambers.

But then again... those who are committed to those mantras are also good at projection, and shielding themselves from the truths discovered by critical thinking and independence.

It’s bizarre to expect all gender critical people to agree on everything else as well. I just don’t understand that logic at all. We’re a diverse bunch with different political leanings, of course there will be differences of opinion.

I see that the OP has no interest in discussing the merits of Kellie and Ruth's arguments. What a surprise?

FFS.

More of the left wing / right wing accusations. That is something I am getting tired of seeing from anyone.

It is a divisive accusation from activists keen to cause fractures.

Being called right wing often has nothing to do with your actual political position, it is just used as a generic insult by many these days!

[quote julieca]@Redlake you should know by now you cant say anything critical here about Kellie Jay. You are wasting your time.[/quote]
Really? I criticise Kellie Jay often enough. I criticise many people in this movement. That is another hilarious take.

julieca you seem quite keen to paint regulars as being a hive mind or something. In fact, this is not the first time you have tried to convey that MN FWR is an 'echo chamber' I think you said a while back.

Strange how the logic simply continues to defy your wishful thinking. So, not only does Kellie Jay Keen not agree with some people in the same movement. But here many of us are saying that we support her but acknowledge that we don't agree with every single thing she says.

And you are STILL trying to tell people we are in some kind of echo chamber.

That is more of a chamber pot of an argument there and I am sure most people who are regular readers would agree with my 'take' on your 'take.'

CharlieParley I completely agree. Motherhood is important to women and children and should be important. Liberation of women shouldn't mean escaping motherhood but ensuring that those who choose that route are valued as much by society as those who take a different path.
I really like the fact that PP is prepared to speak about how important motherhood is.

Feminism as a whole seems to have an uneasy relationship with motherhood and domesticity. It doesn't matter whether you look at radical feminism or liberal feminism or whichever branch of feminism you care to examine. In my view it's a major shortcoming and failure, because 80% of us give birth, and a large majority of mothers take time out to be SAHMs for at least the first important months of their children's lives. And the overwhelming majority are dealing with the bulk of domestic work.

Liberation, again no matter which version, seems to be viewed only through one lens, that of freeing us from domestic work and being SAHMs. A shortsighted aim that would result in harm for many children (in case they're unaware, that's been done before. Including in the communist country I grew up in. I was one of those children. It was absolutely undeniably unequivocally harmful to the children who suffered through it.)

But even today feminists devalue women's domestic work and Ruth and Sarah are not the only and certainly not the first feminists to look down on SAHMs as domesticated zombies.

I've come to the conclusion that true liberation necessitates that we resolve this conflict because it doesn't just arrise from patriarchal oppression. There's the simple fact that it benefits the child to have its mother provide this vital care in the first stage of its psycho-social development.

(Ignoring for the sake of argument here that there's a small percentage of mothers whose children would benefit more from being almost in anyone else's care than theirs.)

But in thinking of us like that, Ruth and Sarah do nothing more than follow their programming (or female socialisation if you will). It's a very patriarchal opinion to hold and it serves a specific purpose in driving a wedge between feminists and ordinary women.

She was an active member of the Labour Party and her local Labour women's group until a couple of years ago. What makes her right wing?

Was she?
I didn't know that.

I just had the impression from those critical of her that she takes a more right leaning position on some issues.

I was always on the left, and now get 'accused' of being right. It's happened to lots of us who don't actually feel we've moved.

There's another, better explanation here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism

It's significant because I think the vast majority of people would imagine that all transgender people have gender dysphoria and either want to undergo, or have undergone, medical transition. They don't know that that only applies these days to a small number of people who describe themselves as trans.

It's not just that Kelly Jay isn't an academic feminist.

She's also evidently right wing.

So she's never going to agree with everything with socialist academic types.

But we can all agree men can't be women.
That's all.

Whoa! What? I've never heard this. What does 'truscum' even mean?

The idea is that people who have gender dysphoria and then undergo surgery fancy themselves as "true" trans, and look down on people who simply choose to identify as trans. Therefore the latter group think of the first group as "scum" for prancing about thinking themselves superior. I think that's the logic. There's an explanation here, though I'm not sure how accurate it is:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truscum

Does anyone have a link to the "domesticated zombies" tweet? Thank you in advance.

However, what they or anyone thinks of each other has nothing to do with the movement to keep male bodied individuals out of female spaces. We fight that fight for women we will never meet, never agree with, never understand, never have anything in common with and will never like. Because it's about protecting the sex based rights and safety of ALL women, because of the thing all women have in common - our sex. It's not a cult of personality. "Goodness", "rightness", "stunning and braveness", utilitarian value to society, academic achievement, workplace success, none of that matter one jot.

I think Kellie Jay is great.

A lot of the blue tick feminists are great too.

But I don't call myself a feminist anymore as I'm not able, and don't want to, meet the criteria or doctrine you must espouse to avoid the 'you're no feminist' accusation.

I'd rather just agree: no I'm not.
I think alot of it is wrong and damging to women.

But I do agree men can't be women.

I don’t agree with Posie on everything. But she’s very effective and clear. She certainly opened up the debate to a lot of us “domesticated zombies”.

This isn’t the first time an academic feminist has taken a shot at her. It won’t be the last.
🤷‍♀️

She’s no fool, she can look after herself.