Helen Joyce & Julie Bindel: Should TERFs unite with the Right?

Something that also does not seem to get recognized by those third wave leftist feminists is they pretty much alianated huge numbers of women due to their political partisanship. Those women still went on and have talked about women's rights in their communities, voted according to their beliefs, joined groups of women to achieve concrete aims, and so on.

The fact that their views were cut off from the feminist discourse didn't stop them from existing, it only thinned out feminist discourse itself.

Well maybe. But I'm not sure how exactly? If 'woman' as a sex category/political category is erased, then it's easy to take everything else away from us. It seems to me that's the biggest threat we face right now. But women have been on an upward trajectory in the west as far as rights and freedoms are concerned. It's wokism and gender ideology that are knocking us off course.

But that was really an aside in my comment to you above, and I agree that we need to always be vigilant and defend our rights and freedoms.

I think I meant a left wing feminist analysis there.

I doubt that lobotomies were stopped due to a feminist analysis and I see no reason why stopping children being harmed through "puberty blockers" needs a feminist analysis either.

(Of course one can be done)

And the left doesn’t give two hoots about women’s rights, any more than the right does

Also, first wave feminism definitely wasn’t left wing and that was

1. feminism
2. effective

of all the ‘feminisms’, third wave is to my mind the most leftist, and also the shittest

If we retain the word woman, our rights are still up for grabs!

In the interview, JB's point was that second wave feminism was created through the work of left-wing women and that working within this framework of the bigger picture of women's rights is the only way that we will counter the material manifestations of gender ideology is medicalising of children and loss of single sex spaces, services and provisions.

This kind of academic language is one of the things I struggle with when it comes to the left. It sounds fancy, but when you break it down, it seems to rest on many questionable assumptions.

First of all, it may be true that second-wave feminism was the work of the left, but second-wave feminism achieved many of its goals and no longer exists in the same form, and the left of the 60s and 70s is likewise totally gone, the political landscape completely unrecognisable. So while it's fine to point out the roots of this part of feminism, I don't think it automatically follows that this established a "framework" which is the natural way or space or form within which we can counter gender ideology. "Working within the bigger picture of women's rights" - I assume this is saying that fighting against gender ideology is a narrow concern? I completely disagree there. If we can't say what a woman is, all our rights are up for grabs. But even if agreed, I'm not sure why it should follow that you can only effectively fight against gender ideology if you are working within this "framework" of leftist feminism. Clearly we can see that's not the case - some of the most effective campaigners are centrist or right wing or otherwise apolitical. Some of them are men!

I dunno

maybe I’m not clever enough to understand words like ‘framework’ and what meaning or relevance it has in this context

but HJ isn’t left wing and she seems to do good, solid feminist work. Likewise Nimco Ali

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on whether the left wing owns feminism

In the interview, JB's point was that second wave feminism was created through the work of left-wing women and that working within this framework of the bigger picture of women's rights is the only way that we will counter the material manifestations of gender ideology is medicalising of children and loss of single sex spaces, services and provisions.

That's why orgs like WPUK have been so important to women who are politically and materially on the left but have no place in the Labour party or other supposedly leftist groups.

I agree with every word of this. They're both brilliant.

I'm basically a suffragette. We all are, who do this. You don't have to throw yourself under a horse to be part of this.

There have been suffragist v suffragette discussions on FWR before now. iirc, Sarah Pedersen has written about that discussion and likened MN to a subaltern counterpublic.

“It’s what the suffragettes would have wanted”: the construction of the suffragists and suffragettes on Mumsnet

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2022.2032788

counterpublic.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/an-introduction-to-counterpublics/

Yes, it seems an odd position to take. If a woman who has views on the economy that are to the right, how on earth does that preclude her from working to help women and girls? It clearly doesn't.

I'm still mulling this discussion over and I think I'll watch it again. But having watched Nimco Ali on TV recently ably shooting down a sex work is work type, it recalled to me JB's apparent belief that feminism can only really be left wing.

Nimco Ali has shown astonishing personal courage to talk about the things she was put through, and to decide that it's her job to make sure no other little girls go through it. I would call that true feminism. I think she is politically right wing though. I wonder how JB would reconcile that?

Finally finished watching the interview!

I'm just in awe of both of these women. Their intelligence and integrity and humour is astonishing.

I find lots to agree on with both of them - even when they're in disagreement.

And I'm not surprised there is disagreement, because this is two women who are honest, well intentioned, and experienced bringing all of their wit and wisdom to the table. There's a huge range of issues all coming to a point - feminism, male violence, religion, societal movements, linguistics, sexuality, history, political leanings. And all of these are nuanced and interlinked and changeable and changing. So OF COURSE there will be disagreement. Sometimes it seems like one could define the issues more by what is not included than what is.

Imagine if the HoC was filled with women like this. More power to both of them. I know people worry about disagreement within the feminist movements; I think disagreement if it's done like this is powerful and positive and useful.

KJK is definitely gracious and respectful. I think the eye-rolling would be done privately- around any analysis which lays the blame solely on men.

I think JB likes a bit of drama though. I don’t believe all her pops at KJK are rooted in anything principled in any way.

Ah, I see the problem.

I'm pressing quote on my phone but it's not doing so. Works on laptop though.

Sorry, I can see what I thought were reply or quote posts just look like spam.

I agree! Lots of food for thought there - thank you EndlessTea !

Gosh what on earth have we been doing on this thread for the last 11 pages! Certainly nothing worth reading, that's for sure!

It's worth watching the video, there were some very interesting points made by both speakers.

You know, I'm not sure that's true. I think she knows it but she hasn't lived it, so maybe that's the difference. And actually I don't think JB has lived it, either. They are both very black and white in their thinking (which I think is a good thing when it comes to the sort of work they do) and both like a dog with a bone for their respective causes.

In fact, I can imagine them both being very eye-rolly about what the other has to say.

KJK has spoken many times about how much she admires and respects JB and thinks her work is amazing. JB has slagged KJK off and can't help having a go at her every time the opportunity arises!

Maybe they're just too alike.

Yes, I agree about male violence.

But you said those groups of women were squarely in the middle. I asked middle of what?

‘I haven’t read the thread or watched the video, but here’s my opinion!! It’s sure to be relevant, insightful and move the conversation along!!!’

Haven't rtft but why should Terfs join up with the right? If Terfs they do then I definitely would not count myself as one (am in two minds at the moment). It discounts anything they have to say, to me. I hate the right-wing with a passion. I think they would lose a lot of women's support that way.