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

Just something I wanted to say earlier... patriarchal power is expressed through material reality. It's not an abstract phenomena, women don't have to imagine it - we all live within it.

Saying that sexism, sex discrimination and misogyny exist because we live in a society constructed around male dominance (less formally now with legislative changes than it used to be but nevertheless).

If this wasn't the case, the fact that 15 year old girls are sexually assaulted in schools, that women still earn less than men and are regularly made redundant or sacked when they're pregnant, and that a load of MRAs feel entitled to scream abuse at women who gather to speak in public would all be isolated incidents.

Okay, I'm anti-feminist then. And I think women rape men and misogyny is a fantasy and whatever else it was you accused me of. You got me. You cleverly exposed the deep insanity and hatred that lies under my seemingly rational words and attempts at thinking through arguments.

Happy now?

That's why, as you said, we need women's rights. Because we don't have equality, sexism and misogyny are still endemic

Agree we still need women's rights and that sexism and misogyny are still a problem. We do have equality though. We are equal citizens under the law.

because we live in a social system where men have more power than women.

Disagree. We live in a society where in some areas men have more power, but in other areas women have more power. In many areas, power is not the relevant factor that we need to deal with. I do not agree with the woke-leftist ideology that says all relations are power relations, that to understand society we just have to understand who holds more power in each interaction. That's not how our society works. Yes, power can be a relevant factor - of course. It would be stupid to discount it. But it's also wrong to suggest women don't have institutional power. And it's not the case that the answers to all the issues come down to power relations.

Okay, I just wanted to respond to you before I duck out of the thread for a bit. Hope your xmas week is suitably festive and fun.

It's extremely unfair to characterise this argument as anti-feminist just because the word in question is 'patriarchy'. If the discussion was about a different label, would you be able to follow the argument being made?

It’s anti-feminist to suggest feminists using a key feminist word to describe the reality they find themselves in, from a feminist perspective, are being unethical.

Just as it would be anti-anything to tell people belonging to their school of thought that using one of their key words is unethical.

Tea, I like you a lot, but I'm going to stop engaging with this discussion for a while. I think you've totally missed the point and for whatever reason, you're really angry about it and some of the things you've said are just upsetting. And like I say, it's a stressful time of year.

Sending you peaceful xmas vibes.

I went to great lengths to explain the feminist use of patriarchy/patriarchal to mean roughly male dominance/female submission and the associated phenomena, and not the narrow, fixed, rigid and unusual use of the word you proposed.

Well gosh, tea. I also went to great lengths to explain why I disagree with your characterisation as the UK as a society of male dominance/female submission, without once ever dismissing the idea of sexism, misogyny or vawg.

And whether you agree or not, there is a valid argument about how using a label to explain particular phenomena can obscure the workings it's meant to explain. It's extremely unfair to characterise this argument as anti-feminist just because the word in question is 'patriarchy'. If the discussion was about a different label, would you be able to follow the argument being made?

I'm sure there are elements of your argument that I'm not understanding, too, but all I can do is keep asking questions and trying to clarify my own views. I'd really appreciate the same courtesy from you, rather than leaping to the worst - and frankly, most insulting - interpretation of my words and accusing me of absolutely horrible things with zero justification.

I know you did say earlier that the discussion was annoying to you. Maybe I should have stopped engaging then, before it got to this point. It's a stressful time of year.

My analogy, was to imagine a scenario where various different phenomena are observed, but you are not allowed to mention the common cause.

mangyinseam said, the analogy was wrong, it was more like observing different phenomena and making up some non-existent ‘imaginarium’ to be the common cause. Basically saying that when feminists speak of patriarchy/patriarchy they are inventing a substance like phlogiston.

I think you misunderstood.

No you misunderstood Mangy's meaning. She was referring to your analogy of the solar system (I think it was). She wasn't saying patriarchy is imaginary.

Agree.

Just because Nicola Sturgeon is a woman, doesn’t mean the decisions she’s making aren’t increasing inequality between women and men, empowering men (even those with the darkest motives) disempowering women (those at their most vulnerable). She is the ultimate handmaiden. Creating new avenues for male dominance.

’imaginarium’ indeed.

Well, Scotland have just turned up the dial another level to further patriarchial power (meaning male power), so I would argue that there is plenty of leverage within democracy for patriarchal power grabs!

In recent years, just in the UK, discrimination towards women and poorer outcomes for women have been independently identified in the police service, health care providers, the justice system, schools and universities. The sex-based pay gap remains, while violence towards women and girls appears to be increasing while we are simultaneously increasingly failed by the justice system.

None of these institutions nor the laws that govern them set out to be sexist or misogynistic. In fact, no-one even noticed it before women started making a noise, and then more and then more.

It's not a coincidence that the sexual discrimination/sexism in these structures and systems is directed towards women. It's not split with men, not even a little bit.

That's why, as you said, we need women's rights. Because we don't have equality, sexism and misogyny are still endemic because we live in a social system where men have more power than women.

It's patriarchal. It's not only patriarchal, but a features of our society is that organised around and recreates male dominance.

No one here is saying male dominance is imagined
**
clearly, imaginarium
**
That's what I'm trying to say when I say that the word 'patriarchy' obscures rather than explains.

I went to great lengths to explain the feminist use of patriarchy/patriarchal to mean roughly male dominance/female submission and the associated phenomena, and not the narrow, fixed, rigid and unusual use of the word you proposed.

Sorry, tea, but what???

No one here is saying male dominance is imagined, or misogyny is a fantasy or women are abusing men.

Who do you think is saying that? Could you please quote and go through the process of breaking down how you got to this interpretation because frankly I'm completely lost here. I'm certainly not saying or thinking any of the things you claim.

Yes, thank you. That's what I'm trying to say when I say that the word 'patriarchy' obscures rather than explains. Why I don't see it's utility for feminist analysis except with regard to actual patriarchies.

The idea of the husband and wife becoming radically one is much older of course, and I would argue, theoretically much more balanced - it means that the other is meant to be given the same kind of love we give ourselves, and our own good can't be pursued apart from theirs. Lots of important ideas that are particular to western views on marriage come out of that.

Yes, I agree with that. And I was also wondering about that period of time when coverture became law. The question of how customs become laws, or laws become customs, is very interesting - although I think a bit beyond the scope of this thread!

And this brings us back to the question of whether we can fight patriarchy in a vacuum - is it possible to fight patriarchy and for women’s rights without also addressing the other ways patriarchal control manifests? Could you understand how the conservative US Supreme Court is ruling without recognizing the way their attacks on abortion are also accompanied with rulings about corporations, about race, about the limits of police, privacy, etc.? Can you effectively be a feminist and want to destroy patriarchy but uphold the way patriarchy works through other forms of control? And that’s the question of whether a feminist agenda can work with the right wing (which means different things in different countries as well, obviously depending on political climate.)

Yes, I think this is a key question. Because if you sign up to the idea that the role of feminism is to "fight patriarchy" when we aren't actually living in a patriarchal system, we end up in a situation where "patriarchy" comes to mean all the way that the state wields power. It becomes this globalising explanation for "society". So if you're a right-wing woman who thinks that, I don't know, we need stronger privacy laws, or that the police need better funding, then you can be characterised as "upholding the patriarchy" and therefore you are automatically at odds with the feminists who are "fighting the patriarchy". So working together seems like a terrible idea.

I think that's a perceptive set of questions. It does explain some of the left's vitriol towards the right. And some of JB's comments about why she thinks it's impossible to fight gender ideology outside of feminism. Because to her, "the patriarchy" is everything and everywhere.

But this is not a comparable analogy.

A comparable analogy would be, I see these seven phenomena, and I think they might be related, so I am going to call the thing that relates them Imaginarium, and when people ask the cause of these things, or how they actually become instantiated, the answer is, clearly, imaginarium is the cause, and the way it happens is through the function of the imaginarium.

Saying that society is patriarchal isn't saying that male power in the UK is the same as in Iran. Of course it's not, it's a question of degree.

Disagree. I think it's a question of different societal models. It's not like we're Patriarchy-Lite. You couldn't simply turn up the dial and we'd get a full-on patriarchy. You'd have to re-make society, undo laws, institute new powers etc. I'd say it's like comparing democracy with communism. You can't say it's just a question of degree - that we do have some shared wealth systems and we enshrine the idea of equality so we're Communism-Lite. We have a different model.

Modern day Britain isn't as racist as the American south in the 1930s, but that doesn't mean that there's not still structural racism.

Disagree. I think this is circling back round to an earlier point. There is still racism in America but America is not structurally designed to oppress black people. It's a good comparator I think because we can also say there are hangovers from the former structural racism encoded in laws etc in the way that e.g. black people still have a harder time getting up the housing ladder because of laws repealed decades ago, or that as a generalisation, black people are more likely to live in poverty, in part because of the inability to accumulate personal wealth through generations. So while there are still disadvantages and still issues with racism against black people, America isn't structurally racist in the way the CRT advocates claim.

Yes, it's a very male dominated system. Though it's also worth noting it occurs in the early modern period. Women's place in society in much of the west, I would argue, took something of a nosedive at that time.

We do have to be careful not to assume things like owning property, or voting, or whatever, had the same kind of significance in the past as now. Sometimes they didn't culturally, so you do have to look at the bigger picture.

The idea of the husband and wife becoming radically one is much older of course, and I would argue, theoretically much more balanced - it means that the other is meant to be given the same kind of love we give ourselves, and our own good can't be pursued apart from theirs. Lots of important ideas that are particular to western views on marriage come out of that.

I just did, in that post - differing reproductive role.

But different instances do not necessarily have the same genesis or the same mechanism. You have to study each and look at these things based on the material reality.

What you've said here shows very clearly why using the term patriarchy as a blanket explanation is so problematic, it actually makes you think you understand something when all you've done is given a generalized name to phenomena you think are related in some way.

Just on the women's rights and men's rights point.
beastlyslumber you agreed that MRAs leveraged gender ideology to increase their power. They have been remarkably successful, because they already held power over the group whose rights they have been trying to take away.

Meanwhile, feminists and other women have had to fight tooth and nail for every right they have and are currently fighting, not always successfully, to hold on to them. Because we were already in a socially weaker position.

Saying that society is patriarchal isn't saying that male power in the UK is the same as in Iran. Of course it's not, it's a question of degree.

Modern day Britain isn't as racist as the American south in the 1930s, but that doesn't mean that there's not still structural racism.

Hi @Misstache your post is quite dense with content and I would need to give it a lot of deep consideration. I have part of my mind on this thread as I am faffing about at the moment so I doubt I’ll be able to answer quickly.

This idea that patriarchy harms men - particularly the “wrong kind” of man is important to this discussion because patriarchy doesn’t occur in a vacuum - there isn’t going to be a society that is highly patriarchal without also being xenophobic, homophobic, racist, etc. This is because the ideology of patriarchal power is also tied to nationhood - women produce the future workers of the state and so must be controlled - and so it is also accompanied by other forms of control. The hardcore Evangelical Christian Right in the US, for example (not talking about all conservatives here, but specifically the growing Christian nationalist movement) isn’t just in favour of banning abortion rights, they also see unions as communist (weakening the state), immigration as dangerous (dilutes the national identity), pluralism is a threat, other religions as ungodly and contaminating, are in favour of authoritarian policing and control, against humanist education, etc. A strong society in this reading needs strong, pure, men. So a poor, foreign, disabled etc man is also going to suffer under patriarchal control as he is seen as also weakening/contaminating the state. In its extreme example this is why Nazi ideology targeted Jews, communists, racial minorities, gay people, etc while also pushing the ideal German Aryan woman as producing future Aryans, being sexually “hygienic” (women’s degeneracy produces disabled children, for example, in a Eugenicist reading), mothering in service of the state and so forth.

And this brings us back to the question of whether we can fight patriarchy in a vacuum - is it possible to fight patriarchy and for women’s rights without also addressing the other ways patriarchal control manifests? Could you understand how the conservative US Supreme Court is ruling without recognizing the way their attacks on abortion are also accompanied with rulings about corporations, about race, about the limits of police, privacy, etc.? Can you effectively be a feminist and want to destroy patriarchy but uphold the way patriarchy works through other forms of control? And that’s the question of whether a feminist agenda can work with the right wing (which means different things in different countries as well, obviously depending on political climate.)