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

I think this might be a case of glass half full/half empty - what do you think? Because I feel very positive about the position of women in the UK generally, while acknowledging there are some big issues still to work on.

I do actually feel very positive, looking at how far we have come, even in the last decade. And yet I do feel that women are still in a parlous condition, despite having achieved legal equality.

How hard the pushback I’ve observed, to any feminist gains, makes it painfully obvious that the laws may have been won, but opponents are kicking and screaming. Also the concerted efforts to undo feminists gains, even those which are long held. Furthermore (as we’ve discussed on a few other threads), there are influxes of people with old fashioned patriarchal beliefs taking hold. Even UK feminists can’t see what is wrong with notions of ‘modesty’. Also, we have not yet resolved how mothers with small children can engage in full political participation, because systems and processes have been developed with men in mind.

Some of it is to do with sexism and misogyny and patriarchal phenomena, definitely. But it's only a part of the story. So the use of the word patriarchal to describe the situation, rather than being a useful analytical tool, seems to obviate the need to truly understand what's going on.

I don’t think so. Sexism, misogyny, patriarchy. All useful words to describe phenomena. They don’t have to tell the whole story to explain part of it - the part that is relevant for feminist discussion.

E.g. it's obviously not the case that the lack of rape convictions is solely due to misogyny. There are other factors, e.g. the nature of the crime not usually having witnesses, which makes reasonable doubt a bigger influence; the role of alcohol in many rapes; the fact that rapes often occur within established relationships etc etc. It's complicated

I agree it is complicated, but why is it that male rape victims are more likely to secure a conviction than female ones? Why the disparity?

<<good luck with all the Xmas faff>>

Same! I'm literally avoiding my family responsibilities by chatting on here instead!!

What is your definition of rule, which you insist is unequivocally intrinsic to the meaning of the arch/archy part of patriarchy?

Okay, the definition I'm using is the ability of men to control women, backed up by a larger authority, such as the church, laws etc. So individual males may control individual women, but in the UK that's not sanctioned by a bigger authority, so it remains at an individual level (though of course having an impact on wider society.) A random man can try to tell me to cover my hair but he can't make me except by force. And in theory at least, if he tried this, he would be the one to get in trouble, because he's the one breaking the law.

I would agree that is patriarchy in action, but I don’t think it requires a government which is explicitly patriarchal for that to be the case. The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

I see where you're coming from but I think the legal status/authority is a vital distinction. It's not okay for men to harrass me in the street. Society as a whole doesn't sanction it. The media doesn't excuse it (as much as it used to). The law is against it. Now I completely agree that there are issues to do with sexual harassment and assault which probably have roots in sexism and misogyny. But it's not the case that any man can rule over me - in fact, in principle, no man can rule over me simply by virtue of being a man.

I think this might be a case of glass half full/half empty - what do you think? Because I feel very positive about the position of women in the UK generally, while acknowledging there are some big issues still to work on. I feel grateful to the women who went before me and secured equal rights for me. I value my freedoms and exercise them as fully as I'm able at any given opportunity. And when I see a threat to these rights and freedoms (from gender ideology) I feel determined not to have them taken from me.

Whereas perhaps(?) you feel that women are still in a parlous condition, despite having achieved legal equality. We are still influenced by the threat of rape, which often goes unpunished. And there are many situations where women struggle and suffer more than their male counterparts. I don't disagree with these things, but I think it's a bit one-dimensional. I think the explanation for these things being patriarchy/patriarchal systems is inadequate. Some of it is to do with sexism and misogyny and patriarchal phenomena, definitely. But it's only a part of the story. So the use of the word patriarchal to describe the situation, rather than being a useful analytical tool, seems to obviate the need to truly understand what's going on. E.g. it's obviously not the case that the lack of rape convictions is solely due to misogyny. There are other factors, e.g. the nature of the crime not usually having witnesses, which makes reasonable doubt a bigger influence; the role of alcohol in many rapes; the fact that rapes often occur within established relationships etc etc. It's complicated - saying it's 'patriarchal' doesn't help us understand the various factors. Or it doesn't help me!

Apologies for self quote:

The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

I wanted to add that not all Iranian men are happy about the regime either, I bet there are thousands who despise the regime and hate seeing how the women in their lives and country are treated. I bet many of them put themselves at risk to support the women in their current rebellion.

I imagine there are some women who have also made the regime somehow work for them, Queen Bees, probably involving screwing over other women in some way, but think all the protesters are insolent slappers and deserve all they get, too.

The fact that we have rights is the reason we don't live in a society where men have more freedoms and resources than women - at least not as a general rule. We need rights in order to maintain equality and freedom.

You could by the same token ask why men need rights. If they have all the power and resources, why do they need rights? It's the same question, I think.

i need to duck out for a bit. Thanks for being conciliatory beastlyslumber and arguing in good faith, I know you do.

I would agree that is patriarchy in action, but I don’t think it requires a government which is explicitly patriarchal for that to be the case. The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

What do you mean by ‘rule’?

From Merriam-Webster: Governing power or its possession or use; authority. The duration of such power. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

This dictionary definition has many uses for the word ‘rule’ - what meaning of the word rule are you using?

Authority? What does authority mean?

An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct? What scale is this?

What is your definition of rule, which you insist is unequivocally intrinsic to the meaning of the arch/archy part of patriarchy?

If we don't live in a society where men have more power, more access to resources and more freedoms than women (so not a patriarchial society) why do we need women's rights?

Although a man automatically has higher social status than a woman, being male alone isn’t enough to make him a ruler.

It's enough to make him a ruler over women, though. That's the point, surely? Even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street. That's patriarchy, no?

I would accept 'patriarchal phenomena' because that sounds like it could cover things that I've called 'hangovers' from patriarchy without claiming that society as a whole is patriarchal. So I'd happily agree that there are patriarchal phenomena that occur in our society (although with that phrasing it does make it sound like natural outcrops, which is not what I intend to convey.)

But yes, I do think that calling the UK a patriarchy is an insult to the women living under patriarchy and fighting for a society like the UK.

I don't see the word 'patriarchy' as a tool for analysis. It's a noun, with a definition. It means something and I'm arguing for that meaning. I don't see any reason why we can't discuss women's rights in the UK without using this word.

The ‘rulers’ in Iran don’t rule because they are male, they rule because they have achieved a certain status (only available to men) in their patriarchal religion and theocratic society.

I think this is a tautology. Or I'm not smart enough to understand the distinction.

A baby born in Iran isn’t presented with “congratulations, you’ve got a dick, you are an Imam now, here, is your jurisdiction to reign over”. Men still need to compete and engage in power struggles to obtain positions of social dominance. There will be men who don’t cut it. Although a man automatically has higher social status than a woman, being male alone isn’t enough to make him a ruler.

I don't feel like you're really reading my responses if you think what I'm doing is attacking feminism or tools for feminist analysis.

I know you are arguing in good faith. Discussing patriarchal phenomena is a vital tool for feminist discussion/analysis. You said upthread using this tool (the word patriarchy/patriarchal) to analyse phenomena in the UK is somehow doing the women in Iran a disservice. That to me is an attack, suggesting that using this tool in any other context than your very fixed and rigid one, is unethical and should be avoided.

Even if you foreground the reality denying aspects of gender ideology (which are no doubt there), there must be mechanisms of social power enabling this ideology and its effects to take hold in the way it has.

I think that's a complex mix of things: the progression of post-modernism and anti-capitalism in universities; the wokism of the left; social media and the primacy of the image; the manipulation of the image; lack of historical knowledge and context; anxiety driven by social disconnection; the erosion of traditions and institutions... I'm sure there's more!

Yes, I think sexism and misogyny are part of this. Clearly they are integral and undeniable. But I don't agree that there's a system called patriarchy (or a patriarchal system) that underlies our society and explains how this movement has gained power. I think there's a lot going on here.

To bring it back to the debate: JB takes the position of bike and tea, saying that this is a movement driven by misogyny. HJ's position is that, while it is misogynist, it's driven by a wider attack on reality. That's where I'm at, too.

Yes, I agree with this.

Clearly I am pretty annoyed about this. And I would rather not be needing to defend the need for feminism, or the tools for feminist analysis on a bloody feminism board. I thought these days were over for me, since I tend to gravitate towards people and places where feminism and it’s tools are accepted.

I'm not sure why you're insisting that defending the idea of patriarchy is the same as defending the need for feminism.

We need women's rights even if we don't live in a patriarchy.

I don't feel like you're really reading my responses if you think what I'm doing is attacking feminism or tools for feminist analysis.

This is head desk territory. I do not accept your term ‘a patriarchy’. It is inaccurate and an unusual. It doesn’t describe anything real or make sense.

That's literally my argument. 'Patriarchy' doesn't describe anything real or make sense. Except if you are talking about actual patriarchies.

The ‘rulers’ in Iran don’t rule because they are male, they rule because they have achieved a certain status (only available to men) in their patriarchal religion and theocratic society.

I think this is a tautology. Or I'm not smart enough to understand the distinction.

What do you mean by ‘rule’?

From Merriam-Webster: Governing power or its possession or use; authority. The duration of such power. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

I'm sorry you're getting annoyed, tea. I'm happy to talk about this in good faith and explore ideas with you in a collegiate fashion. But if you're getting upset and accusing me of attacking feminism, then maybe we should drop this and come back to it another time when you feel more open to discussion.

it's not about establishing male dominance over women - that's a side effect of the movement to control reality.

The way I saw this unfold, was that MRAs (who fight to undo feminist gains and return to male dominance) saw this opportunity and seized upon it, promoting and defending it at every turn. It’s been a while since I have been confronted by the pro-prostitution lobby, or the anti-family courts brigade. This movement was a gift to them.

This thread has taken an interesting turn, thanks to all for continuing it.

I largely agree with EndlessTea. Patriarchial not 'the patriarchy' to describe structures of male oppression of women.

I can't see any historical evidence that suggests it was purely coincidental that it was women not men who weren't permitted to vote, own property in their name, continue working when they married etc etc and that it could just as easily have been men in that position.

Even if you foreground the reality denying aspects of gender ideology (which are no doubt there), there must be mechanisms of social power enabling this ideology and its effects to take hold in the way it has.

What word other than 'patriarchal' could you use to describe this power?

I don't agree that the general tendency is male domination and female submission.

I know, I see you and mangyinseam have not observed this phenomena in your lives.

I don't agree that we live in a patriarchy,

This is head desk territory. I do not accept your term ‘a patriarchy’. It is inaccurate and an unusual. It doesn’t describe anything real or make sense. The ‘rulers’ in Iran don’t rule because they are male, they rule because they have achieved a certain status (only available to men) in their patriarchal religion and theocratic society.

unless you define patriarchy as something completely other than 'male rule'.

What do you mean by ‘rule’?

Rubbishing any use of the word Patriarchy or Patriarchal if it does not refer specifically to a contemporary formalised oppressive regime of male domination of women and girls, (in fact claiming it is unethical to, because it lessens the plight of women and girls currently oppressed in a formalised totalitarian patriarchal regime)

Clearly I am pretty annoyed about this. And I would rather not be needing to defend the need for feminism, or the tools for feminist analysis on a bloody feminism board. I thought these days were over for me, since I tend to gravitate towards people and places where feminism and it’s tools are accepted.

I am going to give an analogy, maybe a couple.

Imagine a group of specialists discussing the aftermath of a supernova, but being told that the word ‘star’ should be avoided, because the observed phenomenon are not technically a star. You can discuss the phenomena of gravitational shockwaves, you can discuss the neutron, you can mention nebula, gasses, particles, light, because they all currently exist, but don’t say anything like ‘neutron star’, ‘stardust’, ‘fading starlight’, or ‘exploding star’. That’s all in the past.

It would be ridiculous to observe all those phenomena separately, because they wouldn’t exist or be where they are if there hadn’t been a star that exploded in that location. Likewise, it is ridiculous to discuss sex inequality, misogyny, sexism, blah, blah, but to argue that the cause of those phenomena is off limits for discussion, or is somehow unethical.

In sociology, anthropology, and feminist analysis, the generalised tendency of human social organisation, where males dominate and females submit, can, for brevity, be described as ‘patriarchy’, and any system or practice which serves to uphold male dominance over women and girls, and uphold female submissiveness towards men and boys, can be described as ‘patriarchal’.

Alright. But I don't agree that the general tendency is male domination and female submission. I mean, that's the substance of my disagreement with you on this: I don't agree that we live in a patriarchy, unless you define patriarchy as something completely other than 'male rule'.

Here in the UK we have many areas of life where women dominate and where systems uphold female dominance. Societies are becoming more feminised in terms of how we interact and compete. How does that fit in to the idea that we live in a system of male dominance?

Even if I conceded that male dominance doesn't have to be encoded in law to be a patriarchy, I still wouldn't agree that we live in a system of male dominance.

The main weak spot I see in my argument here is the increasing restriction on women's speech. I'm not convinced that this is about male dominance, so much as an attack on reality generally, but women definitely are bearing the brunt of that. And also of course the erosion of single sex spaces and the changing of language affects women disproportionately. If you were to argue that this was about encoding a new system of male dominance into society, I'd be interested in thinking that through. But I tend to believe what Helen Joyce said in the debate, that this is a wholesale attack on reality that women suffer disproportionately from, rather than an attack on women per se. I.e. it's not about establishing male dominance over women - that's a side effect of the movement to control reality. And it is being spearheaded by women, too, so that is another element to be considered.

More on the word Patriarchy.

I spoken a bit how I find it a novel, and a bit weird use of the word patriarchy, to say ‘a patriarchy’ as a noun. It is linguistically clunky and doesn’t fit in the majority of cases.

I wouldn’t describe Iran as ‘a patriarchy’ (I said upthread I would describe it as a totalitarian, theocratic, patriarchal regime), I wouldn’t describe the Catholic Church as ‘a patriarchy’ either.

Although the Catholic Church is a patriarchal religion, you call the priests “father” ie pater, and you would refer to them as ‘patriarchs’, the church as a whole isn’t ‘a patriarchy’. It has many sub- structures within it which may not be patriarchal in the way they are organised, for example, a Catholic convent, full of nuns, has a ‘matriarchal’ structure, within the wider ‘patriarchal religion’. Although God ‘the father’ is worshipped, Mary, the ‘mother of God’, is almost more significant. So that’s why it would be weird, crass and inaccurate, in my opinion, to call it ‘a patriarchy’, although it is undoubtedly patriarchal over all.

Patriarchy = male dominance/male domination of women and girls

In terms of feminist discourse, patriarchy means a social organisation where males dominate females, but this is not an exact fit. ‘Dominated’ or ‘dominant’, etc, can refer just to number and frequency, such as ‘primary education is dominated by women’, even though the lesser number of men in primary education are disproportionately heads and leaders. So you can’t always swap out the word ‘patriarchal’ with ‘male-dominated’ or ‘male dominance’.

In sociology, anthropology, and feminist analysis, the generalised tendency of human social organisation, where males dominate and females submit, can, for brevity, be described as ‘patriarchy’, and any system or practice which serves to uphold male dominance over women and girls, and uphold female submissiveness towards men and boys, can be described as ‘patriarchal’. There is no need to reify the abstract generality of patriarchy/male dominance into a concrete ‘thing’, for the purposes of analysis and discussion (as both you beastlyslumber and mangyinseam are insisting upon).

This from Brides magazine (www.brides.com/why-do-women-take-husband-last-name-5116974):

“Coverture is a legal formation that held that no female person had a legal identity,” explains Allgor. “A female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she was married, by her husband’s.” Under coverture, a husband and wife became “one” under marriage. “It sounds romantic, but the ‘one’ was the husband,” Allgor continues. “She becomes, and this is the phrase, ‘legally dead.’ So it’s not that women take the last names of their husbands, which is how we think of it—it’s that they become part of [the husband’s] body. She does not exist in law, only the husband does.” Eerily enough, this is why characters in the Hulu series The Handmaid’s Tale are renamed things like “Offred” and “Ofglen” in the dystopian society of Gilead—these women are literally considered “of” the specific men that rule them.

Codified into written law by William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1765, coverture negated a female’s existence as an independent identity. As a result, her rights were severely limited. “Married women could not make contracts, because they couldn’t own businesses,” Allgor says. “Married women owned nothing—not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, and no rights to their bodies, so men could send their wives out to labor, and [the men] could collect the wages. He also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a woman’s consent was implied, so rape was legitimate.”

While not always put fully into practice in real life—“You can’t really run a society where women are this oppressed,” Allgor notes—these customs carried over from England to America during the establishment of the colonies. Though there were opportunities to formally abolish or amend coverture during the creation of the U.S. Constitution in the 1780s—Abigail Adams addressed the very matter in her “Remember the Ladies” letter to her husband, Constitutional Convention member John Adams—the first break in coverture the U.S. didn’t arrive until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1848.

According to wikipedia, in the UK: Coverture was first substantially modified by late-19th-century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by later reforms.

That does sound pretty patriarchal to me! Thank god we don't live like that anymore.

More on coverture here: digpodcast.org/2018/02/25/coverture/

I've heard a few podcasts with Mary Harrington and think she's very interesting, but don't know much about her idea of 'reactionary feminism'. I was just looking for articles by her referencing "the patriarchy" as Mangy mentions her critique. I found this to be fascinating (and relevant to this thread):

www.firstthings.com/article/2021/06/reactionary-feminism

Reflecting on the way sex roles delivered drudgery for my mother but creative freedom for me has prompted a ­re-evaluation of the feminist critique of “­patriarchy.” Whereas radical feminists tend to see patriarchy as akin to a mass conspiracy to oppress women, I’ve come to see it as the aggregate result of historical human efforts to balance the conflicting interests of the two sexes. It has sometimes given rise to abuses and injustices, which are rightly condemned. But the solution is not to be found in some state of perfect symmetry between the sexes. For this cannot be had—the sexes are not interchangeable.

Marriage, for example, is often framed as a patriarchal institution aimed at controlling women’s sexuality. But because premarital sex carries much greater risks for women than for men, social norms in favor of marriage as a precondition for sex benefit women (and children) at least as much as men. It is not clear that feminist efforts to smash those norms have delivered greater happiness for women.

and in her conclusion, she states:

We are liberated enough. What we need is more and better obligations: a feminism that seeks the proper limits on freedom for both sexes. Such a feminism occupies the most reviled position of all. Dissenting from the theology of progress, it revels in the mantle of the “reactionary.”

The whole article is fascinating.