Maya’s response to Radical Notion’s GC divisions

Historical analysis is interesting/fascinating both at great time distance and more recent. There is that push/pull of history, this worked well, that didn't, what next.

But where we are now in the west, for the most part, is an ability by women to choose the father of their kids or to decide to not have them. This is our right. In a relationship of choice, it is more likely that there is buy in from the father to the created family. With a caring male role model, the perpetuation of that tendency is more likely.

I'm the person who mentioned mothers earlier in the thread. I didn't mean that women who aren't mothers can't understand what it is like, that would be insulting and untrue to say and I don't. But what I mean is that the primal act of procreating with someone is a bonding experience. It isn't always visible to society when a couple struggling through sleeplessness for example with a new baby, is out and about. It is hard, but bonds are created and I see this much much more now than was apparent in earlier decades.

There are violent men - absolutely. But in our society they are not predominant. So to assert that this is the case weakens the feminist argument now. I do feel men and women need to come together again, in support of each other and also in support of families that are not a man/woman dyad. Louise Perry's work is great on this.

We are at this point in history, we came close to equal but different as an ideal. And then I guess backlash, but in part backlash was through the inability to bring men into the conversation in a way that the sexes could understand each other rather than blame each other. We are two parts of a whole. You can't focus on one part without massive imbalance.

I almost missed a deadline because I got so distracted reading this wonderful thread!

"*If you're a 3rd wave feminist or a 4th wave genderist who believes in "equality of all genders" and "empowerment" there's a few things you should know before you call yourself a progressive and left wing.

• Both those movements are solidly based in neo-liberalism birthed into the world in the 1980's by 2 Right Wing governments: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

1. Neo-liberalism is the idea that we are not a society but rather disconnected individuals whose identity is more important than class politics. It is the opposite of Marxism.*

Im so glad this was brought up. I've seen some GC posters (not FWR!) on places like PITTstack and other parent groups that love to "blame the feminists" and "blame the Marxists" for the gender ideology their child is captured by. I've been so puzzled because I don't see it being Marxism at all because that requires a strong acceptance of our material existence (I'm not a Marxist, but that's my interpretation of it). Connecting gender woo to neo liberalism as shown above makes so much more sense.

Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain is really good on that research gap, WarriorN.

I believe that societies are designed for all sorts of things, that there is competition in tilting them to go one way or another, and that in authoritarian systems they are designed to benefit the leader and possibly his families and closest lieges. In eras and times of slavery, some societies, at least, were interested in the well-being of slaves only to the extent that they had material value as resources.

And some past cultural conventions, such as suttee and the legal solution to rape of the rapist marrying the girl or woman he raped were helpful for the wider society (as it didn't have to worry about the maintenance of the widow or about what to do with a young woman who was deemed spoiled goods after rape), but devastating to the female person the convention was applied to.

So yes, I do believe societies try to contain some of our worst behaviours, but different societies do this in different ways, and it's quite possible to constrain those behaviours and yet have a rather ghastly social system in place. Or rather, we can always invent better ones!

Yes agree, I suppose I meant by the end of the 20th c you'd expect some equality of scientific research. Given they did actually start to dissect female bodies more frequently around 18th c.

Took another century or so to actually bother to find the clitoris for example

Binturongs yes I was thinking about it in your original concept ie. contained in number and geography, like on the island. Otherwise it would be a vast ever-expanding network of people.

I think that's what I thought endless

I seem to have saved a note from 2021. I don't know who she is but it's one perspective. I can't comment as brain now fried. However the last para would by default mean all women, surely? Right and left?

I feel we are in this scrape because the left (labour, democrats, greens) will not concede to reality / are captured and some leftist feminists probably do need to draw their lines in order to be heard by their parties. Which is fine but don't scold other women for also saying fuck this shit.

////////////////////

Trans mayday

"If you're a 3rd wave feminist or a 4th wave genderist who believes in "equality of all genders" and "empowerment" there's a few things you should know before you call yourself a progressive and left wing.

1. Both those movements are solidly based in neo-liberalism birthed into the world in the 1980's by 2 Right Wing governments: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

1. Neo-liberalism is the idea that we are not a society but rather disconnected individuals whose identity is more important than class politics. It is the opposite of Marxism.

1. Equality within the dominant paradigm means contorting oneself to fit a broken system. No matter how many women sit on the board of Fortune 500 Companies, there will still be migrant women cleaning the boardroom on minimum wage while the goal is 'equality' rather than liberation. There's a reason it was called Womens Lib, not 'women trying to be men'.

1. Your empowerment means sweet fuck all to anyone except you. Flashing your tits is not "smashing the patriarchy".

1. Quit the Oppression Olympics. It's tiresome, boring and a sign of Western 1st World Privilege. You weren't clitoredectomized at age 6 without antiseptic, anaesthetic and pain killers. You weren't married off to a 50 yr old at age 11 to have baby after baby until you died and got replaced by a younger model. You weren't made stateless by war and prostituted on a refugee camp for a few sips of clean water. Etc Etc Etc

While liberal feminism calls itself intersectional it concurrently ignores the women at the bottom doing the shit-work while screaming 'meeeeeeeeee, it's all about meeeee and my choices. Empowerment, agency, meeeeeee.' In other words it's right wing, regressive, conservative, capitalist, patriarchal bullshit that upholds the status quo.

Radical Feminism operates from women's liberation using class analysis, anti neo-liberalism, real left politics and operating from the grass roots up. It says, 'It doesn't matter if I'm ok if you're still not'. "

-Sabine Sabrinna V Belinski

We've been treated as mini men throughout most of the 20th c

And the rest. It goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, who thought that women were men who'd failed to develop properly in the womb (and no doubt that was the mother's fault).

I tend to subscribe to the view that society is designed to contain and repress our worst behaviours.

Completely agree. And Demi's post put it so well. That is why I'm not a socialist.

That is a brilliant post. Very clear on where the fundamental differences lie. In my view this is where radical feminism/feminism/socialism/progressivism gets it wrong. I tend to subscribe to the view that society is designed to contain and repress our worst behaviours. (Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't have unintended consequences of inculcating other damaging behaviours.)

Ah - see what you mean by limiting the population. Extra partners don't really increase a woman's capacity for pregnancy - it still takes 9 months to gestate and another 2-3 years of breastfeeding that reduce the likelihood of conception, just as in any otherwise-similar monogamous society. Plus the high child mortality of a subsistence community without modern medicine.

Are you saying you understand radfem to acknowledge nature in the sense that women are biologically programmed to be caregivers in the early years,

Possibly, I came into feminism via breastfeeding and a v supportive group who shared a lot of information about how natural weaning was evolutionary/ biological and overlaps a lot with attachment and anthropological studies on bed sharing etc. (can't remember a key anthropologist I learnt about there.)

Maybe I misunderstood it all as radical feminism? And it's something else?except that it seems pretty "root" to me. The politics of breastfeeding book is pretty hard core radfem-fuck-capitalism and the patriarchy. (formula advertising has restrictions for good reason.)

Breastfeeding is quite tough in today's western society because women do need support, encouragement and information, extended families of women who know how and how issues are solved. (Fuck you lll for selling out.)

And then where does 'invisible women' come into play? We've been treated as mini men throughout most of the 20th c in scientific literature, technology and design. that does feel like patriarchy.

Yes, epigenetics... that's another area to consider.

This point is fascinating and reminds me of an article I read recently about how the idea of a virtuous masculinity is much more important to a civilised society than any notions around femininity, which are largely biologically determined. This is why toxic masculinity is such a problem because it is degrading to society as a whole. I'll see if I can find the article to link.

That is v interesting. The study I mentioned we have no idea of the background stereotypes that the boys and girls were also dealing with so it can be interpreted in different ways.

Certainly that bbc no more girls/ boys tracked harmful gender stereotypes for both sexes to poorer academic outcomes for girls in some subjects (and so potentially careers) and more aggressive explosive competitive behaviour in boys which they seemed to link even to higher rates of male offending and violence. I suppose embarrassing for civilised society? That ignores nature though and wholly blames nurture.

Ultimately people, societies , histories, cultures etc are really fucking complex so it's really hard to unpick everything.

Also history is viewed/ written through different lenses; Tory, whigg, Marxist were ones I learnt about. There are many others too. The latter two seem to be the radical notion angle (?) but there are so many other angles too. Cyclical, evolutionary etc.

I think where radical feminism has diverged from what Maya is talking about is that the former tends to really really limit what it sees as biological. WOmen having babies, yes, but it tends to see anything beyond, for example that might tie women more to childcare than men, or make them more likely to want to do that, as socially constructed. Similarly with male violence, there is typically this view that it is somehow socially constructed.

In some ways it's a morrow image. On the one hand a view we start with a blank slate of sorts, and patriarchy, which is not natural but constructed, inculcates values that create violent men and oppresses women.

The other viewpoint sees humans as naturally having a capacity for violence, and especially male mammals, and society is constructed in ways that more or less try to contain those tendencies.

The former view, like a lot of leftist thinking, hopes to dismantle the social factors that it sees as creating violence. The latter things that if we dismantle social conditioning, violence would be much worse, the question is what is the best option for social conditioning to reduce violence in the larger environment we are in - and that could change over time.

What can be the kicker is that it's not just a theoretical difference, they lead to really different approaches to actually forming policy and acting in the world.

Yes Endless out of curiosity I looked back on this board at some posts from maybe 2011? Just to get a feel of what people were talking about before all the trans stuff and it was everything you mentioned. I understand that gender ideology is a total existential threat to women and disproportionately affects us, but these boards don't attract nearly the same volume or attention of other topics that are still incredibly important.

And if we can ever knock back the trans head of the misogyny hydra, we only get back to square one! I just hope we can use this as an opportunity to galvanise us for action against more issues affecting women and girls. Popular feminism became too complacent.

Did they practice infanticide, then?

Speaking of RMW, I came across this the other day.

Robin misgendering Sam Smith on Twitter 🤣

Maya is spot on.
Most of us don’t have the time, energy or inclination to wade through “ intellectual “ arguments about women’s rights & safeguarding children. We just want to get on with it.
The women here on Mumsnet have been incredible in joining the dots, informing each other, supporting each other and handing the likes of RMW his arse on a plate, so I thank everyone of them.
Maya has a sense of humour, which I know , having had a giggle with her at a demo at Holyrood last year, which many in this war lack.

Re: technology and tools that can close the sex gap…

There are some memey type things floating around the internet that claiming that the right to bear arms/gun ownership makes women safer, but does it?

Guns remove the requirements for physical strength when murdering, obvs

But does owning a gun make us less likely to be killed by men because we have an efficient tool to use in our defence?

Or do those same tools just give men another, more efficient way to kill us?

Or do guns narrow the sex gap amongst murderers…. whilst making both sexes more likely to be murdered?

I can’t face trying to dig through US statistics but I have a feeling it’s the last one, and that guns enable more women to kill men, but that male murderers will still far always far outnumber female murderers, no matter how much killing tech we invent.

(The AI robots are gonna kill us all anyway!)

Yes Demi you've put it so concisely.

I'm really appreciating the interesting discussion.

This is the article I mentioned:
unherd.com/2022/10/andrew-tate-and-the-wests-lost-boys/

When I saw the title and that it was written by a man I thought it was going to be way over sympathetic to men but I actually found it very reasonable. And then the comments section was full of snivelling men lol.

I think ‘mumsnet feminism’ is really radical feminist in essence, rather than liberal feminist. There’s a broad agreement about ending the sexual exploitation of women girls, ending VAWG, sexual objectification, the commodification of women, etc.

A lot of radical feminists see it as about rolling your sleeves up and getting shit done. It’s also about recognising that you aren’t socialised in a vacuum, so you will have internalised misogyny, yet feel like it is natural and freely chosen. You have to question and examine everything to recognise where you’ve been trained in inferiority and submission, in order to be truly liberated.

With mumsnet feminism, I think there isn’t as much examination of internalised misogyny, or recognition of where we’ve compromised ourselves for an easier life, as there used to be. I wonder if all this trans stuff has become such a life-or-death struggle, it now seems really insignificant to discuss what wearing painful high heels says about women’s position in society, for example.

Really interesting post nepta and thanks also Lang, great points.

Do you have any recommendations of second wave liberal feminism and straightforward radfem authors? I'm no expert on feminism and I associated liberal feminism with "choice" feminism

Would also appreciate this. .

In that the nurture part is in the very early years mostly the woman due to biology.
I struggle to see much of a difference between radical feminism and Maya's basic root pov because I see it as nature and then nurture.

Can you explain this a bit more because I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you understand radfem to acknowledge nature in the sense that women are biologically programmed to be caregivers in the early years, at least to the extent that they breastfeed?

'Dismantling patriarchy' is idealistic on a large scale across modern society and some would argue that it's already starting to be achieved with more women climbing to ceo positions and prime ministers in some countries. But more via capitalism in reality.

This is an interesting concept, and a hopeful one. I agree that the patriarchal society is going nowhere in a hurry. Getting women in positions of power is instrumental in changing the lives of other women. However we also have women in power acting against the interests of women (see Nicola Sturgeon and Amrapali Gans, CEO of OnlyFans). 🙄Under patriarchy, women compete for individual power or "pseudo-power".

Epigenetics - how the environment influences gene expression - is a really interesting area of study and I think fairly recent?

A study I've always found fascinating is that boys who coslept with mothers/ parents were identified by teachers at age 5 as being more socially amenable and able compared to those who didn't whereas it made no difference to girls.

This point is fascinating and reminds me of an article I read recently about how the idea of a virtuous masculinity is much more important to a civilised society than any notions around femininity, which are largely biologically determined. This is why toxic masculinity is such a problem because it is degrading to society as a whole. I'll see if I can find the article to link.

I thought this was the most interesting element of the essay as well.

It's not just a disagreement about purity, with radical feminism being the most "pure" and other versions being a compromise - her argument is that radical feminism has some fundamentally wrong, untrue beliefs behind it, which can make it ineffective when it tries to act, and also limits it's appeal. And also perhaps have opened us all up to some of the very bad thinking we see now in terms of gender ideology.

Whenever you really mistake human nature, the social and political remedies you suggest are likely to be failures.

I keep nodding, when reading the main sources of radical feminism, until suddenly I shake my head. This happens with me when I read any school of feminism (unless I dismiss it right away), in that I may agree some basic argument but do not find it applies as widely as the author argued or in quite as simple a format or that some other argument working in the opposite direction is ignored in the discussion.

Yet I am a feminist and have been one for most of my life!

I read an article some years ago about the way economics, technology, evolution and so on all act with each other to affect the extent of inequality between the sexes:

It's unlikely that the nomadic hunter-gatherers had strong hierarchies as they couldn't accumulate wealth separately from their bodily skills (and so to use it to pay others to be their hench men or provide them with sexual services), but the beginning of agriculture made that separate accumulation possible and so some link it with the onset of not only what is called patriarchy here, but also hierarchical societies in general. This change, in a way, was about technology, or at least about the way people got their nutrition.

That, and from another angle, economics, also affected things. The article argued that the societies in which women's status has been the worst are nomadic herder societies where the constant moving makes it almost impossible for the women (because of pregnancy, lactation, and the care of small children) to participate in contributing to the family's income/nutrition*.

Women's status was the highest in the kinds of societies which were not nomadic and where garden-type intensive agriculture was feasible, as women could work that and combine it with child-care more easily. The yield from their work could be traded or consumed, and staying in one place allowed local trading connections to be created.

My belief is in rather complicated explanations like these, rather than in overly simple essentialist ones. Even male violence levels vary greatly between countries, so they are at least somewhat amenable to being changed by education, social support structures and culture.

*Though even here some women had portable looms and might have been able to sell the cloth/rugs they made. Still, it would have been harder.