Maya’s response to Radical Notion’s GC divisions

Is there hope in evolution? When cultural attitudes change, does that reflect a true change in human nature or is it a veneer of social civility hiding the ugly reality beneath?

Human behaviour is really very malleable. The same individual in different situations might commit horrific acts of cruelty, or make great sacrifices to help others.

Culture changes really quickly, much quicker than evolution. Anyone over 25 will already have seen big cultural change in their own lifetime. But physically there is not an awful lot different between us and people in biblical times.

The anthropology is really pretty clear by now. People haven’t always lived in nuclear families and patriarchy hasn’t always existed. The question of whether getting rid of it again is an achievable goal - that is another matter entirely, of course, and I agree that it’s a similar question to that of whether socialism is desirable/attainable or do we have to content ourselves with trying to make capitalism a bit nicer.

But I really don’t see why disagreement about any of this stops us uniting to demand single-sex jails.

This is partly true, partly not. It's true in the sense that second wave feminism had a strong critique of what is bad for women with the traditional model of child-rearing, based on male dominance in families, women's work being of the legally unpaid nature (all caring work, not just caring for children).

It results in mothers carrying most of the costs of the reproduction of the next generation, as they will end up with smaller pensions, smaller lifetime incomes and, depending on the laws and the era and country we look at, less ability to leave bad marriages or have independent lives.

It also results in a world where the people in powerful positions are much less likely to be women as getting into those powerful positions requires time spent in a career path, higher education for research etc.

So most of second wave concentrated on encouraging women to stay in paid employment, because of these reasons, and the practical policies they supported had to do with removing sex-based discrimination at work and creating paid maternity leaves and paid child-care. The less practical (in the sense that they could not really be enforced) policies advocated for more shared child-care by fathers, which would have stopped the burden from being disproportionately borne by the mothers alone.

At the same time, the old NOW (National Organization for Women) in the US did much to help those women who had cared for children at home. They were able to get laws passed which allowed sahm parent to pay into private retirement plans (not allowed before this), and they also were successful in getting some other changes approved which benefited those who had the major responsibility for child-care.

Today's NOW is all about gender identity.

Someones still got to grow the future people and children are happiest and healthiest when raised by two parents.

Yes to the first. The second just feels like a way to shit on single mothers. That doesn't feel like helping women at all.

Ok. I need help.

What is a radical feminist and why do so many say they're not?

Then I can understand some more of the context.

I personally thought, from what some patient mners in the past have said, that what Maya says about evolutionary and biological feminism is essentially radical feminism.

Now there's a surprise. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am being ironic)

KJK is forever giving props to Sheila Jeffreys and Julia long (who both fit in the ‘PhD without the waffle’ category).

I agree that there is no great distinction between radical feminism’s position on the material reality of the female body and Mumsnet feminisms position.

What happens next is where things get harder.
Someones still got to grow the future people and children are happiest and healthiest when raised by two parents.

I would like to add that I feel plenty of radical feminists would be more than happy to not be credited for their work if we could somehow get these polices implemented for women and children. I don't call myself a radical feminist, just a feminist, but I'd be happy to get the message across if it falls under another name. Women's rights, women's liberation, femalism, good stuff for gynes...I don't care. Let's focus on what we agree on and mobilize!

Ultimately radical feminism is not that popular, and it hasn't been effective. Is it too far removed from individuals' realities, too heavy on analysis even if it is entirely correct? KJK has created an enormously effective campaign and I think we can learn from it.

Some of the policies that have come from radical feminism are in complete agreement with what KJK and many women on MN believe: Nordic Model Now regarding prostitution, anti-commodification of surrogacy and egg donation, protecting the right to abortion, anti-pornography, anti-sex trafficking, rights for lesbians and bisexual women. When women talks on these topics, many of us agree. These ARE radical feminist positions, but maybe the use of the term "radical" abortion is the problem.

James Lindsay of the Grievance Studies Hoax (along with Helen & Peter Boghossian) is one of the people rubbished and denounced as a MAGAman in TRN.

This is exactly what I think when I read Sheila Jeffreys or listen to Helen Joyce.

I suspect one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in is because a frightening number of people who've gained their MAs and PhDs by writing about Judith Butler and all the other obscurantists in their field haven't actually read and understood them. And neither have their PhD advisers. It's a disaster for academia.

Do we all remember Helen Pluckrose and colleagues' Grievance Studies Affair, when they wrote 20 deliberately fake and patently ridiculous articles and submitted them to academic journals?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

@JoodyBlue Also as a childless woman I completely agree with you about motherhood, which I imagine brings the stark reality of nature to the fore. Among women who would call themselves feminists, I think childlessness is mostly represented in 2 groups: young women and separatists (including lesbians). So they can either in youthful naivety pretend the reality of nature in heterosexual relationships doesn’t apply to them or avoid it, respectively. And as @Floisme pointed out this attitude isn’t exclusive to childless women but perhaps over-represented in this group.

I find it interesting that @BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn and @JoodyBlue are the only comments to really touch on the premise of the article which concerns why infighting occurs rather than the merits of each side. Perhaps because it doesn’t appeal to the pragmatic sensibilities of mumsnet feminists!! The idea that radical feminism is fundamentally wrong about human nature strikes a chord with me. This is what Maya was referring to when she said 1= 0. There is something utopian about the idea that we can dismantle the patriarchal structure that has existed for centuries. I say this despite largely aligning with radical feminism and having never bought into the liberal feminism that was heavily marketed to me as a millennial. I believe the power struggle between the sexes is eternal because it is based on our biological differences. I admit I am not an evolutionary biologist, or an anthropologist, so I don’t know much about the history of our patriarchal and matriarchal societies. But if radical feminism is utopian it leaves the door open for liberal feminism which further embeds patriarchy by centring men. (Interestingly I feel this mirrors the socialism/capitalism dichotomy.)

Maya’s article touches on elements of biological essentialism which often makes people feel uncomfortable. It speaks to fundamental issues such as whether male violence is innate and eternal, or whether the power of female beauty is legitimate. You can either rail against it or you can accept it and grab whatever is available to you to hoist yourself up in the system you find yourself in.

This also ties to the Bill Maher clip posted recently about how no revolution can dictate human nature. Is there hope in evolution? When cultural attitudes change, does that reflect a true change in human nature or is it a veneer of social civility hiding the ugly reality beneath?

This leads to the question of how to reconcile feminist theory and activism with reality to create a powerful and effective feminist movement. Ultimately radical feminism is not that popular, and it hasn't been effective. Is it too far removed from individuals' realities, too heavy on analysis even if it is entirely correct? KJK has created an enormously effective campaign and I think we can learn from it. But depressingly I feel its success is because gender ideology is not a specifically feminist issue but an attack on truth, which attracts opposition across every class, sex, race, age, political and sexual orientation. Lesbians and heterosexual women were not listened to. Only with the addition of mothers who were worried about their children, and men who value reality and free speech, has this gained traction.

I think I have come to the conclusion that for a movement to be effective for women it must necessarily compromise or at least dilute some of its values, precisely because in our sexist society, women will not be heard. At the very least there is a trade-off between efficacy and purity.

These are just ramblings and I know that this kind of discussion is the antithesis to the practical feminism we applaud but I am genuinely interested in other’s opinions.

@Floisme I agree

The power to sort this situation out that women and girls are facing lies primarily with Parliament and the courts. And they really don’t listen to factions. They only want to listen to united voices giving clear messages. We can’t afford time on this self-indulgent territorial pissing. I really hope that this latest flurry ends soon. It’s a massive self indulgence.

This is critical for feminists no matter where they are in the world. You can't show up to the policy makers and expect them to take you seriously while in the middle of a spat.

Because maybe people like Lorelei, if there is any like her, is the reason that there seems to be more balance in the quarterly magazines?

Lorelei is great. Probably the only reason I might have glanced at this quarterly in the past.

I don't believe being a mother yourself is the factor - two of the most toxic contributions I've seen to this argument ('domesticated zombies' and 'pound shop Marine Le Pen') have been from Ruth Serwotka and Sarah Ditum who I believe are both mothers. But yeah I think it's something to do with your attitude towards, and your respect for mothers, especially SAHMs.

I’m not willing to put Miriam Cates, Jackie Doyle Price, Kemi Badenoch on the other side of my line, just because they are Tories tho.

I think it’s worth recognising that some right wing politicians have very obviously hijacked this issue. This is going to become more of an issue as campaigning for the US elections becomes louder.

People draw their lines in different places, but a line does need to be drawn.

It’s the old Venn diagram that has been shared many times. Some Sexist idiots recognise sex, some don’t. Neither group is really interested in helping women.

Feminism has never known what to do about mothers, especially those of us that don’t want to outsource our childrearing to other, minimum wage, women for 40 plus hours a week.
Easier just to dismiss us as bovine breeders, I suppose.

Just read Maya's article and the thread. I agree with every word that Maya says.

While reading it I'm also aware of a sense of maturity that comes with conceiving, bearing, birthing, feeding and raising a child. There is a necessity of engaging at some level with your child's father, and there is (usually) an overwhelming sense that nothing matters more than your child and a recognition of that sense in other mothers. So we learn to negotiate on behalf of our kids, while understanding that other mothers feel similar for their own.

I think this is unknown territory for many of the Radical Notion's target readership. (I believe Julie Bindel is said to have referred to KJK as a "boring middleclass breeder") Many of whom seem to live or strive to live without men in their lives. But motherhood IS the reality of being female, or it always would have been pre readily available contraception and the right to abortion. And mothers love their sons and want them to have relationships with their fathers.

I really think this is not understood well enough by those who have not become mothers. There is a naivety or a missing piece. They act as if the reproductive function has always been a choice, it hasn't, or as if the caring of children including fathers is somehow optional (it isn't). I know it will annoy people to say it. I'm definitely not saying childless women are not women, and of course it IS a choice now. But I think this is worth saying. I think Maya has almost said this but stopped short. Probably predicting the fall out!

I really feel like there’s time for falling out and getting factional among feminists… which is only once massive gains have already been made for women. It’s certainly not now, we have to publicly and privately focus on sorting out the shit that has happened to women and girls.

I don’t think it’s any surprise that academics write better for a professional academic audience, or public speakers connect better with a public audience, etc etc. So fucking what? There are millions of different audiences that need to be reached out there.

I see no reason why these groups have to bitch about each other (and Maya’s piece saying she’d rather choose being effective or whatever it was, than not and complaining about Radical Notion’s long-windedness is not above that)
I haven’t got time to read the Radical Notion right now either.

However like many of us on here, i really need to hear new public policy solutions and to have lots of other women that I can join in with, to do the advocacy to be done to get them adopted. Like many of us I have young female relatives, some of whom have already got on board with the gender identity juggernaut, I have an employer who is constantly coming up with D&I initiatives which completely ignore the reality of women’s lives and I want to be able to leave this world a more woman-friendly place than when I came into it.

So I rely on the public feminists of today to please help to fucking sort this mess out. I couldn’t give a shit who likes who. These spats just look pathetic to anyone outside the immediate bubble and make it easier for feminist groups to be ignored. People in political parties fucking hate each other but they understand that nobody is likely to be sweeping in to power with just their best mates.

The power to sort this situation out that women and girls are facing lies primarily with Parliament and the courts. And they really don’t listen to factions. They only want to listen to united voices giving clear messages. We can’t afford time on this self-indulgent territorial pissing. I really hope that this latest flurry ends soon. It’s a massive self indulgence.

Perhaps Swhittle had good reason to plead privacy and illness to the journalist contact I mentioned upthread when she was looking to do a serious profile.

Yes. Whittle is on record for their activities as a girl guide, or they too could have been a scout, at that age.

Whittle? The one who confessed to having sex with the scouts at camps at 14 or 15 years old?

I would not trust Whittle to ever know what good safeguarding protocols were. They seem to laugh that they used to do this as if it was one big joke.

I don't know who it was who said it but it just showed how they think children and young people are totally expendable.

Jeez, I didn't know that about Whittle - a certain type of behaviour is really showing itself as a feature not a bug isn't it.

Whittle? The one who confessed to having sex with the scouts at camps at 14 or 15 years old?

I would not trust Whittle to ever know what good safeguarding protocols were. They seem to laugh that they used to do this as if it was one big joke.