Three principles of reactionary feminism

Yes, it feels like a target error in her advice

the correct advice is be prepared to say no and don’t have anything to do with a man who can’t deal with that, not risk getting pregnant by having boundaries you’re not comfortable enforcing AND not using birth control

But I don't think no sex before marriage is in many women's best interest, even if it secures more commitment. It certainly wasn't in mine! I do think where we are at now emphasises too much on how you should be able to have sex/relationships however a man does, and damn the consequences. It's true that we should be able to, but we also need space to talk about how the benefits and disadvantages are not fairly distributed.

One example Harrington gives is that women on the pill sometimes go along with sex out of politeness, because they have "no excuse". Surely we would be better served giving women and girls to stand up for themselves and delay/forgo sex because they want more commitment? I know for me the main advice I could have done with was to be much more selective and not let men who treated me poorly waste my time, and not to make excuses for men who were not into me the way I wanted them to be.

@MalagaNights

How could you convey to young woman: this may not be the best thing for you.

I honestly don't know. My instinct is to say teach them history and give them testimonies. Maybe we could win over a generation who can see clearly the state of the world for women. But as soon as there are not living women giving testimony the men will get the agenda back to them I think.

I also would worry at what point we explain this to them. It would not be acceptable to teach it in schools I don't think so relying on families to teach mean many many young women miss out learning. Many mothers won't have the knowledge or information to teach it anyway. But I'd not be happy my child being taught it at school. And at what age?! I consider when I first started kissing boys and absolutely no way would I have understood what was being explained to me. But I lost my virginity very young and believed it was my choice, I would be uncomfortable having such a conversation with a girl that age it's still a child. I will be laying the foundation but my daughter will be an adult before I discuss her potential to be used sexually by men with her. And I hope she never understands what I explain because living being treated that way and having it explained are different and both are needed to truly understand what it does to you

@MalagaNights

How would just relying on condoms work?

• don't forget the copper coil.

Men would have to take responsibility, and pregnancy risk would be slightly higher?

• I'm not sure they would. Society already clearly 'says' they should take responsibility for their kids and still many don't. Even paying basic child maintenance is avoided by many. It would be a couple of generations if estimate before change in attitudes set in and my then men have had time to undo it anyway

Overall I guess they'd be less sex outside committed relationships.

• by choice I'd agree with you but at least initially I would worry about coercion into sex regardless. Lots of lying saying they will marry her etc. it would take no sex at all before marriage to stop that and after having sexual 'freedom' how many women would stick to that? Personally I'd want to try before I buy in case it's pants. That said there is a beautiful thing about both being virgins I've heard said at church. If you are both virgins you don't know if your sex is good or bad as nothing to compare to. Not self conscious about it either as you know you have nothing to be compared to. You just learn what each other likes and work on it together.

If women expected commitment before sex, and marriage before babies, would this change men's behaviour and would it be better for women? I think so.

Only if we withhold sex for actual marriage. I have toooo many friends waiting/nagging long term partners to marry them and it's always put off. Many have kids. A couple who split when she got pregnant. In my life experience men very much lie. Obviously some of them are lovely and would never do this but they settle down with one woman while bad men plough through the life's of woman after woman.

If women were not expected to take the pill would they be more likely to be insistent on these expectations? I think so.
Many would switch to copper coil. Personally while I understand the reasoning I still think women should have access to birth control of their own if condoms exist. Condoms do fail. Do rapists wear condoms? Etc

I wouldn't trust NFP unless I'm actually fine with a pregnancy if it happens. But for me, I don't find avoiding sex at the most fertile days of my cycle attractive and holistic - it's when I'm most interested in sex! So it's not chemically altering my body to avoid consequences (and possibly killing your libido in the process), but it is altering what would make sex most satisfying for me to avoid consequences (and again, my partner has no negatives).

I think one of the hardest things for feminism to manage, reactionary, radfem, liberal, all of them, is that due to our vulnerability to pregnancy and the demands of caretaking, in most situations, the house always wins.

You want more committed providers for trad wives? You get more women financially trapped in abusive relationships, or dumped for a younger model and left penniless in their old age.

You want financial independence and access to well paid work? You get a man who will happily allow you to pay your share of the bills while letting you shoulder all of the housework.

You want the social shame of bastardry to keep families together? You get women forced by pregnancy into bad marriages, or giving birth in secrecy and shame with the child taken away.

You want the very reasonable provision of not being disowned because of a pre-marital relationship? Men will no longer see marriage as a precursor to expecting a sexual relationship.

Every gain for women easily is translates into an equivalent gain for men. I don't know how, or if, we have an easy fix for this.

...and having now caught up with the rest of the thread, I see you all got there before me!

I haven't finished catching up with the thread, so apologies if someone's already mentioned this, but DemiColon's comment flagged up in my brain something from the recent AMA by an Orthodox Jewish woman (which got to 1k posts very quickly, and then there was a second one - people were finding her life absolutely fascinating!)

She was talking about the Jewish custom (for married couples) of abstaining from sex during the woman's period plus a set number of days thereafter. She was very honest, said it was sometimes really hard (I think they're actually not allowed to touch AT ALL during this time), but that the 'enforced' separation actually enhanced the couple's sexual relationship, as it creates a natural rhythm of separation, building desire, and then coming together again.

Catholic social teaching suggests a similar thing WRT to Natural Family Planning, whereby the couple avoids intercourse around the fertile part of the woman's menstrual cycle.

I'm sure I'll be drummed out of town for even mentioning anything vaguely religion-adjacent on the FWR board (given some of the reactions just to the OP on this thread!), but I personally find this kind of holistic, biologically attuned, woman-centred approach more attractive than chemically altering female biology in order to reduce the potential real-world consequences of sex.

MH points out that the Pill benefits men at least as much and probably significantly more than women. It also definitely negatively impacts (some) women in (some) significant ways, yet doesn't impact men negatively at all.

I agree with her that the Pill is a good example of "progress" that hasn't actually turned out to be an unmitigated success for women.

No I agree, I wouldn't trust it either. But I struggle to believe that it's beyond the reach of 21st century science to come up with something more sophisticated and more reliable. I think the problem is that there's a lack of will to do so.

I will never trust cyclextracki g sperm can love for up to 14 days, I conceived on D5 of a 24 days cycle.

I took the reference to cycle tracking to mean she wasn't against all contraception. Must admit I've always thought that an understanding of your body's fertility rhythm would - if it were sophisticated enough - be preferable and more feminist than a hormonal contraceptive. I find it disappointing that these techniques don't seem much more advanced now than they were 20-30 years ago. (Admittedly I'm past the menopause now so I may be out of touch?)
But why Harrington can't say so in plain English (if this is what she means) is infuriating.

it also sometimes leads to a very unpleasant expectation on the part of a lot of men.

that's part of the problem innit? things that are on the face of it for women end up being used for the convenience of men

if MH's issue is with hormonal contraception only, I have to say I agree with her. the pill is awful, I hated it and knew it was altering my behaviour. I've used a copper coil for 25 years. I really don't understand why it's not a method that's more widely used

I think lots of other women are perfectly capable of tolerating a sharing of an alternative viewpoint, and some may even enjoy it. Even if they disagree

I am one of those. Thank you. There is a lot to think about, and I don’t necessarily disagree with everything at all, though I wouldn’t want to throw out all the good with the bad.

As to the pill, it is a necessary evil but also a nasty horrible thing imo. And while I think abortion available on demand is essential, it also sometimes leads to a very unpleasant expectation on the part of a lot of men.

Hi Dasha and Anna! 👋

Hahahahaha. No.

It is, which is why I find it confusing that she seems to hold the luxury belief that the majority of men will remain in a long term relationship with a woman, continuing to provision her and her children, without continued access to sex, especially in places where women do not have as many rights. In much of the world women do not feel like they can refuse sex with their husbands, or insist on condom use.

Frankly I think the point that we're all into BDSM because we're missing the risk of pregnancy is such a crackpot theory that it's made me reassess what I think of the rest of her analysis.

I think the fact that we can barely agree on what she's saying about some pretty fundamental issues is down to her writing. She can express herself very clearly when she chooses but at other times she's incredibly opaque. I don't think it's necessary.

In your earlier post you used the phrase 'lifelong broodmare'. That kind of belittling language is what I'm talking about. It happens all the time.

She also talks about mixed sex regiments and spaces in the military - and how she can see that the aim of the military may be compromised by the presence of women without the necessary strength for certain types of combat role; and the potential for over-protection towards women from male colleagues, rather than focusing on the male fighting unit.

I've always had similar thoughts abut women in the armed forces; plus the feminism I grew up with wondered why a woman would even want to be involved with the military.

Idon't think she has a firm stance on anything; she is just exploring ideas; and the 'idea' is that all pregnancies would be wanted pregnancies ( if women were released from feelng they have to pursue joyless sexual episodes with men who don't desrve it) , hence no need for abortion.

Like most of us she sees earlier abortion as the most preferable - and baulks at the concept of whole term abortions which are permitted in some U.S states.

the best she's come up with is that women need to marry well and put childbearing first, or men are basically justified in behaving however they like to them.

That's a bizarre reading of her words! Good lord. She's saying that if you want to be a mother then you are best protected by marriage. She may be wrong, I dunno, but in no way did she say that women need to marry if they don't want to. At least, not anywhere I've read, and not in the article in the OP.