A new race of non-feminist superwomen

[thatdamnwoman]

I'm heading rapidly for 60 but I'm meeting more and more women who are the product of feminism's fights but not, it would seem to me, feminist.

In their late 30s and 40s, they're hospital consultants heading up large departments, they're heading council departments, they're aiming for political office, they're CEOs or they run their own businesses. They all, every single one I can think of, either run marathons or are triathletes or, at the very least, seriously competitive cyclists. Some of them are lesbians, few of them have children. Most of those I know are politically left-leaning. They are fiercely intelligent and driven and terrifyingly confident and accomplished. There's nowhere in the world they haven't been: most have worked abroad and they're globally connected. And this is just in my small and unremarkable city.

I was out last night with a group that included two of these superwomen. I sat there, the oldest in the group, watching and listening and acknowledging that they are the fruit of feminism: confident, intelligent women achieving their potential and helping to change the world.

And yet... Both of them talked several times about their transgender friends without any apparent questioning of the way some of them slip in and out of various identities. They believe gender is a 'thing' rather than a social construct. They think sex is irrelevant, just a random outcome to be ignored. Our evening of conversation covered homelessness, poverty, earnings — but never in the context of women. Women, men, all apparently equal.

One of them has funded a project in a deprived area to support transgender children and talked about how awful it was that a 13-year-old girl had found help too late to be prescribed puberty blockers and would have to undergo mastectomy at a later date. I and a couple of other women just looked at our plates and said nothing: it really wasn't the place to start talking about it.

I gave three women a lift home afterwards. All of us are old-fashioned feminists. We sat in the car till gone midnight, with the windows fogged up, wondering what happened to feminism that so many of the women who've benefitted from the struggles of their mothers and grandmothers are now what someone described as 'amazing men with vaginas'.

Controversially I think most women in straight relationships are supporting the patriarchy.

So what’s it to be for ideological purity then? Does it come down to a choice between political lesbianism or the single life?

How nice to be you, though.

So what’s it to be for ideological purity then?

There's all sorts of aspects that render ideological purity unattainable without enormous personal cost and total ideological purity itself isn't necessarily a goal that should be pursued. I too have encountered the theory that it is impossible to be in a truly equality-promoting heterosexual relationship and find it hard to argue against but that doesn't make women who are unable to escape their emotional and physical needs bad feminists.

Materialist if that explanation was meant for me it wasn't necessary - I agree with you.

However others would argue that just as women are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their biology and gay people on the basis of their sexuality, trans people are oppressed and discriminated against because their innate sense of gender identity is at odds with their biology.

And while radical feminists would argue that the way to address that is to do away with restrictive and prescriptive gender norms, others believe that they should be accepted as the gender with which they identify and given whatever medical treatment they require to alleviate their dysphoria.

But not that they are actually women, or that we should centre them, or place their needs above ours. the rights trans people need are not the same as the rights women need, and they don't have the same trouble being heard.

Gay men and lesbians are not discriminated against for the same reason. Gay women refuse men and are harassed to accept dick, by coercion or outright violence.

As far as I can tell the belief is that that gender dysphoria is somehow rooted in biology or brain chemistry, and is hard-wired and immutable in much the same way sexuality is. And that to not accept someone as the sex class into which they identify is akin to saying lesbians just need a good seeing to or talking about keeping your back to the wall around gay men - just old-fashioned, bigoted and intolerant.

When I say gender dysphoria I mean that to include gender identity.

So what’s it to be for ideological purity then?

I've done my bit to break down patriarchal dominance and sex stereotypes by having a female partner and an anonymous sperm donor. Appreciate this is not for everyone.

I've done my bit to break down patriarchal dominance and sex stereotypes by having a female partner and an anonymous sperm donor.

It's a very personal question and I will have no issue with you declining to answer but was that a deliberate choice or an innate desire? It seems a little unfair to present doing what comes naturally to you as 'doing your bit'.

There's all sorts of aspects that render ideological purity unattainable without enormous personal cost and total ideological purity itself isn't necessarily a goal that should be pursued. I too have encountered the theory that it is impossible to be in a truly equality-promoting heterosexual relationship and find it hard to argue against but that doesn't make women who are unable to escape their emotional and physical needs bad feminists

Do you have any idea how patronising that sounds?

Materialist I didn't think you were having a pop at me and I cited the same idea that gender and sexuality are on a par.

Apparently there is research that shows common characteristics in the brains of trans people, which is used to support the idea that it's innate.

It’s a pretty equal partnership within my straight heterosexual marriage Jez, not conforming to traditional sexual stereotypes - I don’t see that as patriarchal dominance, unless you are saying the traditional family unit structure itself is patriarchal.....so i’m Now fully expecting someone to tell me that I have internalised misogyny.

Gronky no problem, i am lucky to find women attractive and they fulfil all my emotional needs. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle etc. So yes it is unfair of me to expect the same of all feminists.

I know I am judgey but I always feel so disappointed when a woman falls under the spell of a man, takes his name, becomes his 'Mrs', sacrifices her career so he can advance his.

Jezebelz It's fairly easy for a woman who's paying attention, who's been exposed to both liberal feminist and radical feminist thought, to notice that one of those ideologies makes more sense than the other.

It's normal to want to associate oneself with the smarter brighter more logical ideology.

So it's become fairly common for libfems to claim to be radfem, and even to believe it. But the one thing for sure which separates a libfem from a radfem, is their position on transgenderism. Radfems focus on women first, so if something is bad for women then a radfem won't support it. Radfems think things through to a point far beyond what most will spend on any given issue which affects women. There is no tenant of trandgenderism which has survived the logic test, not one.

If you're still supporting trans, then you haven't thought things through enough. (sorry, but true!) Start some threads on trans, talk about what you think supports their claim, and then you'll see for yourself how a genuine radfem can easily deconstruct all the stupid bullshit that you couldn't even see until someone pointed it out. But be warned, once you see it you can't unsee it.

The simplest demonstration, of course, involves the most fundamental arguments. If you can't prove square one then you can't proceed to square two, that's how logic works. I hope you understand that if someone is going to make the claim that a male bodied person is magically female bodied, then they need to prove it. If someone is going to make the claim that all women have a feminine gender essence residing inside their brain which causes them to enjoy being a doormat porn queen for men's benefit, then they need to prove it. So much (everything really) underlying transgenderism is just word salad nonsense spouted by those who conflate kindness of heart with competency of thought, and haven't yet worked through their internalized male supremacy.

If you can't or don't want to start some threads of your own, at least please stop saying that it's possible for even one radfem to support transgenderism -- the belief that gendered souls exist and that women are born being obedient fucktoys for men's benefit, is diametrically opposed to putting women first and liberation from men's tyranny.

oh drat, I should have previewed closer, was meaning to replace "stupid bullshit" with something kinder!

Jezebelz, thank you for your response.

Radfems focus on women first, so if something is bad for women then a radfem won't support it.
There is no tenant of trandgenderism which has survived the logic test, not one.

The problem here, ohello is that you're conflating subjective opinion (good/bad) with fact (biology). You could argue that aspects Jezebelz's beliefs with regards to transgenderism aren't logically backed up by scientific evidence but you can't logically argue that, logically, she has no basis for labeling them as feminism.

ohello you state is as fact, but this is definitely debatable. Plenty of radical feminists support transgender equality.

Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon for example.

It is perfectly feasible for feminists to want to abolish the patriarchy and oppose all sexual objectification of women (radical) and still accept and trans women as women.

Isn’t the rad fem stance that there is no such thing as a feminist choice when we are already playing on such an uneven playing field? As in our individual ‘choices’ can not be considered pro feminism or anti the cause or whatever until women are liberated from patriarchal rule.

It wasn’t a choice for me to stay at home with my disabled children. Dh our earns me by ten times more and I’m the one whose breasts make milk. That isn’t a feminist choice or not. Caring about trandional women’s roles being of equal value to men’s was a huge part of where feminism began. My dh gets this, he understands that without my childcare he wouldn’t be able to earn what he does. He understands the ‘choice’ to give up my career to care for very vulnerable children wasn’t a real choice, that financially we would be screwed any other way. He put the house in my name to acknowledge and somewhat readdress the power imbalance that is within our relationship, a power imbalance that is not due to choices he or I make but due to the structural inequality that is patriarchal rule. And of course being straight is no more a choice than being a lesbian is- highly biogoted to suggest otherwise.

I would also disagree that women need men like fish yadda yadda. Children need fathers, and or other positive nurturing male role models. Girls need to see men taking on the emotional labour and burden within parenting or caring or teaching etc (wherever said girls see male role models) so that they are not burdened with the idea they must do it all, and end up running themselves into the ground doing both the transitional male role and transitional female roles within relationships. Equally boys need to see men who teach them not to be violent, to respect women, to pick up their own laundry and to be emotionally present in their relationships with women- whether partners or siblings or parents or friends or colleagues. They need to see men doing an equal share of the organising and care giving and caring for disabled or elderly relatives and children. Discarding the importance of men within kids lives is no difference to the stereotypical heterosexual relationship where the little woman does everything and the man puts his feet up and drinks beer while she runs ragged. Discounting what men should be doing, and not bringing up the next generation to be much better men, is part of the problem in the first place.

Dh out earns me by ten times more and I’m the one whose breasts make milk

I think a truly radical response would be that your DH earns ten times more because the patriarchal society is set up to favour men and oppress women.

I don't necessarily agree with the ethics of the following but science has advanced so much now that trans women can lactate. I believe a trans woman was able to exclusively breastfeed her adopted child for six weeks. Now that is radical. It is breaking down patriarchal structures.

Jezebel Your ideological stance seems to be based on much of Geraldine Bunbury's early work, which is interesting as she's quite an obscure feminist.

Oh really BeUpStanding? Never heard of her and can't find her on Google. Would be interested to know what she said.
I admit my ideological stance may be a little obscure.

don't necessarily agree with the ethics of the following but science has advanced so much now that trans women can lactate

Every human can lactate

Its just a matter of the right drugs...and in abundance

Oops

Bold fail

I don't necessarily agree with the ethics of the following but science has advanced so much now that trans women can lactate. I believe a trans woman was able to exclusively breastfeed her adopted child for six weeks. Now that is radical. It is breaking down patriarchal structures.

No it's not it's the essence of patriarchy that time and medical resources should be given to doing something unnatural, unsustainable and which could very well be very harmful to an infant* when actual biological females can't access adequate breastfeeding support after birth, there are not enough milk banks to ensure poorly infants get breastmilk, and there is little to no funding looking at women breastfeeding, drugs in mothers milk etc.

*Women are told to stop breastfeeding if they start fertility treatment and the levels of hormones they would need are likely orders of magnitude lower than that required by a man. It's not of questionable ethics it's downright child abuse. When women get shamed for drinking a glass of alcohol when breastfeeding.

About as patriarchal as you get.