"Gross, reductive naturalising maternal industrial complex"

[SunsetBeetch]

Here's some TRA word salad for your Saturday night. Perhaps is will make sense if you've had a few drinks?

"Cis women confusing "erasure" with not being at the center of a discourse is fast becoming one of my pet peeves. Why not be inclusive of everyone who menstruates? There is no good reason. Obviously."

twitter.com/kate_manne/status/1187481570996830208?s=19

"Same when it comes to pregnancy and breast/chestfeeding. The truth is, we all gain when these activities aren't essentialized and made into part of some gross, reductive, naturalizing MIC (maternal industrial complex)."

twitter.com/kate_manne/status/1187483964677734400?s=19

"Being inclusive around all procreative activities is better for trans men and non-binary folks who participate in them; it's better for cis women who don't or can't; it's better for trans women who typically can't; and it's better for cis women who do, absent bad ideology."

twitter.com/kate_manne/status/1187483966137348096?s=19

"And, finally, it's surely better for adoptive parents, who are often genuinely erased in discourses of this kind."

twitter.com/kate_manne/status/1187484921142697985?s=19

Someone sounds very uncomfortable about normal female bodily functions.

I don't know how to.express this, I'm tired and a little drunk. But these people and the language they use, it's so...robotic? clinical? cold? Do you get what I mean?

It's more DARVO.

"Maternal industrial complex" would be things like Nestle promoting formula, the rapidly growing surrogacy industry in places like India.

Not individual women doing the normal things that normal mothering has always involved, for love and not for pay.

These nutters always do this: take phrases that they think sound intellectual and vaguely apocalyptic and use them to mean the literal (in the literal meaning of "literal" ) opposite of what they actually mean. It's like watching a crazy 21st century version of Mrs Malaprop with an insane political agenda.

There really is so much distaste at mothers' bodies, isn't there?
It's really not in the least surprising that Mumsnet is targeted so hard.

"I have nothing against breastfeeding but I don't think you should do it in public. It's disgusting and smug and only done by women trying to make a point."

"I have nothing against breastfeeding but I don't think you should call it 'breastfeeding'. It's disgusting and smug and only done by women trying to make a point."

You can tell me the second one is a lovely progressive feminist position if you want to, but they sound remarkably similar to me.

the rapidly growing surrogacy industry in places like India

well, indeed. If anything's a maternal industrial complex...

deary deary me

you're a woman love

your body is designed to bear and feed children, even if you chose not to

your mind however is not, and there is no need to feel limited or threatened by your biology, even though we all know that there are many people who will try to use it to make you feel that way

there, that wasn't hard, was it?

Parklife.

I do understand the point about adoptive mothers (I’m not one). I often read things here, especially in discussion about surrogacy, that state very unequivocally that anything other than care by the birth mother is inferior and damaging, and feel very sad for them. Nobody sane and humane would ever suggest that an adoptive mother’s love for her child wasn’t genuine, and it must be horrible to read a suggestion that you’re second best, or not doing the right thing. But I also get really tired of the endless demands that everyone police their language all the time for any hint of exclusivity and change their words until they have no meaning any more. Offence can only ever be taken, not given.

This made me really wonder about her book, so I had a look at it using Amazon look-inside (only available on Amazon.com, not Amazon.co.uk for this book).

It's actually very lucid with lots of excellent analysis. However, I did notice this quote from the conclusion (I've highlighted certain phrases). She's talking about Trump-voting left-behinds, but her words could equally well apply to another group:

"Listening and offering sympathy to those who are prone to shame-based misogynistic as well as racist outbursts is feeding the very need and sense of entitlement that drives them in the first place, when they go unmet. In other words, it’s adding fuel to the fire…You can’t do much to help or give to someone who, yes, is in genuine pain and lashing out – but only because they feel too needy and illicitly entitled to getting such moral attentions to begin with. The liberal impulse is therefore misplaced here, unless we want to get stuck feeding the need-monster forever. As many white women indeed appear to be committed to doing, when it comes to the white men they’ll remain loyal to not-withstanding their sexual misconduct ”

I wonder if she has ever heard of autogynephilia? Because what she is accusing other women of doing here seems to be exactly what she herself is doing with regard to autogynephilic men.

It's the central heart and reason for feminism. Women are valid and human whether they are mothers or not. And pregnancy and birth are also uniquely female experiences, and to most women who do experience them, life changing in some way (not the same way for everyone). AND the potential for women to experience these things whether they do or not is the basis of the patriarchy. Finding the path that connects and balances these things... that's feminism. I'd say, if your thinking about feminism doesn't centre one of the core exclusively female experiences, what is it for?

It's for men. Obv.

Apparently, she's in the third trimester of her first pregnancy. I think she may be on the verge of finding a few more things out about the sources of misogyny.....

I always confuse Erasure with the Pet Shop Boys
I think that proves I have had more than my fair share of wine

Nope even without the wine this is all mad and hate filled. I may have a slight head cold but even on on eof my better days this is all too wordy for words!

Wrote a book about misogyny. Takes one to know one I suppose.

Her book is great. And as kesstrel notes, many sections of it could have been directly written about the trans movement. The trans movement was the #1 example I kept referring to in my own mind when I was evaluating whether I agreed with her primary thesis - I do, she is completely correct and the rise of the trans rights movement exemplifies it perfectly.

I assumed from the book that she saw right through them but as a Canadian feminist academic she had to pay lip service to TRA bullshit for the sake of career survival. But she seems to be a true believer. It makes me think of Stockholm syndrome.

Also I think she is either pregnant or a new mother. The "disgust" people are picking up on may be a reaction to biological reality smacking her in the face.

gross, reductive, naturalizing MIC (maternal industrial complex)."

Having struggled to feed, and with a lot of support, succeeded, and eventually gone on to be a peer supporter, and learned a little about breastfeeding and the iniquitous practices of the formula industry, this is upsetting.

I don't think I can comment without saying something horrible.

Thanks, RedToothbrush, for expressing it more eloquently than I am able to.

She's pregnant and nearing birth? I wish her all the best, and I hope she has a good strong network of females around her when she needs them. It's pretty much impossible to understand some of these things without having experienced them, I think.

The liberal impulse is therefore misplaced here, unless we want to get stuck feeding the need-monster forever.

Yes. This. Exactly.

The more language bending you feed that need-monster the more it demands, haven't you noticed this? The more you try to placate those who want to believe their bodies don't designate a biological sex the more boundaries they find that they want removed - regardless of the impact on the 99% of the population not experiencing these issues.

Stop flapping about ever expanding reactions to symptoms and look at the root cause: what is causing this neediness, and how do you help that liberal impulse to shift to something kind, calm and firm involving boundaries. You know, like maternal people do, day in and day out.

The more you try to placate those who want to believe their bodies don't designate a biological sex the more boundaries they find that they want removed

Oh and note too the obvious and very sad conclusion of the above: they don't believe it. They don't believe it themselves and they don't believe others believe it either, or there wouldn't be this never ending pursuit of any word, any symbol, any place that for a minute threatens that so very fragile illusion.

This is crying for the moon.

The other bizarre thing about the book is that I recognised in her writing many of the ideas of second wave feminism from books I read at the time.

But there are no citations at all of second wave academic literature as far as I can see in her (quite extensive) bibliography. It's as if second wave thinking never existed, and she is being terribly clever at being the first one to think of all these great ideas about misogyny.

Either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest. Or maybe a bit of both.

'Being inclusive around all procreative activities is better'

So that includes fucking. Does the person who wrote that even realise the implications.

There was a strand of second wave feminism that rejected motherhood and looked forward to the growing babies in tanks and then raising them communally phase of human society. Understandably it didn't really grow strong roots but I sense it is an idea growing again (not amongst those called radical feminists now) but amongst those who wish to de-power women by separating motherhood from biology, the opposite of what the second wavers meant...I think...

Yeah, what is it with the group of people who do 90% of all reproductive labor ‘wanting to be at the center’ of discussions on reproductive labor and rights for that group of people who do 90% of reproductive labor?

Bloody narcissists

Yes women are very selfish it's true.

Kate Manne is not stupid. Her book shows that she gets the issues. It blatantly contradicts everything she says on social media. But she obviously feels that she would prefer to appease the wokebeards than actually stand up for what she believed in when she wrote the book. She comes across as an idiot and a parody account but I wonder whether she genuinely deep down believes what she is saying.

Classic cool-girl syndrome. Reminds me of Allison Phipps, another woke academic in the UK. She posted something recently saying that when she had her children, she was shamed for not breastfeeding. As a result, she feels that she has more in common with trans women than ‘cis’ women who shamed her for not being woman enough.

But there is maybe a little bit to it. We need to respect women’s choices re breastfeeding and going back to work. Biological essentialism is no better than trans activism.

I just belatedly commented on that Alison Phipps post about breastfeeding, basically pointing out that in my experience women judge themselves and other women rush to reassure rather than judge, at least that's been my experience IRL, even with my mother and MIL ( threads about weaning and controlled crying on Mumsnet are an exception !)