The "left wing/ right wing" problem for GC Feminists

[GeordieTerf]

One of the most common accusations thrown at GC feminists is that they are "right-wing". Pink News often associates GC feminists with the Christian right in America, for example. It seems clear to me that these accusations (which are easily disproven with 30 seconds of research) upset quite a lot of British feminists. From my observations, a lot of GC people go out of their way to demonstrate that they're left-wing.

I'm a feminist. I care about the rights, welfare, and empowerment of ALL women. Feminism doesn't belong to the left wing anymore than it belongs to the right wing. It is for the benefit of all women. The loss of single-sex spaces will affect all of us.

I used to be left wing, until I "peak-transed" 5 years ago. This issue opened me up to the undercurrent of misogyny in the left wing. My local Lib Dem candidate told me not to vote for her. She told me that she didn't want my vote, so I didn't give it to her. This experience is mild compared to what the left wing has done to other GC feminists. Basically, the left wing has thrown women under the bus over this issue. I will no longer stand alongside them. I am now a politically-homeless centrist.

I'm not saying that the right are any better. In the long run, they are probably worse for women. However, I do think that right wing women matter just as much as left wing women, and they have just as much right to speak out about this issue.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now and wondered if anyone fancies having a chat about it? Hence the thread.

I usually think of Conservatism in terms of less regulation/lower taxes/less state

Exactly! Where is that party? But instead, as Prodigal says, it's just been 20 years of Blairite BS. The Conservatives have been like Generals fighting the last war. They spent 10 years apologising for being Conservative and copying the bankrupt NeoCon popinjay who preceded them.

Personally, I believe that government is too blunt a tool to achieve true equality of outcome

Equality of outcome is impossible. Attempts to achieve it lead to a severe restriction of individual freedom at best and horrendous oppression and suffering at worst. It's 1984 and Animal Farm.

Yes, Prodigal. And I think it's to benefit a smaller and smaller section of society. It's not what classic Tories would want, I don't think - to have the country asset stripped and sold to the highest international bidders, and everyone's resources also funnelled off to that 1%.

Gronky, it's an interesting thought. Does feminism require state intervention to protect women?

The future of neoliberalism is what's happened to Greece. I don't think anyone wants that unless it benefits them directly.

BovaryX, I agree that it's impossible. I'm not too sure on Animal Farm and 1984, though there are parallels with the latter.

Does feminism require state intervention to protect women?

That's a very prickly question. I would say a tentative yes under the current system but could you please define what women need protecting from? That's not to say that I don't believe women need protecting but I'm interested in what you think the state can and should offer protection against.

I'm interested in what you think the state can and should offer protection against.

Protection against male violence, coercion using the threat of violence, power wielded by the stronger over the weaker, I suppose.

I dont quite agree with OP's description.

There is one group of GC feminists in a sort of stand off with another group of GC feminists.

Instead of each group clearly spelling out their different analysis / campaign tactics, primarily can or even should trans women be part of a gender critical group, they have stooped to sort of tabloid type tactics of implying some sin which means the group being accused of sinning shouldn't be listend to. (This arguement has led to a number of threads on here which have not been that sisterly.)

So if a GC group thinks the only way to get a public platform in the US is to join ranks with a feminist group that is alleged to be funded by fundamentalist christians, and goes ahead with this, they are to the opposing group showing that their political values are so low just throw everything they have done in the bin. (Interestingly this distinction of a good GC feminist must be of the left doesn't seem to be used against women who have articles published in UK right wing papers, but are thought to have the right left credentials.)

So the mud slinging over left and right is just stopping us talking about the issue itself.

How to organise, who to lobby, working with political parties, and perhaps most important, how to reach our and make connections with other women.

Traditional conservatism is unrecognisable from what's now conceptualised and presented as conservative. Small state and minimal taxes is more liberal ideologically than conservative.

I think this is part of the problem - people do not always mean the same thing when talking about conservatives, or the left. Liberals are maybe a bit closer in a way as traditionally liberals like to minimise regulation of all kinds including regulation of the market - in that sense they are actually what a lot of people mean when they say conservative, but since they have generally embraced globalism quite strongly now that is about right.

Conservatives were always more about the preservation of institutional social structures and traditions, which in some ways means they have a greater affinity for traditional leftists, who also understand class and social hierarchies of power. (As opposed to liberals who tend to be individualists.)
Where leftists and conservatives have tended to differ is leftists want to make sure the institutions work for the working classes and those who are more radical have tended to see that as requiring the total destruction of the traditional social structures, which conservatives usually see as unwise or even simply impossible. In practise though many of both groups are closer to the middle and sometimes the difference can be paper thin.

I think this is why many traditional leftists have turned to conservative parties as their own parties seem to have been consumed by individualistic liberalism. Liberals don't quite seem to be able to "get" that though.

I think both the traditional left and the traditional right have some sense of collective responsibility for the wellbeing of everyone, though they differ greatly on how that's best achieved or maintained. Neoliberalism, otoh, gives not a single fuck about the wellbeing of anyone cloaks it in a thin veneer of identity politics, both left and right versions.

I think this breaking down of tribalism is a good thing, and it would be a very good thing if it inspired people to setting up these lists of "right-on" and "beyond-the-pale" views used to sort others. And to decide if we should even bother to listen to them.

Protection against male violence, coercion using the threat of violence, power wielded by the stronger over the weaker

Thank you, the other half of the equation and where things get extra prickly, in my opinion, is how the state enforces these. For example, is justice or prevention more important? For the former, should the standards for prosecution be relaxed, which likely results in more men (and women) being imprisoned and opens the door for vexatious cases? For the latter, is policing sufficient (in its current form or in an enhanced form) or should active methods be employed (e.g. curfews).

Subsequently, if any of these practices are to be applied with priority to men or women, should this also be applied to other groups that are identified as being a greater risk or more at risk? For example, for a curfew, given that those from more impoverished backgrounds are more likely to engage in crime, should a curfew also be imposed for low wage earners?

Finally, if the principle of unequal treatment (potentially in the name of equality/equity) is acceptable, how is it decided which groups are given priority over others? In other words, who are the oppressors and who are the oppressed (or, as you put it, stronger and weaker); can it even be determined based on a demographic whether an individual is one or the other?

I'm not so much proposing these measures or proposing that you would or should support these measures to meet with your statements. I more mean to illustrate how state intervention is like nuclear fission: a very powerful tool but also one which can run away and cause harm if met with unchecked optimism about its ability to help. I think that any state machinery set up to specifically protect any one group can equally harm that group if the justification for its creation is seized by another; and that this is more likely than not to happen.

It is all about actual social responsibility, not about performing social responsibility.

Yep! And damn does it ever make those who prefer performance to getting shit done angry.

This discussion is very constructive and thought-provoking. I was worried that I may need a hard hat when I started it!

People are always trying to turn Feminism into something else by hybridizing it to serve the politics of men. So there is Marxist feminism which is Marxism not Feminism, and Liberal feminism which is liberalism but not Feminism, and equality feminism which is an insult to our fore mothers who knew "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges..."

Feminism is one thing. The political movement for the liberation of half the human population, and wouldn't you think that were a daunting enough task? Feminism is like the red queen that has to run twice as fast to stay in one place because the undermining and the outright opposition is overwhelming and unrelenting.

On UK right wing Vs left wing.

I'm not going to phrase this well as had a few!

Anyway.

We have recently found out just how much the left prioritise men.

I always pointed out to DH with Bob crow, the TFL Union man, how when he spoke, he was really thinking of the men.

In all political affiliations, they have been male led for men by men. EG the lib Dems, before all this. Seemed to have a disproportionate interest in liberalising where men could stick their dicks.

OTOH there are Tory women through the years with a strong interest in the situation and needs of women and children.

Feminism is for women, whatever the political affiliation and view on tax, small state etc, we have a shared experience and know what men are like. Namalt. Yes you get some awful women who actively work against women like Nadine dorries and the dup woman. But for men, none of this stuff is even on the radar. We would be better off with more representation from all sides from women.

The infighting in the feminist movement gets on my nerves. This is a feature of the 'left'. There's a book called don't think of an elephant (USA but pertinent) that really helps to get to grips with some of this stuff.

I agree GC feminist is not a great term. In reality most people in society are GC. The feminist tag means that people switch off. Oh it's a women's issue (why is that niche and not a society issue, in general?), a feminist issue... Not my problem. On this the GC women (and men) speak for the mainstream. Rare for feminists! Do we need a new name. This one works against us. Anything with 'women' in it essentially means a lot of men think, nothing to do with me and move on.

And gronky.

:Does feminism require state intervention to protect women?

That's a very prickly question. I would say a tentative yes under the current system but could you please define what women need protecting from? That's not to say that I don't believe women need protecting but I'm interested in what you think the state can and should offer protection against.'

Rape. DV. Murder. Street harassment. Voyeurism. Etc. Men should of course be protected against these things as well. The laws are in place but we need, still, to take these crimes more seriously. And they without a doubt disproportionally impact women.

You said :For example, is justice or prevention more important? For the former, should the standards for prosecution be relaxed, which likely results in more men (and women) being imprisoned and opens the door for vexatious cases? '

Please don't try to divert this thread. It's not about sex offence prosecutions, and no one has suggested that the burden of proof in sex offences should be reduced. In fact no one has mentioned that topic at all apart from you.

Feminism is one thing. The political movement for the liberation of half the human population

Honestly, I don't think it's possible to be "just feminist" as you seem to want, because feminism doesn't really have enough content on it's own.

What's a woman, what makes them unique? What does it mean to be liberated? What's society? How do individuals and groups operate in society? What is the purpose of society? What responsibilities do individuals and groups have?

You really can't talk about freedom for women without talking about these things, and feminism doesn't tell you unless you embed it within some larger ideas. When someone says they are just a feminist, what it really means is that they are not acknowledging where they have embedded it. Which is a good trick for dismissing those who would choose a different way to do it.

The 'larger ideas' are man made. Literally.

Women of all political persuasions can and do consider, raise, flag, things that affect women and children.

Yes some are arseholes on all sides.

But for men, this stuff is not even on the radar.

The 'larger ideas' are man made. Literally

That's a little dismissive of women who are involved in political discourse.

But even if we take it as a true statement, it doesn't solve the problem that without a sense of these questions there is no direction for feminism. When you look at disagreements within feminism, about what things are problems and what solutions might look like, they tend to come down to the context of the political persuasion of the people doing the talking. Does being "free" as a woman mean being decoupled from the body or does it mean the ability to fulfil our biology? Or something else.

The way most radical feminists conceptualise women as a group, and patriarchy, is basically Marxist, it's not some sort of pure feminism. No actual instantiated feminism is. It's nice to say their experiences draw all women together as women and there is some truth to it, but claiming that there is a pure feminism untainted by other perspectives is usually about one group of those women telling another that their views aren't "really" feminist.

I have never said there is a pure feminism.

I have also said the infighting pisses me off.

And of course the larger ideas are man made. Men have run the world though all known history pretty much everywhere. Do you dispute that?

Feminism is the larger idea.

Just as misogyny is the larger idea that underpins men's rights and men's laws.

I can't remember who said "I'm not right-wing and I'm not left-wing, I'm woman-wing". I also can't remember who it was who said that the difference between right-wing men and left-wing men is that right-wing men view women as private property and left-wing men view women as public property. But I'm pretty sure it was Lisa Muggeridge who said that right-wing and left-wing men will argue all day over exactly how they should put their boots on women's necks.