Online conference on the failures of liberal feminism

[louisemperry]

Hi all, on Thursday 17th December at 11:00 I’m going to be chairing an online conference that might be of interest to mumsnetters.

Our panel –

Kathleen Stock will speaking on the failures of “high church” academic feminism, with its emphases on arcane language, unverifiable beliefs, liturgical chanting, and priestly authority.

Nimko Ali will be speaking about the failure to credit and invest in African women doing feminist work on the frontline.

Mary Harrington will be speaking about the motherhood shaped blind spot in mainstream feminism, and why moving beyond it means re-examining core liberal assumptions.

Nina Power will be speaking on the failure of the contemporary liberal Left to recognise that women are oppressed on the basis of their biology, and arguing that the history of the family is indissociable from a historical and materialist understanding of humanity.

You can watch live between 11:00 and 13:30, which will give you the opportunity to put questions to the panel. You can register using this link –zoom.us/webinar/register/4815931634324/WN_K-DRxGOzRB6DU3Plo9f8xQ

Alternatively, you’ll be able to catch up later on YouTube or the Res Publica website.

Watching now. Really interesting. Thanks for organising this.

Will listen to this in chunks as I can, but if the speakers have any key papers they could point us to, that would be great.

@louisemperry I've just noticed Kathleen Stock is no longer on Twitter. I'm hoping this is a Christmas Twitter break and she hasn't become another "disappeared" woman online? Anyone know more?

[quote carlaCox]@louisemperry I've just noticed Kathleen Stock is no longer on Twitter. I'm hoping this is a Christmas Twitter break and she hasn't become another "disappeared" woman online? Anyone know more?[/quote]
I’m not sure. I think she first of all had the husband of Grace Lavery rip into her and call her the most vile things. The husband is a trans man and GL is a trans woman. Then for some bizarre reason Glinner also stuck the boot it.

I don’t know how KS does it to be honest. Her working life must be intolerable.

If I had to sum up the individual messages, I’d say that the speakers talked about different ways in which women have been let down by powerful actors. Ali looks at humanitarianism, Power at party politics, Stock at academia and Harrington (who I think is a really interesting political thinker) at elite political imagination. I liked them all very much, great chairing by Louise Perry, but listening to Nimco Ali really hit home how non-trivial this all is. It’s literally a life-or-death issue.

What I would have liked would have been a more detailed consideration of how post-liberal feminism will fit in with post-liberalism in general. Plenty of male post-liberals out there, where do our interest coincide, where do they diverge? Because if post-liberalism means anti-individualism, it means more ‘community’, where will that come from and how will women shape it?
What will our relationship with power look like? Nina P. said she ‘nuked’ her life and now lives a precarious existence as a free-floating intellectual but some of us must hold on to institutional power.

listening to Nimco Ali really hit home how non-trivial this all is. It’s literally a life-or-death issue

Nimco Ali really hit it out of the park, I thought. Amazing woman,

When she spoke of her experience talking to groups about FGM still going on in this country and in other countries, and being told that she was 'transphobic' in her focus on biological women and girls!

That anecdote, for me, brought transactivism into perspective as a privileged, First world white concern, not a million miles from men's rights activism.

It was quite upsetting and infuriating to hear Nimco Ali talk about how FGM discussions are being derailed by trans activists because they think it's transphobic to be focused on the biological realities of African women and girls.

I will never forgive nor forget this ideological movement in its incessant disrespect and disregard for the lives of women and girls. 'Intersectional feminism' my arse.

listening to Nimco Ali really hit home how non-trivial this all is. It’s literally a life-or-death issue.

During the week I was reading about a public health education initiative in a country I'm not going to name. Part of the background for it was that in an education year group of girls, 20% will have been raped in the last year -

The reality of the life of African women and girls a brutal example of Jeffrey's sex castes and is non-trivial.

In Spring 2019 there was a huge Supreme Court case in Kenya around gay rights. Kenyan gay rights campaigners were working tirelessly to try to overturn laws criminalising homosexual acts but the Supreme Court upheld them all. This was huge news in Kenya and yet I didn't hear a word from many so-called LGBT activists in the UK. It's become clear to me that many of these "activists" are actually just out there to promote themselves via the latest bandwagon. I can completely understand Nimko's frustration.

Thanks for linking this.
Big fan of Kathleen Stock.

I agree, and to me, mainstream feminism in the UK has become incredibly parochial. The recent focus on race is welcome but if the women that are now being heard are identical to white, wealthy, educated women in every other respect but ethnicity, then that’s incredibly one-dimensional. I often wonder about the experience of women from Eastern Europe in the UK. It’s a large group but where are they in mainstream media?

But I want to come back to the ‘liberalism’ issue because that’s the overarching political framework. I know we talk about gender identity a lot on this board but there is a bigger, systemic issue here, and gender identity activism and the way in which it is detrimental to women is only one symptom of a wider political malaise (at least I think that’s what Mary Harrington was implying).

Sadly, I can’t discuss this with most of the smart women I know because they don’t accept that gender identity activism has been detrimental to women (lala lala, fingers in ears etc. etc.)

Thank you so much for posting this, it was fantastic.

I have be longing to hear someone address the issues of motherhood and interdependence which Mary Harrington covered so eloquently. I hope to hear more about it.

Thank you to all the speakers, I loved listening to you all and thank you OP for posting the video here.

I thought Mary made great points about the nature of motherhood and it’s absence from „mainstream“ feminism. It’s a massive, massive, deal. Whether or not it is truly a „choice“ to have children in this day and age, we have to recognise that many many women do, and indeed are very keen on doing so, and this has very significant consequences for those women. For me also a glaring omission in current public policy is any serious attempt to make fathers financially responsible for their offspring. Failure to support could be pursued far more vigorously, criminal penalties imposed etc. Instead it seems conspicuously absent from policy debate.

I have be longing to hear someone address the issues of motherhood and interdependence which Mary Harrington covered so eloquently

Yes, I'm still reflecting on her contributions to the seminar. Her starting point about the "Mother-shaped hole" in feminism was powerful. I think actually it's a "Mother-shaped hole" in our society.

Our working culture, for example, is organised & structured around the male body, and the male life pattern that comes from the male body. Work without a stop from 23 to 65, then retire.

We've somehow squeezed women into that working culture, by dint of women either doing two shifts (and mostly daring not to speak about being a mother in the workplace), or sacrificing motherhood pretty much altogether, or by using money to buy in caring services - although that is also a man/father's responsibility although we rarely berate MEN for buying in caring services.

Somehow this is another thing that women with children, and who also work (for money outside the home), have to feel guilty for ...

But the thing that really stopped me in my tracks, and has made me go back to watch the recording was Ms Harrington's thinking about the future, in response to one of Ms Perry's question about falling fertility rates, at around 43 minutes in. Ms Harrington's answer is in 2 parts, and in the 2nd part, she muses on a possibly dystopian consequence of falling fertility rates in the UK.

In summary, she wonders about a political pressure on falling fertility rates having an effect in 2 or 3 generations on women's ability to undertake education & careers ie limiting women's opportunities. She acknowledges it's a possibly dystopian thought, but she then links it to incel politics and pressures on women ...

Worrying & fascinating.

I thought Mary Harrington's arguments about the economic damage caused by declining fertility amongst "the native population" were weak. The obvious answer is immigration. She says this isn't an answer because "xenophobia". What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

@SadlyMissTaken

I thought Mary Harrington's arguments about the economic damage caused by declining fertility amongst "the native population" were weak. The obvious answer is immigration. She says this isn't an answer because "xenophobia". What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

She might point to the way that communities all over Europe that have accepted large numbers of immigrants have had really significant reactions in the population, up to and including riots.

@dayoftheclownfish

I agree, and to me, mainstream feminism in the UK has become incredibly parochial. The recent focus on race is welcome but if the women that are now being heard are identical to white, wealthy, educated women in every other respect but ethnicity, then that’s incredibly one-dimensional. I often wonder about the experience of women from Eastern Europe in the UK. It’s a large group but where are they in mainstream media?

But I want to come back to the ‘liberalism’ issue because that’s the overarching political framework. I know we talk about gender identity a lot on this board but there is a bigger, systemic issue here, and gender identity activism and the way in which it is detrimental to women is only one symptom of a wider political malaise (at least I think that’s what Mary Harrington was implying).

Sadly, I can’t discuss this with most of the smart women I know because they don’t accept that gender identity activism has been detrimental to women (lala lala, fingers in ears etc. etc.)

I'd be very interested in what you are thinking about liberalism in this. I tend to agree that the gender identity stuff is part of a wider issue, or intellectual approach.

It's been interesting to me that certain classical liberals are among those who are pushing back on this stuff, usually with an emphasis on what they call "enlightenment values.". Though they are not the only groups by any stretch.

What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

I think we (as a country and as a continent) seem to have given little thought to how to reduce the risk of xenophobia through immigration. It seems to be that we have policies around border control but then once people are in the country there is little thought given to how to encourage integration and community cohesion. I say this as someone who has lived as an immigrant in other countries that have given a lot more thought to this. In other words, xenophobia is not an inevitable consequence of immigration.

Regarding immigration

First generation immigrants (not speaking about refugees) make their choice to move countries knowingly and know that they will benefit from it overall. I think in return they accept that they are treated slightly differently and maybe don't expect their experiences or interests to outweigh those of the existing population. It's much harder for second-generation immigrants who had no choice in the matter and - rightly - do not feel they should be treated any differently. So there is this generational side to the issue.

It has long been an argument of social scientists that the Nordic countries were able to develop such generous welfare states because their societies were so homogeneous. There does seem to be a link between the level of taxes that people are willing to pay and the internal ethnic or racial diversity of a society because humans tend to be less generous to people who they regard as 'not like me'. I make no value judgment on that, it seems to be what the data suggests. So if you have mass immigration, you can expect less generous welfare systems. Women depend on the welfare state quite a bit because they tend to have fewer assets than men (maybe they are also more reliant on public healthcare?)

Then there is the cost of immigration. I agree that the point "immigration causes xenophobia" needs elaboration. You don't have to be anti-immigrant to acknowledge that a diversifying society incurs some costs, especially in the absence of assimilation. Of course you also have some benefits, and it is probably very difficult to conclusively answer the question which outweighs which. Angela Nagle has engaged with this question in a (IMO) thought-provoking article called "The Left case against open borders." Worth reading. The point is that the benefits of immigration are not necessarily distributed equally.

Finally, there is the more basic point about democracy and self-determination. Should a majority in a democratic society have the right to say "we do not want more immigration"? I think, on balance, and with qualifications, the answer is yes.

Chestnut

Am conscious that my posts are quite long, but it's true that old-fashioned liberals are put off by the authoritarian tendencies of certain social movements but, because they are fundamentally on board with empowering individuals, they can't see the larger problem.

The larger problem being to always instinctively adopt the position "Who am I to judge?" (how about "you are a human being capable of rational thought and moral judgment, so why not exercise it?") and to celebrate anything that can make a claim to "liberation" without asking about the costs and consequences of said "liberation". Which brings us back to the way in which women have been "liberated" from having children/looking after children and the question whether that has been an unadulterated good for everybody involved. It feels transgressive to even ask the question, we're touching on real societal taboos here, right?

@dayoftheclownfish

Chestnut

Am conscious that my posts are quite long, but it's true that old-fashioned liberals are put off by the authoritarian tendencies of certain social movements but, because they are fundamentally on board with empowering individuals, they can't see the larger problem.

The larger problem being to always instinctively adopt the position "Who am I to judge?" (how about "you are a human being capable of rational thought and moral judgment, so why not exercise it?") and to celebrate anything that can make a claim to "liberation" without asking about the costs and consequences of said "liberation". Which brings us back to the way in which women have been "liberated" from having children/looking after children and the question whether that has been an unadulterated good for everybody involved. It feels transgressive to even ask the question, we're touching on real societal taboos here, right?

Yes, right! I thought you were going in quite a different direction, but I very much agree with this.

I would say this is one of the things that has plagued feminist thought, and I don't mean liberal feminism either - resulting in a set of views that can be all over the place and not very consistent, not very reflective on social structures that someone decided were non-liberating, etc.

Harrington is quite interesting on those topics, but in some ways I am surprised she's been accepted as a feminist thinker at all simply because she asks them - there has been a strong tendency for some feminists to ring-fence what counts as acceptable feminist thinking by women - many of those women have stopped calling themselves feminists and simply stopped engaging in that discourse, they've taken it to other forums where they will actually be treated as having something to contribute. Which has been very damaging overall IMO as it's left feminist thought without the internal challenges it requires to have real intellectual power.

@carlaCox

What evidence is there that xenophobia offsets the economic benefits of immigration in countries with aging populations?

I think we (as a country and as a continent) seem to have given little thought to how to reduce the risk of xenophobia through immigration. It seems to be that we have policies around border control but then once people are in the country there is little thought given to how to encourage integration and community cohesion. I say this as someone who has lived as an immigrant in other countries that have given a lot more thought to this. In other words, xenophobia is not an inevitable consequence of immigration.

The thing with immigration is that whenever you have lots of new people coming in, it's destabilising to the community - it requires time and resources to integrate them, and depending on the differences between the two populations, there may be significant frictions over lifestyle or values.

The less robust and stable the community is to begin with the more difficult that process will be. But even a very stable community will have limits on what will be possible in a limited amount of time.

There is also the problem that this kind of immigration is in part talking about bringing people in to stabilise the ponzi scheme that is modern capitalism. And the people on the bottom are usually going to suffer in that situation. That will create rightful resentment on their part, and guilty resentment at the top. Not a good combination.

(You could also as a lot of questions about the degree to which a place like the UK which has quite high population density can accommodate more people, or the ethics of taking people from other places to serve the needs of your own wealthy population and leaving the other place poor and underserved.)

I think a robust refugee system is important, and also allowing people to immigrate when there is marriage or family connections. But I'm not convinced that it is normally a real answer to economic problems.

Immigration brings problems, sure. I don't accept Mary's implied message that the "native" population should reproduce, otherwise there will be economic consequences that cannot be offset by immigration because "xenophobia".

Immigration brings problems, sure. I don't accept Mary's implied message that the "native" population should reproduce, otherwise there will be economic consequences that cannot be offset by immigration because "xenophobia".

Yeah that sounds a bit worrying. Not a big fan of MH as she writes for Conservative Woman who are about as anti-feminist as you can get and want us all to be housewives. The world is massively overpopulated so telling everyone to have loads of kids is irresponsible.

“Not a big fan of MH as she writes for Conservative Woman who are about as anti-feminist as you can get and want us all to be housewives”

Even if that were true (receipts?), our current economic arrangements would not allow it.