'Feminism is identity politics' - DH just does not get it

[newdocket]

Yesterday morning, after I had just been reading about the heavy handed policing in Clapham, DH appeared and started railing against it - they shouldn't have gone, it isn't all men, identity politics just alienates people etc etc. The crux of his argument is that the rare event of a woman being abducted and killed was being appropriated by women with a beef against men and that this just stirs up division. I explained that women were responding to something that resonates, that many (most) women have a story, or stories about male harrassment and more to tell etc. He just won't accept that it is a widepsread problem (despite me having a number of stories to tell, starting from the age of 11 and our daughter getting harrassed when in her school uniform). He remains hung up on the idea that 'identity politics' is not the way to resolve inequality issues. Come to think of it, he had a similar stance to the BLM protests.

I'm finding myself feeling repulsed by his attitude, it all feels a bit Jordan Peterson. I felt really rattled yesterday and feel a bit sick at the thought of having this kind of conversation with him again. Can anyone think of a helpful way to tackle this? Sorry if my post is a bit inarticulate...

I am angry about #SarahEverad as well. I'm also incandescent about SJW and the hypocrisy of those who say 'keep women safe' at the same time as wanting to put males in women's prisons.
I also remember and am still angry about Cologne New Years Eve, grooming gangs raping girls up and down the country, and the general sex and violence socked culture of the decades before #metoo.

But with regards to identity politics, I tend to agree with your DH.

I think he may be half right, in that there are groups, like Sisters Uncut, who will use this for "identity politics". That is, they are pushing politics, under the guise of identity.

But you can't conversely dismiss all lobbying for groups' rights/needs as identity politics.

Do please fill out the Government consultation on violence against women and girls.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/violence-against-women-and-girls-vawg-call-for-evidence

It's really important that we get involved and tell them like it is... that there seems to be no appetite within successive Governments to address misogyny and VAWG because the men in charge refuse to face up to the reality of MALE PERPETRATED VIOLENCE.

For men to face up to male violence against women and girls would mean having a hand in smashing the patriarchy. And the patriarchy is hell bent on keeping male power exactly where it is.

It's threatening when your group is being accused and blamed, and we respond to threat in different ways and phases. Denial, aggression, reflection, openness, acceptance. I didn't realise until my 40s how much of a problem male violence is. He probably doesn't see it yet. Society doesn't see it yet.

Take a deep breath. Mine had a few of the same ideas but two points stopped him:

I have been raped, by a friend, someone who was helping me get home safe.

He has seen the behaviours of men harrassing women, including me. He sees it. In pubs, on building sites, on the streets, in his colleagues and some friends. He sees it.

And then the question of identity and gender politiciking. Would he have any kind of romantic relationship with a transwoman? ... Why not?

So identity politics have a real life application, don't they?

Now think about a man, trans or otherwise, in every single sex, female space you can think of. Is that right? Think about sport...

Would you happily accept women, trans or otherwise in every single sex, male space you can think of? Think about sport...

Now, whilst he does occasionally have a kneejerk response to some things he is held by his quite immediate understanding that identity politics are pointless to him but dangerous to me!

As I said, he has his moments, but he sees it.

I also think he is half right. Both BLM and the recent vigil were infiltrated by groups of people who really had no skin in the game, they just wanted to cause trouble.

The SE vigil was grabbed by the TRAs to make sure everyone knew TW were women. BLM was co-adopted by middle class white kids who fancied throwing some statues into the river. Thus it ever was the same.

Yes, I did read this morning about Sisters Uncut and see what you mean. But to some degree I think 'identity politics' is something banded around by more powerful groups to minimise/distract from legitimate issues being raised by less powerful groups. It is surely no coincidence that the group (most) engaged by so-called identity politics is the one with most to lose?

I will fill out the consultation, thanks for that.

I think he's party right about identity politics being the focus and not the way to solve the problem, not that I think this particular problem (make violence) can ever be solved frankly. I feel we are further away from that than ever, despite knowing mire than ever.

What I would take issue with, if I was having that conversation, is the fact that he sees feminism as a form of identity politics in the first place. For me it's not at all the same or even relevant. And further irrelevant when we're taking about remembering one woman who has just lost her life and why women who have reason to be scared.

I'd also find it very, very difficult to get past this with your DH, especially as you shared your experiences and your daughter has experienced similar.

It was possible for the vigil to be covid-safe and go ahead without disrupters and of course we have the BLM protests just last year that were allowed to proceed despite COVID being more prevalent then (as in more deaths per day, no vaccine out yet), but I do think it was ultimately better to do something that didn't bring large crowds together right now, even when that gives great reassurance if not being alone.

As for a way to tackle this I would for now say nothing, not to sulk and withdraw but just to process more about how you feel about this. It's probably a bit of a shock and you might see him differently now and need some time yourself to figure out why that is, deep down.

Not that I'm a paragon of communication in a marriage so don't feel you should listen to me!

If it becomes very destructive and an obstacle you can't manage I would recommend counselling. Though this is costly and perhaps impractical. We did the imago approach and it has continued to work for us.

www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&hl=en-gb&sxsrf=ALeKk03Ctvxzu38r2I614zRgv9J960jIbA:1615807162642&q=Imago+therapy+worksheets+pdf&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6odHflrLvAhX0nFwKHV6zCuQQ1QIwJ3oECCQQAQ&biw=375&bih=628&dpr=2#imgrc=FYrnR5ZsGmd_xM

I think feminism becomes identity politics when it seeks to justify actions on the basis of 'being women' for eg. The Daily Mail this morning reported some spokesperson for one of the more political groups at the vigil as saying Cressida Dick shouldn't lose her job on the basis, not of her competence, but because she is a woman. That's identity politics as I see it.

BLM was co-adopted by middle class white kids who fancied throwing some statues into the river. Thus it ever was the same.

Yes. "Defund the police" / ACAB is quite a white middle-class view from people who don't rely on the police so much.

Polls suggest that poorer black people would actually quite like some more police presence in their dangerous neighbourhoods, please.

The people supporting "defund the police" are either revolutionary radicals, or people who have been fooled into supporting it by the BLM identity politics.

(And there is of course a grain of truth in there about the US police being over-militarised, and that's all they really mean, but then you're back to motte-and-bailey arguments.)

But to some degree I think 'identity politics' is something banded around by more powerful groups to minimise/distract from legitimate issues being raised by less powerful groups.

It can be, yes. This works both ways. He shouldn't up-front dismiss all feminism as "identity politics", but you shouldn't up-front dismiss all "identity politics" claims as "attempts to minimise issues".

I'm not saying either of you are, but there is plenty of scope for assumptions of bad faith to get in the way. Be careful of that.

@DysonSphere

I think feminism becomes identity politics when it seeks to justify actions on the basis of 'being women' for eg. The Daily Mail this morning reported some spokesperson for one of the more political groups at the vigil as saying Cressida Dick shouldn't lose her job on the basis, not of her competence, but because she is a woman. That's identity politics as I see it.

I was working from the angle that identity politics happens when TRA tactics make women stand up and shout FUCK OFF!

But that example has made me stop and widen my thinking.

Incompetance is incompetance, it doesn't have a sex! Or shouldn't!

@AffronttoGender

I am angry about #SarahEverad as well. I'm also incandescent about SJW and the hypocrisy of those who say 'keep women safe' at the same time as wanting to put males in women's prisons. I also remember and am still angry about Cologne New Years Eve, grooming gangs raping girls up and down the country, and the general sex and violence socked culture of the decades before #metoo.

But with regards to identity politics, I tend to agree with your DH.

This.

Feminism is the original identity politics and it is necessary, but I get really annoyed by everything being seen through the lens of competing identity groups.

An obsessive focus on identity politics is giving up on Liberal universalism.

The goal of a level society where there is true sex parity, gender assumptions are not forced on anyone and we are all colourblind is a worthy and achievable goal towards which we were moving. The fact that identity politics is now able to take hold is testament to that progress. It is not yet complete and it feels increasingly unlikely.

I don't think we should give up on it and I think identity politics is making it worse not better. That is not the same thing as not wanting equality. Identity politics is tribalism.

The Social Justice Movement is not going to deliver social justice. It is about power, the antithesis of universalism.

The following statements should not be controversial. Only in a world of identity factions would they be.

Not all men
All lives matter
Trans rights are human rights
Womens rights are human rights

I'm coming to think that the simplistic oppressors vs victims and blame seeking tenets of identity politics is divisive, corrosive, regressive and destructive, whether that is black vs white (and unrealistic because race is not binary), men vs women, normal vs queer.

I fear this woke ideology, identity politics and Cultural wave will cause more destruction along the way yet - statues lost, people being cancelled, jobs lost, people silenced, books and shows banned, destruction/subversion of institutions. I don't think the approach is helping the cause. Plus there are power grabs along the way among the chaos (many incidences of sex over ridden by gender in policies and law), people hijacking an agenda and the words (e.g.women, sisters uncut) as a guise to further their own neferious agenda, while playing the victim and race cards and gaining social and political credits for performative virtue signalling.

Identity politics is divisive and corrosive. CRT especially is a Kafka trap - of course there is anger on both sides, inevitably it leads to break down in good faith communications.

People should read Wild Swans to see how the dynamics of the Cultural Revolution under Mao's China worked.

What happens after the patriarchy is smashed? What will it be replaced by?

The real issues facing women need to be addressed and need to be addressed in a progressive, forward looking and constructive way. But first and foremost, the words used must not be corrupted by Stonewall by stealth to mean the opposite, e.g. reality is completely detached from the words when misogyny is considered 'gender neutral'. Secondly, men and women are not the same, that 's the reality, no use pretending that they are.

Truth, reality, language and integrity are fundamental.

Apologies for the incoherent rambling.

@justanotherneighinparadise

I also think he is half right. Both BLM and the recent vigil were infiltrated by groups of people who really had no skin in the game, they just wanted to cause trouble.

The SE vigil was grabbed by the TRAs to make sure everyone knew TW were women. BLM was co-adopted by middle class white kids who fancied throwing some statues into the river. Thus it ever was the same.

BLM is Critical Race theory in action TRA's and trans ideology is Queer Theory in action.

Both CRT and Queer Theories key tennents are "admit you are complicit in racism/transphobia and benefit from systemic privellege or you are racist/ transphobic". It's built in. That IS what they are. That is what allyship is.

I do not except that I am racist or transphobic. In fact I am very confident I am not. I can see that racism and transphobia exist, but this is not the way to deal with it. You subjugate the innocent and have no impact on the actual racists or transphobes.

As a result, as a woman, I can not in good conscience inflict the same theology on men.

It is a double bind and it is abusive.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

Yes, this:
BLM is Critical Race theory in action
TRA's and trans ideology is Queer Theory in action.

And all the while, they just stir trouble, create divisions and resentment and does not actually help the real issues of the people they claim to. They are DARVO toxic gaslighting cults. But those are the only voices you hear, you don't hear all those that choose to stay silent because 'there are no words', because it is complicated and it is not helpful to be tribal.

"Apologies for the incoherent rambling."

That is the most coherent thing I've heard on the subject for some time. You said what I wanted to say, but much better.

Could you and your daughter pull some stunts to whip up some fear in him so he sees it from our side? By stunts I mean you could loudly announce at 11pm that you're going for a walk to help you relax before bed. Don't actually go for the walk, sit in the car that you previously parked around the corner. But it might move him to defend your safety and to panic about you being out alone at night and then it might actually click for him?

Maybe it's a silly idea, but my experience is that arguing politics isn't always as effective as invoking an emotional response when it comes to stubborn men!

He's certainly attuned to what our daughter wears - he has banned a few outfits. I really object to this in principle but equally, can see the realities.

Your comments have made me think a bit more about this, not least because I can see that I do object to identity politics when it relates to something I don't agree with, e.g., TRAs.

OTOH, how - practically - can things change if identities are not evoked? I agree that many causes are co-opted by people who do not really care about that cause and that that is extremely unhelpful. But how can identity not come into it when it is men (mainly) that perpetuate violence against women?

But being female isn't an identity it's a reality, in the same way that you don't identify as black you just are, though skin colours can vary.

With sex you are either male or female and you can be oppressed in this basis, obviously more women than men suffer in this respect.

A rape victim or survivor might identify as non binary but it makes no difference to their body and presumably why a rapist would attack them.

He remains hung up on the idea that 'identity politics' is not the way to resolve inequality issues

I agree with him because I live an area in the north of England that has a massive problem with grooming gangs. The politcs of identity worked against the victims of these extremely serious crimes. The victims have no voice, nowhere to go, most feminists and womens groups don't seem interested. Won't touch touch the subject with a barge pole. You only have to look at the lack of topics on it on this board.

@OhHolyJesus

But being female isn't an identity it's a reality, in the same way that you don't identify as black you just are, though skin colours can vary.

With sex you are either male or female and you can be oppressed in this basis, obviously more women than men suffer in this respect.

A rape victim or survivor might identify as non binary but it makes no difference to their body and presumably why a rapist would attack them.

That is true, biological reality and race are not something you can identify out of, which is precisely why is so dangerous to make assumptions about people based on those things. That is racism and sexism.

We are all human first and foremost, you are a member of multiple groups on the basis of many characteristics. Skin colour/ sex/ profession/ social class/ wealth/ weight/ beauty/ conformity to gender norms. You don't have to identify with them all, you choose. That power lies with you. Other people also choose. That power lies with them. They might use that to gain power or they may not. That power also lies with them. There are black racists and female misandrists, just as there are white racists and male misogynists.

That doesn't mean I don't recognise the description of power imbalances brought about by sexism and racism, it means I think sexism and racism ARE identification with sex/race and as I don't identify with race, I just HAVE a skin colour and a sex and I don't judge other people based on theirs.

This vigil lays the flaws in this area bare.

A women was abducted and killed - male opression and violence.
but she is white - black women have been abducted and it wasn't in the press- white opression
Would it have been the same if she had been old, ugly? - ageism, male opression again
Then the male on female violence triggers Reclaim the Streets to comandeer the narrative because, the association with male violence is not a great optic for intersectional feminists and suddenly it is not sex that is repressed it is femininity/gender identity.

and so the dance goes on.

I've just read an interesting chapter on this very topic in a book I'm reading- it's called The Coddling of the American Mind and it's about the toxic political climate on university campuses in the US.

The authors argue that identity politics can be a valid and important way of organizing (along lines of race or sex for instance) but they identify two different approaches. The first is "common humanity ID", which aims to appeal to the common and shared characteristics of other groups, so it includes and brings others into your movement. They cite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as practising this form of ID within the civil rights movement.

The new version is what they call "common enemy ID", where your group identifies a common enemy, which is used to motivate the group. If you're not one of the group, then you are essentially bad.

I can see that Resisters etc have leapt on the events of the weekend to further their version of common enemy ID. It's such a difficult one for me; on the one hand women are absolutely fed up and angry, with every right to be. OTOH you catch more flies with honey, and I can understand the defensiveness on the part of decent men who aren't a threat to women.

Exactly bang on @AdHominemNonSequitur - well said x

Ask him how long identity politics has been mainstream for.
Ask him how long women have been agitating for change. (Clue. Sodding ages)

Ask him if he means globally? Or just in some countries. Which ones? Why?

In the end though you may need to give up. If you've told him about stuff that's happened to you and he's still not interested then he's not going to change his mind is he.

'The crux of his argument is that the rare event of a woman being abducted and killed was being appropriated by women with a beef against men and that this just stirs up division'

Or meet him in the middle.

Yes it was hijacked but more by the anti carceral crew.

The vast majority of women went because they're sick of male violence.

I think you need to ask him why he isn't concerned about the experiences you've told him and what it means for your daughter.

If he's banning certain outfits. Why? What is his reason. Not the top level one 'too short' but why too short is wrong. What exactly are his concerns etc.