Interesting Heather Brunskell-Evans interview

[NecessaryScene1]

Just been watching a fascinating interview with Heather Brunskell-Evans. Her versus Benjamin Boyce, she seems to have gone on mainly wanting to push back against Lindsay & Pluckrose's Cynical Theories.

Certainly an interesting take going down some slightly less well-trodden roads. I've watched a lot of GC stuff and a lot of anti-Woke stuff, and this gave me quite a lot of new things to think about.

She turns out to be something of a centrist - lots of us know she's 100% pro-women's rights and firmly involved in the gender critical fight, but she's also a Foucault scholar and wants to push back against the Cynical Theories view of his work, as she sees value in it.

And then she's talking about using Foucault's tools to attack genderism, rather than to support it.

Plus also some interesting discussion about what we mean by "patriarchy".

These interviews where you've only partial alignment between someone who is mainly "anti-Woke" and someone who is more "pro-women+GC" are always fascinating, because there's a certain amount of tension. The "anti-Woke" is inclined to see the "pro-women" as dangerously close to "identity politics"...

Check it out:

Probably covers the same ground in her essay here:savageminds.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-michel-foucault

Thanks, I'd not seen that!

Thanks I'll have a look - a bit above my head but will help!

I've just watched Boyce's new Will Malone video which is excellent and underlines the lack of data for the (pro) medicalisation of children as well as the lack of allowed debate.

I heard her on something else- might have been unspeakable.

She has very much taken against Cynical Theories.

Cynical Theories is very clear and easy to understand. I don’t really understand what Brunskell Evans is trying to say. She says Foucault is really useful for GC feminists but gives no straightforward explanation as to how or why.

Her brushing off Foucault’s promotion of paedophilia as him not applying his own theory properly is ludicrous.

Her argument seems to be that people who have done all these terrible things inspired by Foucault misunderstood him, and Foucault misunderstood himself.

His theory can’t be that great then, if it led to this massive misunderstanding.

I've personally got very little time for Lindsay and Pluckrose. I do not see them and the 'grievance studies' cabal as feminist allies at all.

There was an interview I saw with some of this group (they were on a panel) with a young man who worked for Google. They were discussing discrimination against women in the workforce and they were arguing against the glass ceiling (in effect) and challenging that workplaces were sexist and misogynistic and arguing that women's lack of presence in male-dominated workplaces and advancement in others was the result of 'choice'.

Fundamentally, they are still liberals and advocates of a choice ideology - I do not see them as feminists. Their lambasting of feminism is fairly broad and is not restricted to queer theory.

and challenging that workplaces were sexist and misogynistic and arguing that women's lack of presence in male-dominated workplaces and advancement in others was the result of 'choice'.

I think you (and they) have to be careful - it's not an either/or. A work field can be both sexist and misogynist, and still that might not be the only reason for a lack of presence.

And I believe that's what Damore was arguing against - the view that any inequality in numbers must be due to sexism. There couldn't possibly be any population difference that explained ti.

I tend to agree with Damore. Is the lack of female train spotters due to sexism and misogyny on train platforms?

I'd qualify by saying (i) 'purely' the result of choice then and (ii) also point out that 'choices' are often situated and structured - and that one of the organising structures is patriarchy (and the gendering of men and women respectively).

As it happens - I LOVE trains. And planes. And rocks. And space. However, when I was a child, a young girl, I was mocked for these interests. I was not allowed the presents I wanted (mainly scientific) and was taught about femininity. Last time I approached a trainspotter to ask what he was expecting by I was talked down to (so I crossed the tracks and saw the vintage railcar anway).

Like I said - choice is complicated.

I agree that most of women not progressing is not about misogyny in the workplace (in the U.K.). I used to assume that nobody actually thought this and it was a straw man anyway.

But I am seeing more and more now that this is a belief in grievance studies.

I consider the feminist goal to be not to get women to the top in all workplaces, but to make sure that the other choices women make don’t have as necessary consequences a high risk of extreme poverty, deprivation and violence.

I don’t want to ‘get to the top’. This is a straw person. I would like a meaningful career though and every workplace I have been in has been one where it is easier for men to progress than women. And if I did have this ambition I’d see this as something that feminism should support too.

Also, I’d like to see choices not be gendered in the same way they are now - so men taking up the part time and lower paid jobs so they can do the school run.

Also - as a point of clarification - my career has always come first for me and I have not taken on marginal roles but I still face men’s entitlement, mansplaining and sexist putdowns weekly at least - aggressions and micro-aggressions.

Yeah, there's always the problem of positive feedback loops - something starts being predominantly male or female due to natural inclination, then ends up being massively male or female, due to the minority being put off, and sexism becoming entrenched, and then whether it's mainly male or female leads to the field being regarded as high or low pay/status.

As I understand it what Damore's paper was pushing back on was the view that Google seemed to have - not just a straw man, but serious - that 50/50 male/female representation was the natural state of things and any deviation from that in their company must be down to structural sexism. They were trying to "solve" that 50/50 outcome problem, rather than really help women.

He was certainly in favour of trying to support women wanting to enter the field, and given that it's male dominated they probably would need more support, but saying you had to be realistic while doing that. He was suggesting ways of approaching that which didn't have the "identical sexes + equal outcomes" assumption baked in.

It is possible to have women into IT - I work in the field and in my experience women might possibly be the majority of software engineers in India. But that seems to have been achieved by economic hardship and mass recruiting. Lots of men and women are in the field for economic reasons, and often without huge aptitude from either sex. So the overall profile is different.

But in the Nordic countries, where both men and women have more choice, nope, it remains very male. (But you do see a hell of a lot more female construction workers in Finland than in the UK. I wonder if that's due to reduced sexism...)

I’m not sure that ‘choice’ is as simple as that. Structural sexism works in many different ways and often these are invisible. Maybe, on the other hand, the gender equity in India is the result of choice and not poverty? And, in any case, combatting institutional sexism in different ways, including by having employment quotas for women, is an inherent good.

‘I don’t want to ‘get to the top’. This is a straw person.’

It isn’t a straw man. There are many professions where it is important for feminism that women get to the top- law, politics, medicine for a start.

I don’t agree there is a distinction between occupations or professions. Women should not face discrimination or sexism in any field whether this be train driving or politics. We should have a chance to get to the top in all.

‘Also, I’d like to see choices not be gendered in the same way they are now - so men taking up the part time and lower paid jobs so they can do the school run.’

This doesn’t solve the problem though. It just puts different people in a precarious position. The point is to make life less precarious for people who take on primary caring responsibilities, not to make it difficult for them to have well paid jobs.

I don’t think anyone mentioned occupations vs professions.

Of course women shouldn’t face discrimination or sexism.

There are many professions where it is important for feminism that women get to the top- law, politics, medicine for a start.

In theory, yes. It would be good if these layers were more representative.

In practice though, once you start trying to make them more representative, I think it works badly. Because which women get to the top in a patriarchal system, where the system has the ability to positively discriminate? The women that comply with the patriarchy.

It's the failure of identity politics. You're get someone in who agrees with your world view, and use their identity to justify your world view.

There are loads of women at the top in various organisations, like Stonewall. Is that helping women?

I agree - but until men take on these roles they will remain precarious and low paid. Or, think about it another way, how to organise life so that care is shared and there is no such thing as ‘the’ primary caregiver?

That isn’t so much a factor in the everyday sexism I face though. As said, this is about men’s entitlement and a range of aggressions and micro-aggressions such as being talked over, down to or it simply being expected that men are more entitled to seniority, promotion and resources.

That is a good point Scene, and there are definitely class issues. I will have to think more about it.

But iirc, the UN has put together studies showing there are better outcomes for women and children, and women’s and children’s issues are given more importance when women occupy political positions and participate in peace processes.

You have misunderstood. I mean there is no distinction between roles -i.e. ones that it is important that women ascend in and others where it is not.

But iirc, the UN has put together studies showing there are better outcomes for women and children, and women’s and children’s issues are given more importance when women occupy political positions and participate in peace processes.

But correlation does not equal causation. I'm sure those are correlated, but that doesn't mean that getting women into political positions causes better outcomes. I would be more inclined to think that women in political positions was one of those better outcomes.

‘Or, think about it another way, how to organise life so that care is shared and there is no such thing as ‘the’ primary caregiver?’

It depends who it is shared between. I am against promoting solutions that make women’s rights a private negotiation between heterosexual couples, because that has a very high abuse rate for women.

The model to start with is how do we give decent work and life opportunities to a single mother.

Or encourage men to take on equal parenting duties.

Spartacus, there is a distinction between roles when it comes to the well-being of women more broadly.

Far more women benefit from being able to see a female GP than benefit from a female train driver.

Why should women have to parent with men? Loads of men are dangerous to women and children and should be nowhere near their kids.