New Yorker tackles Feminism and Gender

[Needmoresleep]

And gives a not entirely flattering nod to Mumsnet

"In the U.K., trans-exclusionary activists have worn buttons proclaiming that they were “Radicalised by Mumsnet,” Britain’s largest online platform for parents. On message boards, mothers, justifiably aggrieved by a lack of material support and social recognition, are encouraged to direct their ire at the “trans lobby.”"

They really don't get it, but at least there is reporting. I will see if I can post a link. If not it is long so I will give some quotes.

I thought it was a very interesting article and I have saved it, to read again. The writer has not represented a "gender critical" position in any way that I recognise - though I am quite new to this, and may have missed it. She doesn't address the GC position from the point of view of the people (women and men) holding it. She seems to be more concerned with looking at the effects of the movement on some universal feminist culture, and then reverse engineering it from there. This means that she misses the point, because she's not really looking at it.

The idea that the interests of men and women will necessarily differ to an extent because of their different roles in reproduction, and that feminism is based on women's right to identify and work politically for their own interests as a class is not apparent anywhere in the essay.

One section which really stood out for me is when she said:

Meanwhile, trans-exclusionary feminists often criticize trans women for embracing stereotypical femininity. A few years ago, the British philosopher Kathleen Stock tweeted, “I reject regressive gender stereotypes for women, which is partly why I won’t submit to an ideology that insists womanhood is a feeling, then cashes that out in sexist terms straight from 50s.”

She fails to explain in any way how Stock's statement criticises transwomen for embracing stereotypical femininity. Her example does not exemplify what she thinks it does. Stock is clearly saying here that it is not such stereotypes which make a woman, but something else. It is not a criticism of men who present stereotypically as women, but a claim that by doing so they do not become women. The fact that the writer does not realise this is, perhaps, a result of her complete failure to actually engage with Stock's position.

What happened to Kathleen Stock, by the way? Her twitter account has been down for ages.

The idea that the interests of men and women will necessarily differ to an extent because of their different roles in reproduction, and that feminism is based on women's right to identify and work politically for their own interests as a class is not apparent anywhere in the essay.

I don’t understand why this doesn’t seem obvious? Is she in a state of denial?

I don’t understand why this doesn’t seem obvious? Is she in a state of denial?

I genuinely think she's looking in the wrong direction.

Here's another quote:

Sheila Rowbotham, though not averse to relitigating old arguments (especially with Selma James, a founder of the Wages for Housework campaign), admits that “connecting the personal with the political” could pose a particular problem for the movement: “when ruptures appeared these proved all the more painful.” She explains, “Theoretically I did not hold with the notion that because we were women we would wipe away political conflicts, but emotionally, like many other feminists, I was attached to a vision of us birthing a new politics of harmony.”

The essay goes on to say that her students quickly discover that there is disagreement throughout the history of feminist thinking. She says that women discover that their personal discomfort is shared by other women, and that their predicament is a social one, and therefore political. I think a LOT of people would agree with that.

She notes that women's political predicaments are affected by other things than being a woman, such as race and social class. Again, not many would disagree.

But then she goes on to suggest that the solution is intersectional feminism in the sense of a theoretical ideal that all can abide by. A "Harmony". But this form of intersectional feminism subsumes feminism into the greater ideal. And by doing this, it puts the power of deciding what women's interests are into the hands of the people who construct the intersectional theoretical framework. It becomes a top down endeavour. The movement has its priorities as a whole, and works as a whole to bring them about. Dissenters are to be disciplined. Then we can have harmony.

The understanding of GC feminism which I have gleaned off this board and other places is not that though. It's much more bottom up - that the political process itself is the way that any harmony can be achieved. And people's interests are their own to define. Disagreement is not a bad thing. It is to be welcomed, because only through disagreement can you find out what other people think, and find some way of living together.

Amia Srinivasan is concerned to build a better movement. She is not directly concerned to make actual women's lives better.

It was motherhood not mumsnet which radicalised me. It's so patronising to suggest that just because I'm a mother I'm easily influenced in a way non mums aren't. Dare I say sexist too? I had an upward career trajectory in a male dominated field. Outearning my male partner and most of my male friends. Started ivf, had my remit slashed. Got pregnant, happened again. Had to make a formal complaint against my line manager for serious maternity discrimation which was upheld. Got pregnant again. By this point I was being paid by my employer but 100 percent sidelined. I did zero work for months and they said nothing. Made redundant whilst on second mat leave. Got a big pay off because they were shitting themselves. This btw is a very woke employer. 'Use the toilets of your preferred gender'. 'Only white people can be racist'. 'Women in Tech Women in Tech Women in Tech'. Sexism at work has largely been solved..... as long as you can maintain the working pattern of a man in the 1950s.

There are some good threads about her other writing on this.

I see a big problem in the kind of movement which argues that women's movements should cater for all causes worthy of attention in this world, even if they do not directly affect women (as in vulva people, to be progressive here). The problem with that is the lack of resources to fix everything and the obvious question why no other movement is expected to be equally inclusive.

It's about lack of boundaries, or the demand that women have none and that women should always place others ahead of their own needs.

It is.

It also doesn't acknowledge male/female power dynamics, which are key.