Mary Harrington on US liberal feminism

[CrossPurposes]

Mary Harrington as thought provoking as ever. I can't say I've heard of the acronym AWFL but I do recognise the concept.

unherd.com/2022/11/a-sex-war-is-coming/

I read the article a few days ago as well and found it very interesting and insightful. I have never heard of the term AWFL either but I know LOTS of women who fit the profile.

I've just worked out how it's probably pronounced!

I have mixed views on Mary Harrington. Sometimes her writing is really quite astute and walks a genuinely unique line between valuing women's unique experiences (like motherhood) and condemning them to be defined by them, but other times she does rather come across as one of those conservative women who lectures other women for being too feminist from the comfort of her well-paid and well-connected career.

Rayon, Yes, I would say the same and she does criticise feminism or feminists. It surprised me when she seemed to say she was a feminist - I think I saw a label of Reluctant Feminist or something like that on one of her articles. She is quite traditional in ways, such as in regard to motherhood, family and marriage, having changed as she got older and given up the kind of life and work she'd enjoyed before.

I think it's 'Reactionary Feminist'. She's written lots of very interesting stuff, much of which I don't agree with. It's provocative and thoughtful. All to the good.

She's an interesting writer, but seems to have really strong tradwife leanings, and increasingly comes out with a lot of tired RW talking points (casting doubt about the West's support for Ukraine and stuff like that).

Oh that completely went over my head until you pointed it out! 😆

I like her stuff. It's different and makes me think, whether I agree or not. It's good to have a diversity of viewpoints when it comes to women's lives and rights. Feminism and feminist ideas should be able to withstand questions and criticism. And I would hope feminists feel able to honestly admit where there might be weaknesses in certain areas / issues, and look for ways to strengthen the arguments for or against them.

Absolutely, Nonny.

Does anyone know what her actual background is? I had a brief look and it's surprisingly difficult to find out anything about her education or career. It's like she sprang fully formed from Zeus' head to Unherd and the Spectator.

From what I can remember that I've read somewhere, she is an Oxford graduate with a first in English Literature, worked in New York, something to do with IT, then at a fairly late age had a child and got married, I'm not sure in what order, and I think must have come back to UK, wrote for Conservative Woman and now blogs, and writes for UnHerd and maybe others.

Ah, found it here:

rebelwisdom.co.uk/30-film-content/men-and-women-after-metoo/774-reactionary-feminism-mary-harrington

"Mary is a writer and journalist. After graduating from Oxford University in 2002 with a first-class degree in English Literature, she was an early adopter of millennial precarity, via a twenties spent experimenting with gig economy work, intentional communities, gender nonconformity and unconventional relationship forms.

Along the way she discovered digital culture and web 2.0, co-founding the digital learning marketplace ‘School of Everything’; working as a researcher with the New York-based digital culture think tank ‘The Institute for the Future of the Book’; and curating cult art events.

After the crash of 2008 she worked in marketing while training as a psychotherapist, before discovering marriage, motherhood and small town life - along with an audience as a writer via her political blog."

On 'Reactionary Feminism':
She says: "The central contention of reactionary feminism is that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'progress' themselves are now delivering diminishing returns for all but a shrinking elite. And this is impacting especially severely on women, meaning that in order to remain true to the central task of feminism - advocating for women's political interests - feminists must turn against the theology of progress."

And according to The Conservative Woman: She is Eastern Region Secretary for the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

Not so different from the view often expressed here that the “sexual freedom” revolution has benefited men more than women, then.

I thought the idea in the article that affluent white women are the social base of the Democratic Party was interesting. It is why abortion rights are the one thing the Democrats will actually fight to defend from the Republicans because controlling their fertility is essential to AWFLs keeping their high paid corporate jobs.

Fighting to control your fertility is also what protects women from having children they can't support, or that their bodies can't recover from.

I am quite suspicious of arguments that suggest women who want to control their fertility are doing it because they are grasping or selfish. And I'm especially suspicious of them coming from a woman who appears to have floated from one well-connected role to another before settling down and telling other women to just accept their lot.

I think it's completely fine and valid to talk honestly about downsides of the sexual revolution (they exist). As long as it's balanced by frank and truthful talk about what things were like before the SR and what the tradeoffs and alternatives are to all these things.

Same with stuff like the birth control pill. We should talk about downsides (because otherwise we have no incentive for improving contraception in general, and because inconvenience truths don't stop being true because they are inconvenient). But (for example), less hormonal birth control usage generally means more abortions (looking at different countries around the world). Are those who dunk on the BCP genuinely OK with having somewhat more abortions as a result? That's a serious question, not just me trying to be a smart alec. But among writers of the MH kind, I am seeing little open discussion about this kind of thing.

It is why abortion rights are the one thing the Democrats will actually fight to defend from the Republicans because controlling their fertility is essential to AWFLs keeping their high paid corporate jobs.

What a contemptible thing to say about women. So misogynistic. They abort so they can climb the corporate ladder. disgusting. you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you aren't a woman.

It is also a lie.

You should also actually look at the statistics for abortion in the US and see who is (or sadly was) getting abortions. It isn't the women in your fictional narrative.

About half of women who have an abortion in the United States are living below the poverty line. Abortion rights are critical for lower income women. To suggest women care about it because it supports their corporate careers is such an elite viewpoint. C-suite and upper management jobs are the few jobs in the US that might offer extended maternity leave and benefits. Women in poverty suffer the most when abortion rights are taken away, especially if they live in states with diminished Medicaid, lower spending on education and limited access to social safety net provisions. As to race, there are higher rates of poverty in Black, Native American and Latino communities, so this 'white women abortion narrative' is specious.

But she wasn't talking about who gets abortions. She is talking about why the party of liberal-progressive globalists take the political approach they do to abortion.

You can make plenty of class based observation about why poor women get abortions as well, but that doesn't tell us so much about the power dynamics of the Democratic party.

Comments section is an eye-opener. Eeeww.

Yes the comments in Unherd are a cesspit. There's a lot of men in this country who are desperate to roll the clock back on women's rights.

She is talking about why the party of liberal-progressive globalists take the political approach they do to abortion.

Well she is talking about her opinion as to why the Democrats (the liberal progressive globalist is your gloss) take the political approach to abortion they do. It isn't a fact and as expressed it was pretty disgusting.

I voted on the abortion issue and I know many women and men who did. I don't know anyone who did it to keep their high paid corporate suite jobs.

Many feminists make that link explicitly, on a regular basis - women can't compete on an even playing field with men in the workplace if they can't control pregnancy.

It's often put just like that, even more bluntly than Harrington has herself in the essay.

The idea that class interests aren't a real factor in abortion activism seems pretty naive.

The idea that class interests aren't a real factor in abortion activism seems pretty naive.

Yes. That is an interesting statement. Would you like to back it up with any evidence? Particularly with respect to american women voting in the last election. Or are we just saying stuff that sounds good?

Also "abortion activism"? really?

Very interesting choice of phrase.

About half of women who have an abortion in the United States are living below the poverty line.

If that is the case, I find that troubling. Is that because women from such social demographics are unable to afford or reliably access contraceptives? Are they more likely to be affected by sexual violence leading to pregnancy? Do they desire children, but due to the lack of widespread maternal support in the US and financial hardships, feel they have no choice but to access abortion?

Very strong whiff of "unlived experience as advice" about MH--she got married at 32, had one child at 38, and apparently has had a career throughout, yet has these strong pronatalist slants in her advice and seems to want women to get married early, have several children, no sex before marriage, if you must have a career then have it later on after your children are older etc.

Calling Mary Harrington a "tradwife" and "pro-natalist" because she thinks that maybe a lot of women want and will have kids and current social forms are based more on male biological patterns rather than fitting female biological realities, and that marriage has a function that is protective for women, is a pretty emotive way of discrediting her without really addressing what she says.

Motherhood and the problems that the sexual revolution brought for women are an area where feminism has had a really hard time addressing the situation of most women, who do in fact have and want children, and do enter into committed relationships with the fathers of those children, and usually want to do that.

All or most women hiving off into compounds, or giving up relationships with men, has never been a realistic answer to dealing with the differences in women's reproductive role compared to men. Nor one that the vast majority of women want.