Helen Joyce & Julie Bindel: Should TERFs unite with the Right?

[ILikeDungs]

By Unherd, a debate-style response to the purity spiral after Brighton. I do admire Helen Joyce and her ability to calmly and logically discuss the issues. Unherd have made it age restricted (because of all the fucks, I suppose!):

Even if you foreground the reality denying aspects of gender ideology (which are no doubt there), there must be mechanisms of social power enabling this ideology and its effects to take hold in the way it has.

I think that's a complex mix of things: the progression of post-modernism and anti-capitalism in universities; the wokism of the left; social media and the primacy of the image; the manipulation of the image; lack of historical knowledge and context; anxiety driven by social disconnection; the erosion of traditions and institutions... I'm sure there's more!

Yes, I think sexism and misogyny are part of this. Clearly they are integral and undeniable. But I don't agree that there's a system called patriarchy (or a patriarchal system) that underlies our society and explains how this movement has gained power. I think there's a lot going on here.

To bring it back to the debate: JB takes the position of bike and tea, saying that this is a movement driven by misogyny. HJ's position is that, while it is misogynist, it's driven by a wider attack on reality. That's where I'm at, too.

I don't feel like you're really reading my responses if you think what I'm doing is attacking feminism or tools for feminist analysis.

I know you are arguing in good faith. Discussing patriarchal phenomena is a vital tool for feminist discussion/analysis. You said upthread using this tool (the word patriarchy/patriarchal) to analyse phenomena in the UK is somehow doing the women in Iran a disservice. That to me is an attack, suggesting that using this tool in any other context than your very fixed and rigid one, is unethical and should be avoided.

The ‘rulers’ in Iran don’t rule because they are male, they rule because they have achieved a certain status (only available to men) in their patriarchal religion and theocratic society.

I think this is a tautology. Or I'm not smart enough to understand the distinction.

A baby born in Iran isn’t presented with “congratulations, you’ve got a dick, you are an Imam now, here, is your jurisdiction to reign over”. Men still need to compete and engage in power struggles to obtain positions of social dominance. There will be men who don’t cut it. Although a man automatically has higher social status than a woman, being male alone isn’t enough to make him a ruler.

I would accept 'patriarchal phenomena' because that sounds like it could cover things that I've called 'hangovers' from patriarchy without claiming that society as a whole is patriarchal. So I'd happily agree that there are patriarchal phenomena that occur in our society (although with that phrasing it does make it sound like natural outcrops, which is not what I intend to convey.)

But yes, I do think that calling the UK a patriarchy is an insult to the women living under patriarchy and fighting for a society like the UK.

I don't see the word 'patriarchy' as a tool for analysis. It's a noun, with a definition. It means something and I'm arguing for that meaning. I don't see any reason why we can't discuss women's rights in the UK without using this word.

Although a man automatically has higher social status than a woman, being male alone isn’t enough to make him a ruler.

It's enough to make him a ruler over women, though. That's the point, surely? Even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street. That's patriarchy, no?

If we don't live in a society where men have more power, more access to resources and more freedoms than women (so not a patriarchial society) why do we need women's rights?

What do you mean by ‘rule’?

From Merriam-Webster: Governing power or its possession or use; authority. The duration of such power. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

This dictionary definition has many uses for the word ‘rule’ - what meaning of the word rule are you using?

Authority? What does authority mean?

An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct? What scale is this?

What is your definition of rule, which you insist is unequivocally intrinsic to the meaning of the arch/archy part of patriarchy?

I would agree that is patriarchy in action, but I don’t think it requires a government which is explicitly patriarchal for that to be the case. The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

i need to duck out for a bit. Thanks for being conciliatory beastlyslumber and arguing in good faith, I know you do.

The fact that we have rights is the reason we don't live in a society where men have more freedoms and resources than women - at least not as a general rule. We need rights in order to maintain equality and freedom.

You could by the same token ask why men need rights. If they have all the power and resources, why do they need rights? It's the same question, I think.

Apologies for self quote:

The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

I wanted to add that not all Iranian men are happy about the regime either, I bet there are thousands who despise the regime and hate seeing how the women in their lives and country are treated. I bet many of them put themselves at risk to support the women in their current rebellion.

I imagine there are some women who have also made the regime somehow work for them, Queen Bees, probably involving screwing over other women in some way, but think all the protesters are insolent slappers and deserve all they get, too.

What is your definition of rule, which you insist is unequivocally intrinsic to the meaning of the arch/archy part of patriarchy?

Okay, the definition I'm using is the ability of men to control women, backed up by a larger authority, such as the church, laws etc. So individual males may control individual women, but in the UK that's not sanctioned by a bigger authority, so it remains at an individual level (though of course having an impact on wider society.) A random man can try to tell me to cover my hair but he can't make me except by force. And in theory at least, if he tried this, he would be the one to get in trouble, because he's the one breaking the law.

I would agree that is patriarchy in action, but I don’t think it requires a government which is explicitly patriarchal for that to be the case. The sexual harassment in the street and DV in the homes in the UK is evidence that even the most pathetic man can rule over women, both his 'own' women and random women in the street, here in the UK, even though it’s illegal, and that the words patriarchy and patriarchal are relevant in feminist discussions at home.

I see where you're coming from but I think the legal status/authority is a vital distinction. It's not okay for men to harrass me in the street. Society as a whole doesn't sanction it. The media doesn't excuse it (as much as it used to). The law is against it. Now I completely agree that there are issues to do with sexual harassment and assault which probably have roots in sexism and misogyny. But it's not the case that any man can rule over me - in fact, in principle, no man can rule over me simply by virtue of being a man.

I think this might be a case of glass half full/half empty - what do you think? Because I feel very positive about the position of women in the UK generally, while acknowledging there are some big issues still to work on. I feel grateful to the women who went before me and secured equal rights for me. I value my freedoms and exercise them as fully as I'm able at any given opportunity. And when I see a threat to these rights and freedoms (from gender ideology) I feel determined not to have them taken from me.

Whereas perhaps(?) you feel that women are still in a parlous condition, despite having achieved legal equality. We are still influenced by the threat of rape, which often goes unpunished. And there are many situations where women struggle and suffer more than their male counterparts. I don't disagree with these things, but I think it's a bit one-dimensional. I think the explanation for these things being patriarchy/patriarchal systems is inadequate. Some of it is to do with sexism and misogyny and patriarchal phenomena, definitely. But it's only a part of the story. So the use of the word patriarchal to describe the situation, rather than being a useful analytical tool, seems to obviate the need to truly understand what's going on. E.g. it's obviously not the case that the lack of rape convictions is solely due to misogyny. There are other factors, e.g. the nature of the crime not usually having witnesses, which makes reasonable doubt a bigger influence; the role of alcohol in many rapes; the fact that rapes often occur within established relationships etc etc. It's complicated - saying it's 'patriarchal' doesn't help us understand the various factors. Or it doesn't help me!

Same! I'm literally avoiding my family responsibilities by chatting on here instead!!

E.g. it's obviously not the case that the lack of rape convictions is solely due to misogyny. There are other factors, e.g. the nature of the crime not usually having witnesses, which makes reasonable doubt a bigger influence; the role of alcohol in many rapes; the fact that rapes often occur within established relationships etc etc. It's complicated

I agree it is complicated, but why is it that male rape victims are more likely to secure a conviction than female ones? Why the disparity?

<<good luck with all the Xmas faff>>

I think this might be a case of glass half full/half empty - what do you think? Because I feel very positive about the position of women in the UK generally, while acknowledging there are some big issues still to work on.

I do actually feel very positive, looking at how far we have come, even in the last decade. And yet I do feel that women are still in a parlous condition, despite having achieved legal equality.

How hard the pushback I’ve observed, to any feminist gains, makes it painfully obvious that the laws may have been won, but opponents are kicking and screaming. Also the concerted efforts to undo feminists gains, even those which are long held. Furthermore (as we’ve discussed on a few other threads), there are influxes of people with old fashioned patriarchal beliefs taking hold. Even UK feminists can’t see what is wrong with notions of ‘modesty’. Also, we have not yet resolved how mothers with small children can engage in full political participation, because systems and processes have been developed with men in mind.

Some of it is to do with sexism and misogyny and patriarchal phenomena, definitely. But it's only a part of the story. So the use of the word patriarchal to describe the situation, rather than being a useful analytical tool, seems to obviate the need to truly understand what's going on.

I don’t think so. Sexism, misogyny, patriarchy. All useful words to describe phenomena. They don’t have to tell the whole story to explain part of it - the part that is relevant for feminist discussion.

This idea that patriarchy harms men - particularly the “wrong kind” of man is important to this discussion because patriarchy doesn’t occur in a vacuum - there isn’t going to be a society that is highly patriarchal without also being xenophobic, homophobic, racist, etc. This is because the ideology of patriarchal power is also tied to nationhood - women produce the future workers of the state and so must be controlled - and so it is also accompanied by other forms of control. The hardcore Evangelical Christian Right in the US, for example (not talking about all conservatives here, but specifically the growing Christian nationalist movement) isn’t just in favour of banning abortion rights, they also see unions as communist (weakening the state), immigration as dangerous (dilutes the national identity), pluralism is a threat, other religions as ungodly and contaminating, are in favour of authoritarian policing and control, against humanist education, etc. A strong society in this reading needs strong, pure, men. So a poor, foreign, disabled etc man is also going to suffer under patriarchal control as he is seen as also weakening/contaminating the state. In its extreme example this is why Nazi ideology targeted Jews, communists, racial minorities, gay people, etc while also pushing the ideal German Aryan woman as producing future Aryans, being sexually “hygienic” (women’s degeneracy produces disabled children, for example, in a Eugenicist reading), mothering in service of the state and so forth.

And this brings us back to the question of whether we can fight patriarchy in a vacuum - is it possible to fight patriarchy and for women’s rights without also addressing the other ways patriarchal control manifests? Could you understand how the conservative US Supreme Court is ruling without recognizing the way their attacks on abortion are also accompanied with rulings about corporations, about race, about the limits of police, privacy, etc.? Can you effectively be a feminist and want to destroy patriarchy but uphold the way patriarchy works through other forms of control? And that’s the question of whether a feminist agenda can work with the right wing (which means different things in different countries as well, obviously depending on political climate.)

Hi @Misstache your post is quite dense with content and I would need to give it a lot of deep consideration. I have part of my mind on this thread as I am faffing about at the moment so I doubt I’ll be able to answer quickly.

Just on the women's rights and men's rights point.
beastlyslumber you agreed that MRAs leveraged gender ideology to increase their power. They have been remarkably successful, because they already held power over the group whose rights they have been trying to take away.

Meanwhile, feminists and other women have had to fight tooth and nail for every right they have and are currently fighting, not always successfully, to hold on to them. Because we were already in a socially weaker position.

Saying that society is patriarchal isn't saying that male power in the UK is the same as in Iran. Of course it's not, it's a question of degree.

Modern day Britain isn't as racist as the American south in the 1930s, but that doesn't mean that there's not still structural racism.

I just did, in that post - differing reproductive role.

But different instances do not necessarily have the same genesis or the same mechanism. You have to study each and look at these things based on the material reality.

What you've said here shows very clearly why using the term patriarchy as a blanket explanation is so problematic, it actually makes you think you understand something when all you've done is given a generalized name to phenomena you think are related in some way.

Yes, it's a very male dominated system. Though it's also worth noting it occurs in the early modern period. Women's place in society in much of the west, I would argue, took something of a nosedive at that time.

We do have to be careful not to assume things like owning property, or voting, or whatever, had the same kind of significance in the past as now. Sometimes they didn't culturally, so you do have to look at the bigger picture.

The idea of the husband and wife becoming radically one is much older of course, and I would argue, theoretically much more balanced - it means that the other is meant to be given the same kind of love we give ourselves, and our own good can't be pursued apart from theirs. Lots of important ideas that are particular to western views on marriage come out of that.

Saying that society is patriarchal isn't saying that male power in the UK is the same as in Iran. Of course it's not, it's a question of degree.

Disagree. I think it's a question of different societal models. It's not like we're Patriarchy-Lite. You couldn't simply turn up the dial and we'd get a full-on patriarchy. You'd have to re-make society, undo laws, institute new powers etc. I'd say it's like comparing democracy with communism. You can't say it's just a question of degree - that we do have some shared wealth systems and we enshrine the idea of equality so we're Communism-Lite. We have a different model.

Modern day Britain isn't as racist as the American south in the 1930s, but that doesn't mean that there's not still structural racism.

Disagree. I think this is circling back round to an earlier point. There is still racism in America but America is not structurally designed to oppress black people. It's a good comparator I think because we can also say there are hangovers from the former structural racism encoded in laws etc in the way that e.g. black people still have a harder time getting up the housing ladder because of laws repealed decades ago, or that as a generalisation, black people are more likely to live in poverty, in part because of the inability to accumulate personal wealth through generations. So while there are still disadvantages and still issues with racism against black people, America isn't structurally racist in the way the CRT advocates claim.

But this is not a comparable analogy.

A comparable analogy would be, I see these seven phenomena, and I think they might be related, so I am going to call the thing that relates them Imaginarium, and when people ask the cause of these things, or how they actually become instantiated, the answer is, clearly, imaginarium is the cause, and the way it happens is through the function of the imaginarium.

And this brings us back to the question of whether we can fight patriarchy in a vacuum - is it possible to fight patriarchy and for women’s rights without also addressing the other ways patriarchal control manifests? Could you understand how the conservative US Supreme Court is ruling without recognizing the way their attacks on abortion are also accompanied with rulings about corporations, about race, about the limits of police, privacy, etc.? Can you effectively be a feminist and want to destroy patriarchy but uphold the way patriarchy works through other forms of control? And that’s the question of whether a feminist agenda can work with the right wing (which means different things in different countries as well, obviously depending on political climate.)

Yes, I think this is a key question. Because if you sign up to the idea that the role of feminism is to "fight patriarchy" when we aren't actually living in a patriarchal system, we end up in a situation where "patriarchy" comes to mean all the way that the state wields power. It becomes this globalising explanation for "society". So if you're a right-wing woman who thinks that, I don't know, we need stronger privacy laws, or that the police need better funding, then you can be characterised as "upholding the patriarchy" and therefore you are automatically at odds with the feminists who are "fighting the patriarchy". So working together seems like a terrible idea.

I think that's a perceptive set of questions. It does explain some of the left's vitriol towards the right. And some of JB's comments about why she thinks it's impossible to fight gender ideology outside of feminism. Because to her, "the patriarchy" is everything and everywhere.

The idea of the husband and wife becoming radically one is much older of course, and I would argue, theoretically much more balanced - it means that the other is meant to be given the same kind of love we give ourselves, and our own good can't be pursued apart from theirs. Lots of important ideas that are particular to western views on marriage come out of that.

Yes, I agree with that. And I was also wondering about that period of time when coverture became law. The question of how customs become laws, or laws become customs, is very interesting - although I think a bit beyond the scope of this thread!

Yes, thank you. That's what I'm trying to say when I say that the word 'patriarchy' obscures rather than explains. Why I don't see it's utility for feminist analysis except with regard to actual patriarchies.