Maya’s response to Radical Notion’s GC divisions

[HiccupHorrendousHaddock]

I thought this was a very interesting answer to the recent issue of RN.

Shout out to the vipers and their Mumsnet Feminism within!

mforstater.medium.com/on-gender-critical-disputes-db2e456ad9cd

Did they practice infanticide, then?

Yes Endless out of curiosity I looked back on this board at some posts from maybe 2011? Just to get a feel of what people were talking about before all the trans stuff and it was everything you mentioned. I understand that gender ideology is a total existential threat to women and disproportionately affects us, but these boards don't attract nearly the same volume or attention of other topics that are still incredibly important.

And if we can ever knock back the trans head of the misogyny hydra, we only get back to square one! I just hope we can use this as an opportunity to galvanise us for action against more issues affecting women and girls. Popular feminism became too complacent.

I think where radical feminism has diverged from what Maya is talking about is that the former tends to really really limit what it sees as biological. WOmen having babies, yes, but it tends to see anything beyond, for example that might tie women more to childcare than men, or make them more likely to want to do that, as socially constructed. Similarly with male violence, there is typically this view that it is somehow socially constructed.

In some ways it's a morrow image. On the one hand a view we start with a blank slate of sorts, and patriarchy, which is not natural but constructed, inculcates values that create violent men and oppresses women.

The other viewpoint sees humans as naturally having a capacity for violence, and especially male mammals, and society is constructed in ways that more or less try to contain those tendencies.

The former view, like a lot of leftist thinking, hopes to dismantle the social factors that it sees as creating violence. The latter things that if we dismantle social conditioning, violence would be much worse, the question is what is the best option for social conditioning to reduce violence in the larger environment we are in - and that could change over time.

What can be the kicker is that it's not just a theoretical difference, they lead to really different approaches to actually forming policy and acting in the world.

Are you saying you understand radfem to acknowledge nature in the sense that women are biologically programmed to be caregivers in the early years,

Possibly, I came into feminism via breastfeeding and a v supportive group who shared a lot of information about how natural weaning was evolutionary/ biological and overlaps a lot with attachment and anthropological studies on bed sharing etc. (can't remember a key anthropologist I learnt about there.)

Maybe I misunderstood it all as radical feminism? And it's something else?except that it seems pretty "root" to me. The politics of breastfeeding book is pretty hard core radfem-fuck-capitalism and the patriarchy. (formula advertising has restrictions for good reason.)

Breastfeeding is quite tough in today's western society because women do need support, encouragement and information, extended families of women who know how and how issues are solved. (Fuck you lll for selling out.)

And then where does 'invisible women' come into play? We've been treated as mini men throughout most of the 20th c in scientific literature, technology and design. that does feel like patriarchy.

Yes, epigenetics... that's another area to consider.

This point is fascinating and reminds me of an article I read recently about how the idea of a virtuous masculinity is much more important to a civilised society than any notions around femininity, which are largely biologically determined. This is why toxic masculinity is such a problem because it is degrading to society as a whole. I'll see if I can find the article to link.

That is v interesting. The study I mentioned we have no idea of the background stereotypes that the boys and girls were also dealing with so it can be interpreted in different ways.

Certainly that bbc no more girls/ boys tracked harmful gender stereotypes for both sexes to poorer academic outcomes for girls in some subjects (and so potentially careers) and more aggressive explosive competitive behaviour in boys which they seemed to link even to higher rates of male offending and violence. I suppose embarrassing for civilised society? That ignores nature though and wholly blames nurture.

Ultimately people, societies , histories, cultures etc are really fucking complex so it's really hard to unpick everything.

Also history is viewed/ written through different lenses; Tory, whigg, Marxist were ones I learnt about. There are many others too. The latter two seem to be the radical notion angle (?) but there are so many other angles too. Cyclical, evolutionary etc.

Ah - see what you mean by limiting the population. Extra partners don't really increase a woman's capacity for pregnancy - it still takes 9 months to gestate and another 2-3 years of breastfeeding that reduce the likelihood of conception, just as in any otherwise-similar monogamous society. Plus the high child mortality of a subsistence community without modern medicine.

That is a brilliant post. Very clear on where the fundamental differences lie. In my view this is where radical feminism/feminism/socialism/progressivism gets it wrong. I tend to subscribe to the view that society is designed to contain and repress our worst behaviours. (Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't have unintended consequences of inculcating other damaging behaviours.)

I tend to subscribe to the view that society is designed to contain and repress our worst behaviours.

Completely agree. And Demi's post put it so well. That is why I'm not a socialist.

We've been treated as mini men throughout most of the 20th c

And the rest. It goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, who thought that women were men who'd failed to develop properly in the womb (and no doubt that was the mother's fault).

I think that's what I thought endless

I seem to have saved a note from 2021. I don't know who she is but it's one perspective. I can't comment as brain now fried. However the last para would by default mean all women, surely? Right and left?

I feel we are in this scrape because the left (labour, democrats, greens) will not concede to reality / are captured and some leftist feminists probably do need to draw their lines in order to be heard by their parties. Which is fine but don't scold other women for also saying fuck this shit.

////////////////////

Trans mayday

"If you're a 3rd wave feminist or a 4th wave genderist who believes in "equality of all genders" and "empowerment" there's a few things you should know before you call yourself a progressive and left wing.

1. Both those movements are solidly based in neo-liberalism birthed into the world in the 1980's by 2 Right Wing governments: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

1. Neo-liberalism is the idea that we are not a society but rather disconnected individuals whose identity is more important than class politics. It is the opposite of Marxism.

1. Equality within the dominant paradigm means contorting oneself to fit a broken system. No matter how many women sit on the board of Fortune 500 Companies, there will still be migrant women cleaning the boardroom on minimum wage while the goal is 'equality' rather than liberation. There's a reason it was called Womens Lib, not 'women trying to be men'.

1. Your empowerment means sweet fuck all to anyone except you. Flashing your tits is not "smashing the patriarchy".

1. Quit the Oppression Olympics. It's tiresome, boring and a sign of Western 1st World Privilege. You weren't clitoredectomized at age 6 without antiseptic, anaesthetic and pain killers. You weren't married off to a 50 yr old at age 11 to have baby after baby until you died and got replaced by a younger model. You weren't made stateless by war and prostituted on a refugee camp for a few sips of clean water. Etc Etc Etc

While liberal feminism calls itself intersectional it concurrently ignores the women at the bottom doing the shit-work while screaming 'meeeeeeeeee, it's all about meeeee and my choices. Empowerment, agency, meeeeeee.' In other words it's right wing, regressive, conservative, capitalist, patriarchal bullshit that upholds the status quo.

Radical Feminism operates from women's liberation using class analysis, anti neo-liberalism, real left politics and operating from the grass roots up. It says, 'It doesn't matter if I'm ok if you're still not'. "

-Sabine Sabrinna V Belinski

Binturongs yes I was thinking about it in your original concept ie. contained in number and geography, like on the island. Otherwise it would be a vast ever-expanding network of people.

Yes agree, I suppose I meant by the end of the 20th c you'd expect some equality of scientific research. Given they did actually start to dissect female bodies more frequently around 18th c.

Took another century or so to actually bother to find the clitoris for example

I believe that societies are designed for all sorts of things, that there is competition in tilting them to go one way or another, and that in authoritarian systems they are designed to benefit the leader and possibly his families and closest lieges. In eras and times of slavery, some societies, at least, were interested in the well-being of slaves only to the extent that they had material value as resources.

And some past cultural conventions, such as suttee and the legal solution to rape of the rapist marrying the girl or woman he raped were helpful for the wider society (as it didn't have to worry about the maintenance of the widow or about what to do with a young woman who was deemed spoiled goods after rape), but devastating to the female person the convention was applied to.

So yes, I do believe societies try to contain some of our worst behaviours, but different societies do this in different ways, and it's quite possible to constrain those behaviours and yet have a rather ghastly social system in place. Or rather, we can always invent better ones!

Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain is really good on that research gap, WarriorN.

I almost missed a deadline because I got so distracted reading this wonderful thread!

"*If you're a 3rd wave feminist or a 4th wave genderist who believes in "equality of all genders" and "empowerment" there's a few things you should know before you call yourself a progressive and left wing.

• Both those movements are solidly based in neo-liberalism birthed into the world in the 1980's by 2 Right Wing governments: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

1. Neo-liberalism is the idea that we are not a society but rather disconnected individuals whose identity is more important than class politics. It is the opposite of Marxism.*

Im so glad this was brought up. I've seen some GC posters (not FWR!) on places like PITTstack and other parent groups that love to "blame the feminists" and "blame the Marxists" for the gender ideology their child is captured by. I've been so puzzled because I don't see it being Marxism at all because that requires a strong acceptance of our material existence (I'm not a Marxist, but that's my interpretation of it). Connecting gender woo to neo liberalism as shown above makes so much more sense.

Historical analysis is interesting/fascinating both at great time distance and more recent. There is that push/pull of history, this worked well, that didn't, what next.

But where we are now in the west, for the most part, is an ability by women to choose the father of their kids or to decide to not have them. This is our right. In a relationship of choice, it is more likely that there is buy in from the father to the created family. With a caring male role model, the perpetuation of that tendency is more likely.

I'm the person who mentioned mothers earlier in the thread. I didn't mean that women who aren't mothers can't understand what it is like, that would be insulting and untrue to say and I don't. But what I mean is that the primal act of procreating with someone is a bonding experience. It isn't always visible to society when a couple struggling through sleeplessness for example with a new baby, is out and about. It is hard, but bonds are created and I see this much much more now than was apparent in earlier decades.

There are violent men - absolutely. But in our society they are not predominant. So to assert that this is the case weakens the feminist argument now. I do feel men and women need to come together again, in support of each other and also in support of families that are not a man/woman dyad. Louise Perry's work is great on this.

We are at this point in history, we came close to equal but different as an ideal. And then I guess backlash, but in part backlash was through the inability to bring men into the conversation in a way that the sexes could understand each other rather than blame each other. We are two parts of a whole. You can't focus on one part without massive imbalance.

it probably a very simplistic view but someone said upthread that the caring work women do is not valued and I do think that’s the heart of the problem. It’s even talked down by some feminists for heaven’s sake (domesticated zombies and so on)

I think it can boil down to women especially feeling that others making a different choice to them is implicit criticism of their own choices (you see it very starkly wrt breast/bottle feeding conversations)

so for me, giving birth to and raising my children is the most significant act in my life. It defines me and has made me a different person

others who do not have children may see this as criticism of their choices and lash out.

but creating and caring for the next generation is important. We shouldn’t dismiss it because talking about it makes some people uncomfortable

@BernardBlacksMolluscs agree. I think my OH would also say having and raising my children is the most significant act in my life. It defines me and has made me a different person

This thread has looked at historical models and surmises - in a fascinating way. If we go to basics, as mammals our biological function is to reproduce. So perhaps not suprising that it feels significant. I know this will be called bioessentialist or something like that. I am not arguing that it is the only way to feel significant or that it should be in a modern society.

But it needs valuing or we are into Handmaid's Tale territory.

It’s the difference between saying that having children and diverting time, effort and resources to them is a good thing, and saying because it’s a good thing every woman should do it

the fact that in the past many men and women who really didn’t want children were pushed into doing it resulted in a great deal of unhappiness

there are many different ways to be a happy and productive human

I agree with this. And unless I've understood what it means, I don't regard this as "biological essentialism" but simply reality.

Unless you've birthed a baby, you can't understand it. Just like I can't understand becoming a father and watching my wife give birth. Just like I can't understand adopting. I can listen and empathise, and try to take information on board but no, I obviously can't understand it because I haven't experienced it. And I don't see why anyone who's had those experiences should somehow apologise for them or pretend others can understand them just to what? Be polite? Be inclusive? All the other equality groups don't apologise for saying "you can learn but you can't truly understand".

In fact - and again unless I have misunderstood it - it feels like this new term of "bio essentialism" is both a distraction and a slur. I see it being used when it's important to acknowledge that sex matters as a way of smearing women for not including males. So that's why I think that.

yup - completely agree

Yes.

For me, without a doubt, procreation, motherhood, etc has been the most deeply ‘right-feeling’ thing in my life. Beforehand, I had this gnawing feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction, which I think became actual depression at one point. “What’s the point in anything? The world’s going to shit.”. I became a mother by an unplanned pregnancy, and I was so surprised that I experienced this powerful, exquisite, inner-peace, once that baby arrived. The void within had been filled by the most miraculous and wonderful thing. Yes it was hard, fucking work and relentless, but I still have that inner feeling, unlike anything else.

I am very aware I have inhibited myself from speaking about something so beautiful and wonderful in my life, because I know a lot of women who have either struggled to conceive, haven’t met the right man, or are lesbians and I don’t want to rub their noses in it. Often people say stuff that sounds a bit naive to me, when they suggest to meet up “it will give you a chance to get a break from your family” and I quietly think “I didn’t give birth to and raise my children to not be with them”. I love spending time with them and separation from them feels wrong and unnatural.

I really do think there needs to be more positive press about motherhood, so women don’t leave it so late and end up childless when they don’t want to be.

@ResisterRex and@EndlessTea I agree. For me it is the word that is never used in academic discussion which is love. Caring for somebody else more than yourself. A hugely powerful thing that can only work to the benefit of societies.

I think where in our recent past we have gone wrong is in promoting this as the only way to feel whole. It isn't, there are many ways. They should all be valued.

If we don't promote that idea then we have the problem of people who can't have kids wanting to use surrogates etc and again that primal bond is lost. I think the primal bond matters to human beings and to how we feel psychologically and optimally socieities would support that, while recognising that there is never only one single way that suits every situation.

Anyone watched Happy Valley recently 😁

I feel exactly the same way.

Both the best times of my life and the worst times of my life have been directly related to being a mother.

My children have extended the scale I use to measure my experiences and my emotions in both directions.

That doesn’t mean I have any negative judgement towards women that have chosen to be childfree or that I am unable to sympathise with women who have had motherhood denied them via infertility, disability or serious illness.

I never wanted babies, never played with baby dolls… but the death of a friend coinciding with an unplanned pregnancy made me reevaluate and well, that reevaluation is now 22, almost as old as I was when he was born.

Often people say stuff that sounds a bit naive to me, when they suggest to meet up “it will give you a chance to get a break from your family” and I quietly think “I didn’t give birth to and raise my children to not be with them”. I love spending time with them and separation from them feels wrong and unnatural.

yep. I felt this way pretty much until my kids were 4/5 and I remember feeling like a sap or like there was something wrong with me

I didn’t always enjoy the feeling, but the fact is I never felt happy away from my children when they were small, no matter what how ‘fun’ the thing I was doing was (I didn’t always love being with them either mind you!)

I worked because i felt that me being financially independent kept my children safer but I didn’t like it

I love these posts - wish our forum had an easy way of showing that.