Mary Harrington's 'Feminism Against Progress' book is out.

[ArabellaScott]

Looking forward to this one. I know she gets mixed responses; I find her work really interesting.

swiftpress.com/book/feminism-against-progress/

I think she's interesting too, her perspective gives me a lot to think about. I'll order when it's in paperback, I prefer real books but not when they're heavy!

This paragraph in the link you posted resonated quite strongly with me after a poster on another thread recently recommended the documentary Eggsploitation. I'm struggling to get my head around why it's the left who seem to be embracing the comodification, corporatisation and monetisation of the human body and in particular women's bodies.

This is a stark warning against a dystopian future whereby poor women become little more than convenient sources of body parts to be harvested and wombs to be rented by the rich. Progress has now stopped benefiting the majority of women, and only a feminism that is sceptical of it can truly defend female interests in the 21st century.

I am interested in reading what she says. So far I have come across criticism of her arguments which state that she believes in some type of patriarchy as a functioning solution to sexism etc. I disagree with that, strongly, but I wish to read her own words on this.

Sounds about right that the new technologies will commodify women, and men too, probably.

As I see it Mary Harrington pushes new ideas to the limits in order to explore them in some kind of near perfect form. She sometimes hits the wrong notes, but that is not the point. Her writing is meant to challenge and to provoke discussion, not o be 'correct' or a final stand-point.

Yes, that's what I was going to say, NotHavingIt.

Reminded of Germaine Greer, who said that her students did their best thinking when angry. (Although I'm not sure Harrington's overt intent is to anger her readers!)

Yes, being on the edge sharpens the senses and makes one willing to take risks.

She has an essay at UnHerd today that acts as an introduction to ideas in the book:

unherd.com/2023/03/why-progress-isnt-feminist/

Fab, thanks Genesis.

'we have wildly underestimated how completely the shift to a digital-first culture is unmooring us — or, at least, some of us — from material reality.'

She just did a podcast with the excellent Chris Williamson which is worth a watch (perhaps more suited for those less well read on feminism like myself):

She wrote an article for the daily mail about a week ago, and I’m sorry but the stuff she says isn’t feminist. Among other things she argues that women should marry, divorce should be made significantly harder, patriarchy isn’t designed to oppress women but is to balance the needs of the sexes, women need to stop being fussy and choose relationships with uneducated men, feminism should campaign to give men purpose again and fight for male interests. If this is feminism I’d like to know what anti- feminism is.

This is my impression, too, but I will read the book to learn more.

Still, I am wary of anyone who argues for patriarchy as a feminist solution, given that it is explicitly hierarchical, with men ranked above women in law, religions, and so on, and given that we see what extreme patriarchy looks like in Afghanistan.

Even in less extreme versions women have fewer rights and less agency and power than men, so it's hard to see how the system could be argued to 'balance' the needs of the sexes unless women are seen as inherently submissive and happy to be subjugated in some forms.

I presume that it's possible to argue that patriarchy as a social arrangement somewhat cares for the needs of both sexes (though mostly for the needs of men) if it is only compared to some chaotic lawless society with marauding male gangs when even widespread domestic violence by one male might be preferable to violence by many strange men.

But that is a dismal view of the possibilities which societies contain, and the development so far has been very much away from patriarchies. It's certainly not a feminist proposal, to bring patriarchies back even more widely than they currently are.

I re-read her Daily Mail piece. It's very much like many older American pieces by right-wing commentators, and I have come across her arguments many times in the past. The differences are that the US pieces don't call themselves feminist at all and are often more disapproving of married women holding paid jobs.

Both are based on certain assumptions about the differences between the sexes which seem to be treated as universal and innate without much evidence of either of those.

The interesting addition in Harrington's piece is about her support for single-sex social spaces for men. Some of those were a target for feminism because they were (and still can be) used to do business, to promote certain applicants etc. so that women were disadvantaged by their exclusion. But I don't think feminists much targeted purely social male spaces (such as sports) if equal opportunities existed elsewhere for women and girls?

I preordered the book and I’ve started reading. If anyone on here wants to join me, please post your impressions.

On whether MH is ‘enough of a feminist’: at this point, when mainstream feminism has abandoned women, I no longer care. I want to hear what is in my interest, in women’s interest, not what the kindest, best, most perfect version of feminism is that will look good in my social circle.

So, first impressions:

The book begins on a personal note with MH reflecting on being a young Gen Xer (born 1979) growing up at a time when formal barriers to women’s participation in society have been almost erased but attitudes are still fairly sexist. She gives us some of her post-uni life story (and is candid about being a bit of a pain in the arse to be around). As is de rigeur these days, she admits to being Western, middle-class and white, but she also lampoons the earnestness of such declarations. She also presents a fair-minded summary of early 90s gender theory (chiefly Butler) and details how it influenced her own thinking at this disorientating moment in time, the 90s and early 2000s. The life event that changed everything was having a baby, when MH realises that ‘Team Freedom’ (embraced by mainstream feminism) have got it wrong and she is actually on Team Interdependence.

What should her team fight for? MH says she wants more realism and a workable programme for the cyborg era. The feminism that we have is from the industrial age and that is in the past. She wants single-sex spaces, m and f; an acknowledgment that male and female sexual desires and needs are different and that the pill hasn’t actually changed that; and she wants a realistic assessment of heterosexual marriage, it’s purpose and its possibilities. In a surveillance capitalist world that seeks to cannibalise everything that humans do and think, even unconsciously, marriage offers a cell of resistance, the one real opportunity for a human to not be alone or just another actor in the marketplace.

Thanks for that,@TheirEminence. I've been following Harrington for a while now (she did an interview with Triggernometry a while back which would make a decent intro for those who haven't encountered her yet, available on YouTube). I find her perspectives - which are definitely not the normal ones! - interesting and challenging to think about.

Tempted to buy the book for me, and my 18&20 year old daughters...

She wants single-sex spaces, m and f; an acknowledgment that male and female sexual desires and needs are different and that the pill hasn’t actually changed that; and she wants a realistic assessment of heterosexual marriage, it’s purpose and its possibilities

Thanks!

I now see paperback isn't out til later in the year ... I hate hardbacks ... they can brain you when you fall asleep reading them in bed.

In a surveillance capitalist world that seeks to cannibalise everything that humans do and think, even unconsciously, marriage offers a cell of resistance, the one real opportunity for a human to not be alone or just another actor in the marketplace.

What happened to the emoticon with the green vomit?

'marriage offers a cell of resistance, the one real opportunity for a human to not be alone or just another actor in the marketplace'

Seems to be smooshing together a romantic/quasi spiritual idea of evading/transcending fundamentally unavoidable mortality with a more pragmatic tax/inheritance angle.

I suppose it's maybe more the old family-v-the-state tension?

Yeah, maybe. I'm a bit all over the place with stress and busyness but at the back of my mind is the question of what happened to 'community' or tribes as being havens in a heartless world?

I can't imagine many survivors of spousal (men's) domestic abuse or other abuse by parents/partners finding her idealisation of marriage terribly appealing.

That could well be a missing component, yep. We don't have the 'village' anymore. I suppose a 'family' is a first building block of a community/tribe in some ways.

Hope the stress and busyness eases!

I’m half way through the book and this is a good summary.

I think a key insight (and one she shares with Louise Perry who has also written an interesting book) is that many of the changes which we give the label of feminist aren’t actually in the interests of women at all, from hook-up culture to the higher social value placed on paid work than that placed on unpaid caring. Essentially, we’ve gone wrong in assuming that something is feminist where it promotes the idea of men and women as meaningfully indistinguishable.

It’s a critique of capitalism as much as one of gender politics, and how the transactional values of capitalism and the market have infiltrated our personal, emotional, sexual and familial lives. I’m finding it very interesting.

That could well be a missing component, yep. We don't have the 'village' anymore. I suppose a 'family' is a first building block of a community/tribe in some ways

I guess I see it as an alternative. But then I'm an ageing hippy wanna-be :)

many of the changes which we give the label of feminist aren’t actually in the interests of women at all, from hook-up culture to the higher social value placed on paid work than that placed on unpaid caring.

But you could argue the same for forms of workplace benefits such as extended maternity leave and flexibility for women and not men (that feminists have fought for) which mean that patriarchal divisions of labour within households are replicated.

Essentially, we’ve gone wrong in assuming that something is feminist where it promotes the idea of men and women as meaningfully indistinguishable.

It’s a critique of capitalism as much as one of gender politics, and how the transactional values of capitalism and the market have infiltrated our personal, emotional, sexual and familial lives. I’m finding it very interesting.

Sounds it.

Yes, very much with her on her critique of hyper-capitalism.