Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

347 replies

ArabellaScott · 02/03/2023 17:33

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

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

OP posts:
DemiColon · 08/03/2023 17:55

Onnabugeisha · 08/03/2023 11:54

I found this problem of ahistoricalness in many feminist analyses of say ancient to historical literature down to feminist perspective studies of famous or aristocratic female ancient and historical figures. The feminist analysis often sweeps away what we do know about the laws, culture and practices of the time and gives women more agency than they actually had.

MH sees a pre-industrial women working in a home cottage industry of say making candles or butter/cheese. But then forgets that whatever she produced & sold, the income was not hers to keep. And often she had no choice about what she did- working over vats of tallow to make candles or milking cows & churning butter & making cheese.

What family business she was “married into” (sold off to), was determined by her father or brother. And contrary to popular belief the lower classes contracted marriages similar to the upper classes only on a smaller scale. A tailor would contract to marry a daughter off to a draper/haberdashery…because then he’d get a family discount on cloth for the clothes he made. A farmer would marry a daughter off to a miller…because then he could would always have a buyer for his grain and perhaps his personal flour milled for free. Brewers would marry off daughters to innkeepers and publicans. Butchers to herdsmen. Lower classes had as much aspirations and desires to improve their family’s economic conditions and their women were sold off to cement business deals by bringing related businesses into one family.

Plus women were barred from joining any craft or merchant guilds and if you don’t have guild licence, you can’t legally sell any goods. We forget too that not only were women barred from professions but also all trades.

And the men, on the other hand, had all kinds of freedom to choose what they did....

Or not so much.

But you are really judging the past here on the basis of modern values that would have been very alien to both men or women in the past. Most people did the job, or something very similar, that their parents did. Families operated economically as a single entity, and often the women ran the economic end of the household. It certainly didn't look like things do now, work was in some cases far more sex segregated. But the idea of self-actualization through choice, which most of us are steeped in to the point we can't imagine anyone is living authentically without it, is a pretty recent idea.

Onnabugeisha · 08/03/2023 17:55

HBGKC · 08/03/2023 17:51

"The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.
“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’" "

From an article dated Dec 2015. Sweden was also considering it (I don't know what they decided). It's really not much of a leap in the current climate.

Surely that’s because of the single sex couples with children? And not because they’re outlawing the very concept of mother/father? It’s more when you’re doing a passport application for a child, you can no longer assume 1 mother and 1 father as could be 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

nepeta · 08/03/2023 18:55

Women's status in the distant past seems to have also varied by what we would perhaps call technology or economics.

It was the worst in nomadic herder cultures (and still is in the places where those existed and to some extent continue to exist) and much better in more stable agricultural communities where garden-type agriculture was feasible.

Explanations for that are fairly obvious, as in the case where tribes kept moving with the herds it was very difficult for women, especially those who were pregnant or caring for small infants, to contribute to the work of the tribe or to do other work which would contribute to the food or other resources of the tribe. Even things like weaving to produce trade items was harder when the group kept moving.

In the kinds of communities which stayed put and where it was possible for women to cultivate gardens, keep domestic animals, make items for local trade etc. women's status was higher.

This is not about the pre-historic era, but I read in medieval history that it wasn't always the case in all places and eras that women born into higher social classes had more rights as women than poorer women (which does not mean that having greater affluence didn't benefit all in the upper classes when compared to the lower classes).

Girls born into the upper class were pawns in the marriage games of the nobility, were married off at very young ages and so often gave birth to a very large number of children whether they wished large families or not, and therefore faced relatively high rates of maternal mortality.

Some poorer women had more rights to choose their own partner in marriage (because connections and lineages didn't matter), spent time working to earn a dowry before marriage (perhaps money to buy a cow etc.), so married later than the women of the upper classes and had fewer children as a consequence. They were also sometimes able to keep running their own businesses (beer making, for instance) which gave them some economic bargaining power inside the marriage.

TheirEminence · 08/03/2023 18:56

Every human has a mother and a father. Yes, parenting arrangements may differ but ancestry matters to humans. Whether the state needs to know who your biological parents are is a different question but I do not understand why gender-neutral has to be the norm. Why not offer a drop-down menu (mother, father, parent) to accommodate same-sex parents?

Mum and dad are the words used to describe the most important relationships in the life of most children, even if many children now grow up in single-mother families. Why do we need to get rid of them?

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 08/03/2023 19:01

the things you went through to return to work and keep breast feeding your babies sound like a lot of sacrifice to me

HBGKC · 08/03/2023 20:51

"But you are really judging the past here on the basis of modern values that would have been very alien to both men or women in the past. Most people did the job, or something very similar, that their parents did. Families operated economically as a single entity, and often the women ran the economic end of the household. It certainly didn't look like things do now, work was in some cases far more sex segregated. But the idea of self-actualization through choice, which most of us are steeped in to the point we can't imagine anyone is living authentically without it, is a pretty recent idea."

Yes, I absolutely agree with this, @DemiColon. Apparently there's even a word for it (which I've not previously encountered): "Presentism is a historical term meaning judging past actions by today's standards, or uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts."

Onnabugeisha · 08/03/2023 21:49

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 08/03/2023 19:01

the things you went through to return to work and keep breast feeding your babies sound like a lot of sacrifice to me

I can understand the perspective even if I do not share it. I don’t see it as a sacrifice myself as I honestly don’t think my bond with my children is less than as a result? So yes, it was hard work, but imho whatever choice you make as a parent results in hard work whether you stay home with them or go out to work.

Onnabugeisha · 08/03/2023 21:57

TheirEminence · 08/03/2023 18:56

Every human has a mother and a father. Yes, parenting arrangements may differ but ancestry matters to humans. Whether the state needs to know who your biological parents are is a different question but I do not understand why gender-neutral has to be the norm. Why not offer a drop-down menu (mother, father, parent) to accommodate same-sex parents?

Mum and dad are the words used to describe the most important relationships in the life of most children, even if many children now grow up in single-mother families. Why do we need to get rid of them?

The US passport application form DS-11 dated April 22 has two “mother/father/parent” blocks, so the 2015 article posted upthread didn’t really give a clear picture of what they actually did. It appears they added parent and gender X as options in addition to mother/father. See screenshot
Full form at eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds11.pdf

So not at all “outlawing the terms mother and father” as appears to have been feared.

Mary Harrington's 'Feminism Against Progress' book is out.
TheirEminence · 08/03/2023 23:45

Thanks for clarifying!

Onnabugeisha · 08/03/2023 23:49

TheirEminence · 08/03/2023 23:45

Thanks for clarifying!

Sure 😀 I just decided fuck it, the US passport form must be online let’s see if the 2015 articles predictions actually happened or not. I think the form isn’t half bad. Much better that they added parent than deleting mother and/or father.

HBGKC · 09/03/2023 08:10

An excerpt from MH's earlier UnHerd article, relevant to some recent posts:

"I am not saying we should shrug our shoulders at the different ways men and women are treated by society, on the grounds that it is a biological inevitability. I want rather to suggest that the simplistic picture of sex equality promoted by popular feminism has a motherhood-shaped blind spot and, as such, lets both sexes down.
Popular depictions of motherhood in our culture tend to go two ways. Motherhood is either an adjunct (or obstacle) to other more worldly achievements but of no notable value or difficulty in itself, or else it is a pastel-coloured ideal of domesticity cleansed of the blood, milk, excrement and hormone-driven altered states of mind.
Left-flavoured liberalism generally ignores the embodied nature of motherhood, and assures us that sexist stereotypes, and those social patterns that conform to sexist stereotypes, are an oppressive creation of the patriarchy designed to keep women from fulfilling our true potential. Right-flavoured liberalism tells us these same patterns are simply a matter of “choice”.

The truth, though, is that carrying and nursing children is neither exactly choice nor coercion: it is an animalistic experience that cuts profoundly across the fantasies implicit in liberalism of free, rational individuals for whom liberation means transcending our physiological natures.
This matters. We cannot think politically about the place of family life in society, or indeed about sex equality at all, unless we can look frankly at what motherhood is, rather than at the motherhood-shaped space gestured at by a liberal focus on identities and economics. Maternity leave in Britain is far better than in many places but it has been a long time since a political party of either Left or Right dared to suggest that many mothers might want to spend years rather than months at home with their children, and adjust the tax codes accordingly.
Motherhood is a crunch point where the liberal pursuit of individual freedom collides not just with communitarian obligations to others in society, but our very nature as biological creatures, yet for political reasons the ball has been dropped and kicked into a corner by Left and Right.
While our mainstream liberal culture pretends that all humans are essentially identical apart from our dangly bits, it will continue to recoil in disgust from the messy reality of motherhood as a deeply animal experience. And so mothers will continue to be as overworked, guilty and burned out as they currently are, and our birth rates will continue to plummet. Perhaps, finally, it is time to restart the long-overdue public conversation about what motherhood is, and move beyond the polite political omertà that covers the subject."

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 09/03/2023 10:01

Such an interesting excerpt, and very much plays out the discussions we’ve had here

i read an interesting review of the book in the telegraph by Suzanne Moore who basically said ‘I agree with MH on what the problem is, but I profoundly disagree with her on the solutions’

i suspect that’s where I am

I view any romanticism around women’s lives in pre industrialised society with profound mistrust and I’m simply never going to agree that individual women should stay married to men who make them miserable

i also don’t get the hand wringing over the falling birth rate. I know it will be a problem at a national level, but globally there’s 8bn people on this rock. I consider a falling birth rate to be a good thing

TheirEminence · 09/03/2023 11:48

Re birth rate, that’s a tricky one and I can see two sides of the argument. There is, I believe, good empirical evidence about social problems that ensue on a local and national level with falling birth rates.

Yes, there are may humans on this planet but there are huge differences between them in terms of wealth, culture and social structures; humans also have an amazing capacity for war, conflict and destruction as a result of social dislocation.

So falling birth rates are probably neither good nor bad but they have likely consequences that we might not like.

HBGKC · 09/03/2023 12:23

On why falling birth rates will be a big problem for our children and grandchildren:

www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521.amp

"You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.
"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.
"... this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.
Prof Murray adds: "It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like."
Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?"

TheirEminence · 09/03/2023 13:15

In such a world, I fear there will be little respect for human life that is seen as ‘surplus to requirements’. The news from Canada regarding euthanasia are worrying in this respect.

HBGKC · 09/03/2023 15:59

Yes, I agree - but that's probably another thread.

HBGKC · 09/03/2023 16:28

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 09/03/2023 10:01

Such an interesting excerpt, and very much plays out the discussions we’ve had here

i read an interesting review of the book in the telegraph by Suzanne Moore who basically said ‘I agree with MH on what the problem is, but I profoundly disagree with her on the solutions’

i suspect that’s where I am

I view any romanticism around women’s lives in pre industrialised society with profound mistrust and I’m simply never going to agree that individual women should stay married to men who make them miserable

i also don’t get the hand wringing over the falling birth rate. I know it will be a problem at a national level, but globally there’s 8bn people on this rock. I consider a falling birth rate to be a good thing

Well to be fair, MH didn't say women should marry/stay married to men who made them miserable. She was calling for a bit less "you complete me 😍" (which she called Big Romance), and a bit more practicality and pragmatism: "I reckon we could make a good-enough family household together".

But I agree with the pp who said that MH tends to throw out very provocative ideas with a view to stimulating creative reaction and discussion, rather than providing an Excel spreadsheet of all the finer details.

Kokeshi123 · 20/03/2023 05:54

OK but is there any evidence that a high % of divorces are about women throwing away less-than-perfect marriages for trivial reasons?

All the divorces I know personally were about women finally giving up on marriages where the guy was an absolute twat and a misery to live with.

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 07:48

Kokeshi123 · 20/03/2023 05:54

OK but is there any evidence that a high % of divorces are about women throwing away less-than-perfect marriages for trivial reasons?

All the divorces I know personally were about women finally giving up on marriages where the guy was an absolute twat and a misery to live with.

Fwiw, I don’t think the rate of divorce is high? It’s a lower rate than the rate at which unmarried long term cohosting couples break up. So I agree with you, there’s no evidence that divorce is due to women being picky.

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 07:48

*Cohabiting sorry

HBGKC · 20/03/2023 15:05

I've heard almost 1 in 2 marriages now end in divorce..? 45% of first-time marriages, according to Relate.

Almost 2/3 of all heterosexual divorces were instigated by women (interesting, a similar ratio is seen in lesbian vs gay male couples).

Grammarnut · 20/03/2023 20:54

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 07:48

Fwiw, I don’t think the rate of divorce is high? It’s a lower rate than the rate at which unmarried long term cohosting couples break up. So I agree with you, there’s no evidence that divorce is due to women being picky.

Agree. That non-binding partnerships break up more frequently than marriages is not something that gets much airing, either.

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 22:17

This is an interesting report using ONS data on divorce rates in England and Wales. Seems like 30yrs marriage is the danger zone. #1 reason is unreasonable behaviour.
www.nimblefins.co.uk/divorce-statistics-uk

namitynamechange · 20/03/2023 23:28

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 22:17

This is an interesting report using ONS data on divorce rates in England and Wales. Seems like 30yrs marriage is the danger zone. #1 reason is unreasonable behaviour.
www.nimblefins.co.uk/divorce-statistics-uk

So actually, its more likely that the children are grown up than that its a couple with young children.

Also, I don't know why we aren't talking about the fact that the majority of marriages DON'T end up in divorce (based on the same statistics).

I like the different angle Mary Harrington brings. However, I think the idea that the pill/contraception was an overall bad thing for women is an over romanticisation of the past:
Even outside of Ireland women were still having children outside of wedlock and frequently pressurised into giving them up for adoption. Women in Paris in the 19th century were sending their babies to "foundling hospitals" in the country who would often just allow them to starve. Rosseau in the 18th century sent his own children to the orphanage each time his live in mistress gave birth. Throughout history men were able to avoid the responsibility that comes with careless sex. That's not a new thing.

Kokeshi123 · 21/03/2023 10:24

Onnabugeisha · 20/03/2023 07:48

Fwiw, I don’t think the rate of divorce is high? It’s a lower rate than the rate at which unmarried long term cohosting couples break up. So I agree with you, there’s no evidence that divorce is due to women being picky.

I think the only way we would actually get the divorce rate to go down a LOT would be if society and women themselves decided to just be genuinely OK with a lot of really terrible marriages that make women miserable. The awkward truth is that quite a high % of men do not have the personal characteristics required to be a good spouse and parent (and so do some women, let's be fair, but fewer, as women are less likely to have very difficult personalities than men). That's not an easy truth to think about, and fits firmly into the "hard-to-solve" box of societal issues.

I'm sure you do get tiresome navel-gazing women who leave basically perfectly good marriages because "I want to find my sooouuulmate/be true to myself/whatever," but they're hardly common. I don't know a single one.

Swipe left for the next trending thread