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 don't see the problem with saying that men and women working together are more likely to make more, and better, progress on making life better for both sexes, than either sex working for/with themselves alone.

(I'm not really bothered about the 'feminist' label; it's just that: a label. Very general, lacking an agreed-upon definition... not that useful in actually changing anything for the better).

Come on, Arabella, you know perfectly well that's not what I'm saying.

What I don't understand is people who come and harangue feminists for doing feminism wrong.

I watched the Mary Harrington interview on Triggernometry last night, and have her book on order… which is “out for delivery” to me today 🤗 A number of things have shifted my thinking in recent years, really since the covid pandemic revealed a great deal of previously hidden truths to me. Both MH and Louise Perry’s writings and interviews, Paul Kinsgnorth’s writings on “the Machine”, which is kind of analogous to MH’s “cyborg theocracy”. Iain McGilchrist’s interview on Rebel Wisdom in nov ’21. One of his takes is that “the primary entity of the cosmos is relationships and not things”. There are not so much individual or isolated things, there are primarily relationships, patterns, ways of understanding. Where is the start and end point between starlings and the murmuration, the dancer and the dance, the ripples in the sand and the ocean?

Mary Harrington self styles herself as a “reactionary feminist”, but the word “relational” has stood out for me in several of her articles, which is how I have come to view my feminism. Feminism to me now is making sense of the place of women and advocating for their interests within the gestalt of the cultural whole of human relationality.

Liberal feminism’s call for equality makes little sense when there are glaring biological and psycho-social differences between the sexes, based on the fundamental of human infants having such a long developmental period and the criticality of the mother/baby dyad in developmental psychology. Flattening the difference between the sexes has lead to the hypersexual culture, pornography, empty hookups and transgenderism… it’s emptied all meaning out of intersexual relations into a nihilistic endgame. It just basically serves an industrial, transhumanist and dehumanising dystopia.

Radical feminism’s call for liberation gets deeper to the root of the problematic patterns of male domination and violence, but where does that go ultimately in terms of human biological and cultural reproduction? It leads at its endgame to instability and the abyss of unbridgeable chasm between the sexes and oblivion. A society based on liberated or independent sexes is no society at all in any enduring sense, as it’s fundamentally unstable and an evolutionary (or at least) cultural cul-de-sac.

We need the relationality, the collaboration and the interdependence between the sexes in order to create physically and psychologically healthy offspring, and build healthy, stable social bonds between all humans at the family, community, regional and macro level, and have a flourishing culture that nourishes the human spirit in mutual supportiveness.

I loved Mary Harrington’s take at the end of the Triggernometry interview 🤯 about rewilding our sexual relationships, akin to rewilding Yellowstone by reintroducing wolves, and how there’s so many downstream consequences and restoration to a state of wholeness and grace within following/repairing the natural order. This ties in so much with me with Louise Perry’s idea of reenchantment between the sexes. In turn that echoes Max Weber’s writing about the disenchantment which arose from the protestant reformation and the rise of capitalism… that desacralisation curves back to Mary Harrington’s cyborg theocracy and Paul Kingsnorth’s Machine of transhumanism and hyperconsumerism in an atomised, individualised, disembodied marketplace of “meat lego” and Only Fans.

There's a big difference between looking to support the specific needs of women, or men, say for health or whatever, and looking to create social structures that are robust for society and good for the people in it. The latter isn't going to work if you are operating on the basis of some female separatist utopia.

It's common for feminist to say structural change of society is necessary to support women properly. Rad fems consider that to be fundamental. You can't talk about whole scale social or economic change without looking at all the people in society.

If you want to limit feminism to opening shelters or very specific things that really only impact women, then there is little need to spend a lot of time considering men. But anything deeper or broader is also going to have to include men and children in the equation, not only in terms of justice questions, but because they aren't going to disappear off the face of the Earth.

Historically, and still today in some places, male homosexuality was really not thought of in western terms. "Sexuality" as we think of it wasn't really a thing.

The main divide was between the masculine, dominant role, and the passive, or effeminate role. Rape in war falls under the former and was extremely common in the ancient world.

I was more posting that to show that it was feminists fighting against IMD in this particular example.

However, I'm not interested in a lengthy 'discussion' or bunfight as I doubt we'll agree. I just believe that you can't create a decent society by only focusing on the issues faced by one sex. You need to tackle it as a society IMO rather than creating division and turning your back on problems that don't affect you personally.

This describes me I think.

I just don't like how you're labeled a misogynist if you question any element of modern feminism. It's too similar to how trans activists call people transphobic when they disagree with them.

Why can't we have a movement to work for the interests of women and girls?

Who says you can't?

I just don't feel it's helpful to knock down men and fight against initiatives designed to help them like a lot of feminists do. Obv 'not all feminists'.

What social structures don't support 'specific needs'?

This separatist utopia sounds a bit like a red herring, tbh. Most feminists are in het relationships, most have families.

DogandMog 👌

Like many posters on here I have a husband, brothers, male friends and a father whom I love / loved dearly. I would die for my son and I worry for him. It is really fucking tedious to be told I / we don't care about men.
But sometimes rights are in conflict. And when they are, we know from experience that women and girls will go to the bottom of the pile unless women get on the case.

There’s 2 things I think

1. tactical. How do we make things better for women now? Being able to get a mortgage or not get fired when you get married are important examples of this

2. strategic. What should society look like to make it a safe and fair place for women? Although I find the idea that there was ever a ‘before the fall’ time when relationships between men and women were all hunky dory pretty laughable

this book feels like it very much falls in item 2. I tend to see that as all a bit academic

And item 2 seems to be in the what about the menz? Zone

item 1 is about women

"If you want to limit feminism to opening shelters or very specific things that really only impact women, then there is little need to spend a lot of time considering men. But anything deeper or broader is also going to have to include men and children in the equation, not only in terms of justice questions, but because they aren't going to disappear off the face of the Earth."

Yes, this @DemiColon; and also what @DogandMog said.

We can, and clearly do.

Those interests intersect with the interests of other groups though (most importantly men and children); negotiating a lasting peace, if I may put it like that, is in the interests of all three groups (ie humanity).

Pursuing the interests of only one of those groups (regardless of how much ground needs to be made up/atoned for given historical injustices) does not seem to be to be the best use of one's energy/resources.

(But then, I wouldn't say that e.g. women's refuges were only in women's interests anyway, as I'm pretty sure most men would support their existence as a safe option for their sisters/aunts/nieces.)

Well, don't do it then. If you don't feel feminism is the best use of your time.

If another woman chooses to dedicate her time to causes you don't feel are the best use of her time, so what?

An aside on a drift in this thread:

The sex difference in completed suicide rates must be placed in proportion to all the data on suicidal ideations, attempts, and completions. While men are more likely to complete suicide, women, in fact, attempt suicide more often.

Why the difference in completion exists is at least partly because the methods women and men choose are, on average, different. Men tend to choose methods which do not allow anyone to intervene as they are instantaneous (guns in the US, say, or hanging), while women are more likely to overdose on something which fails more often and also offers time for someone else to intervene. But there could be other reasons for this difference, too.

What's also interesting about the US suicide statistics is that the completion rates are considerably higher among Whites and Anglos than among Blacks and Latinos, for both sexes, though the male rate is higher than the female rate in all three groups within those groups.

White men have the highest rates of all in the US, and the places where they are the highest are states such as Alaska and Wyoming, where physical isolation and gun-ownership are both high.

This is not directly related to the situation in other countries, but suggests that the reasons for differences in suicide rates are complex, and even include such things as access to effective methods of committing suicide. But they do seem to also depend on not being integrated into a close community (and not having support in that community and perhaps even the myth of the lone, independent and strong individual who never asks for help.)

Many of the things that have brought progress for women have ended up being used against us.

The pill is a classic - yes it is wonderful to have sex without risking pregnancy, but then men expected more sex easier and especially now there is a significant pushback against men having to take responsibility of wearing a condom because the woman can (and apparently ought to) be on the pill.

Similarly, the availability of abortion is fundamental but now the MRA narrative is that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't have an abortion on demand, that men should be able to have a "financial termination" to relieve them of any responsibility.

Us having the right to go out to work -> an expectation to be equally responsible for all household costs plus all the unpaid stuff.

A reduction in the stigma of unmarried mothers -> men who make women feel unreasonable to expect the security of marriage before children.

We should try to help prostitued women -> sex work is work, and how dare you question a man's right to access it.

Improving healthcare for women who suffer fertility problems -> equal access to surrogacy is a human rights issue and men should have the right to buy children never mind that they're risking someone else's health rather than their own.

And on and on. Of course many men are reasonable, responsible people who make great partners but its not hard to feel jaded that the focus of so much liberal feminism in particular seems to have simply created a new set of problems for women. With this state of affairs it feels very justified to ask the question of what has been beneficial to women and whether further "progress" may just harm us again.

The early Christian church was founded within and during the Roman Empire and Roman women had the right to divorce their husbands. Women could even keep their maiden name when they married. They also inherited and owned property- which they reclaimed when they divorced. The law required that even though a woman couldn’t manage her own property (with a few exceptions), her property was kept separate from her husbands property. Yes the children belonged to the father, but that was more because it was culturally his responsibility to provide for them - house, feed, raise, support into adulthood and so on.

The later bans on divorce were not a step forward for women at all because that is when women stopped having inheritance and property rights as well as losing the right to divorce. The right to divorce also did not require things like cruelty, abandonment, adultery,- it could simply be fed up with his man shit.

And on and on. Of course many men are reasonable, responsible people who make great partners but its not hard to feel jaded that the focus of so much liberal feminism in particular seems to have simply created a new set of problems for women. With this state of affairs it feels very justified to ask the question of what has been beneficial to women and whether further "progress" may just harm us again.

The subjugation and exploitation of the weak(er) is a perennial feature of humanity. I don't see it changing any time soon.

For that reason, I think any idealist utopian plans are doomed to fail to an extent.

I found Harrington's critiques of tech interesting - that seems to be the crux of her argument. Tech is always put to use to serve the current orthodoxy.

So we can continue to improve medecine, AI, etc, but so long as we continue to have people willing to exploit those weaker than themselves the benefits to the weaker/less able are going to be limited, or in some cases as she details the tech will just be used to further entrench the dominant.

Not sure what, if any, solutions there might be to this. I think 'rewilding sex' was a nice but maybe naive suggestion.

The subjugation and exploitation of the weak(er) is a perennial feature of humanity. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Agree. I think this is where some of the tension lies between absolute woman-centred feminism and a movement for both sexes. Because ultimately it feels that women will always have to hold the line. Our rights will always be under some sort of threat whether "progressive" or "regressive".

Haven't read the book, so don't know how relevant this point is but more in response to a previous poster, but I would be cautious about being reactionary to the adverse effects of so-called progress, because I would still rather live in the West and in this century than the last, even with the problems we face now.

Not ultimate solutions, but I would like to see:

1. Women and men equally taking greater interest in progressive policies that promote harmony between the sexes. This should not be the sole responsibility of feminists.
2. Global consciousness raising for women so we are encouraged to act in our own interest, not to sow class division between men and women, but in acknowledgment of the fact that advances can be used against us, and that we are groomed by the dominant culture to subsume our own interests. I think this is what mainstream feminism needs to return to.

OK, I don't want to derail thread too much more (even if it's already a bit late for that) as the book sounds quite interesting.

However, I actually think that 'what about the men?' is actually a fairly pertinent question to ask at times. By this I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to focus on female-specific issues or devote their time to these. Even all of their time with not a solitary thought for men if this is what they want.

However, I think that what we need to acknowledge is that if feminism isn't going to give any thought whatsoever to half of society then it can never be a complete solution and it needs to be applied in conjunction with something else to create a truly equal society if such a thing really exists.

I know from lurking on here for ages before signing up that people find it tiresome when feminist discussions become 'all about the men', but it's not like posters don't mention men. They do a lot. It's seemingly just when somebody says something remotely sympathetic that people seem to start with the 'poor menz'/'won't somebody think about the men'.

But the reality is that feminists have successfully managed to get events focused on things like male suicide cancelled and feminist ideology seems to be the driving force behind them protesting said events - 'they warned that celebrating the event 'amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities'.

So, I know this might seem a bit of an odd place to talk about men's issues but the two are intertwined to some extent and in some cases it does become a zero sum game even if this isn't strictly necessary.

I also don't think that aiming for equality with men is necessarily the ideal situation, because let's face it feminists don't want the bad bits. They don't want a 50/50 split in homelessness and suicides. They want 50/50 in pay and directorships etc.

I'd like to see men doing better too and us aiming for that. Not aiming for what men have now.