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/

Nobody own the discussion and should dictate its course. and no woman must feel she cannot contribute because she is coming at things from a different angle. That is the sort of closing down and censuring that goes on in far too many discussions at present. Being the one that does the censuring rather than the one who is censured does not make it any more acceptable.

Mary Harrington's book ( which I have bought and am ready to read after I've finihed Hannah Barnes book) I imagine is going to be an extension of the many articles she has written - which to my mind do not seek to place women as the ineviatble victims of men, but as human beings who co-exist with others in a changing and developing world - in which the the consequences of previous actions, thoughts or societal arrangements - give pause for thought.

Like Mary ( in my mind, anyway) I don't identify exclusively 'as a woman'. I am a human being of the female kind with specific concerns and focuses on account of what being a woman/female can mean and imply - but not exclusively. I also have other more broadly humanistsic concerns too. None of us is an island, really.

so many types, sorry!

typos 😂

How many cats have children, parents, siblings, partners etc who are dogs? If dogs were all exterminated overnight, most cats wouldn't even notice. Not sure the same can be said of men and women.

Yes, the book is similar to MH’s articles, in her own, distinct style. To my mind, she is an excellent theorist, rather than a deep-dive historian but I’m reading on … I do love reading her, though, I must say.

I think the use of/impact of tech probably comes second to the economics. Is there much analysis of economic pressures in there? (I've used up my hardback allowance this month on Hags so won't be buying immediately!).

But yes, central to the argument and one that feminism struggles to reconcile, I think, is reproduction, pregnancy and mothering. I did like that Harrington was trying to look at that issue square on - at least that's the impression I have from what I've read of her articles etc.

Particularly, the tension between valuing reproductive work and commodifying it. I don't know how this can be overcome in a late capitalist society.

As a pp has said, I think anyone who thinks there was a better time to be a woman than now and a better place than Western Europe is fooling themselves

I know there are many problems with being a woman here and now, but try being a woman of the same economic standing you have here in Hyderabad or the 17th century

which is to say don’t underestimate the achievements of first and second wave feminism

But yes, central to the argument and one that feminism struggles to reconcile, I think, is reproduction, pregnancy and mothering.

It’s something I value in her writing - this acknowledgment that mothering is part of most women’s lives. I’m the same generation as her and can recognise many elements of her journey. Becoming a mother switched something for me - there was a deep bond with my baby which took me utterly by surprise left me so conflicted about work. I struggled to reconcile the desire to be with her with the pressure to ‘get back into work and keep career/finances’. It felt like looking after my child was the more important job but the message society gave was very different.

The OP is about Harrington's new book. She is covering these (men-related) issues in all her publicity/interviews, so I'd be amazed if they didn't come up in the book as well - ie the way in which feminism is impacted by them, and the ways in which feminism might benefit by paying them some attention.

It's reflected in care work generally - the bulk of which is of course carried out unpaid, by women.

Is she? I've read her article suggesting that a form of 'chivalry' might be helpful for women. I think I made a thread on it a while back.

All I've read so far on this thread is what women could/should be doing for men. Funnily enough the converse hardly ever seems to get raised.

I've read posts berating & criticising women for not doing enough for men, and posts discussing some 'men's issues'. I've not read a single one suggesting how men could help women or address women's issues.

All the work/effort/pressure seems to flow in one direction only.

"I've read posts berating & criticising women for not doing enough for men, and posts discussing some 'men's issues'. I've not read a single one suggesting how men could help women or address women's issues."

Firstly, I haven't seen any berating or criticising of women 'for not doing enough for men'.

Secondly, I don't think it's women's 'work' to inform men how to help the cause of feminism, just as I'm sure we wouldn't appreciate men telling us how we should be supporting them.

I think women should think about how we can support female causes, AND possible ways in which women supporting men might also support women's interests.

I also think men can advocate for specifically make causes (eg raise awareness of prostrate cancer, or suicidality), AND think about the ways in which men supporting women might also be in their own interests.

If we ALL 'do the work', we all benefit. You (Arabella) seem to think that we can or should only think about one kind of problem at a time. I'm suggesting it may be more efficient to take a more holistic approach.

I would love to see/read more research into the effects of taking the pill over the medium and long-term, which MH raises as an area of concern.

There is definitely a (feminist) issue with the lack of interest/funding directed towards specifically female health issues, and this is a big one, given just how many women are on this long-term medical pathway.

It sounds like quite an interesting premise. I might have to read a few of essays and see if they pique my interest further.

All I've read so far on this thread is what women could/should be doing for men. Funnily enough the converse hardly ever seems to get raised.

I'm not so sure about that. I feel like a lot of men purport to support feminism, but you don't hear many women actively doing the reverse.

Like, quite a few famous men have worn 'this is what a feminist looks like' t shirts. They also seem to be quite well represented at feminist events - e.g. quite a few in the video I posted of feminists protesting men's rights.

Is there even a word for the male equivalent of feminism? Masculism?

I also see a lot of women saying what men should do to support women. Calling out misogynistic jokes, teaching their sons about respect, telling partners to cross over the road instead of walking behind a woman at night.

But can you see that the concerted response on this thread to wanting to talk about women has been ‘it’s ok to talk about women, but I’m going to talk about men, and other women should too to further their interests’

If you agree that it’s ok, and even desirable for women to talk about and advocate solely for themselves sometimes, are you actually able to do that?

Are you capable of making a single post that doesn’t advocate for men do you think?

I’m genuinely curious

"If you agree that it’s ok, and even desirable for women to talk about and advocate solely for themselves sometimes, are you actually able to do that?"

I rather thought I was doing that when I mentioned the pill and wider issues of female healthcare.

One post

it’s ok, you do you

but you may want to think about why your instinctive response to women talking about the challenges faced by women is to talk about the challenges faced by men and what women should do about them

It's not my only response.

Here's an earlier (2019) article from MH about what happened to her feminism when it encountered motherhood:

unherd.com/2019/10/how-motherhood-put-an-end-to-my-liberalism/

If we ALL 'do the work', we all benefit. You (Arabella) seem to think that we can or should only think about one kind of problem at a time. I'm suggesting it may be more efficient to take a more holistic approach.

Hm. Other activism/work is all cool. It's not feminism, though, I don't talk about fundraising for DRC or environmental work here because it's irrelevant.

My point is that this is a feminist board, we are discussing feminist approaches, specifically Mary Harrington's work, and posts on this thread have repeatedly tried to suggest that if women want things to get better we have to help men. In one post, someone suggested that if we should help men with their mental health to lessen MVAWG.

Male violence is not women's responsibility.

I'm curious, as Bernard notes above - that women just seem to find it very, very hard to advocate for themselves. There are always reasons we have to put the men first, include the men, consider the men. I do think examining the endless gravitating towards men and men's causes to be part of the work of feminism.

I don’t think anyone should be “told off” for wanting to talk about men because there will be overlapping interests between different groups which means that some feminists will care about the relations with men in their lives and more generally. There’s an overlap between things that benefit women and that benefit both sexes, and some feminist policies eg. shared parental leave specifically concern men. We also should be able to criticise actions done in the name of feminism ie. not be woman-biased to the expense of everyone else if it's not warranted – I think the cancelling of the talk at York Uni is an example of this.

However the backlash in the thread is because women are fed up of being in the turkey coop watching the other turkeys vote for Christmas. It’s as if it reflects a societal Stockholm syndrome where women are unable to identify and defend their own needs separate to their oppressor. Or more simply women are socialised to think of others before themselves and men are allowed to be more selfish.

The concept of masculinism just doesn’t make sense because the men’s issues they are campaigning about are not caused by women at all, and indeed mental health issues and reproductive organ cancers affect women. Feminism is required because women are disadvantaged due to their biology, and the patriarchal structure that entrenches men as the dominant class. As Cheryl Giovannoni said after Emma Pattinson’s murder, women are only as safe as their male partner allows them to be. In society I would say that women are only as liberated as men allow them to be. We can either agree to the terms and conditions, negotiate, or separate (to a degree). Governments can and do roll back women’s rights (in the UK right now this is via transgenderism). Women often have little recourse. Because of that I’d argue men have more of a responsibility to us than we do to them. But on this thread it’s been twisted into the other way round.

I hope I’m not telling anyone off. I’m a pretty shit feminist all things considered and academic feminism makes me frankly anxious. I don’t have the concentration span for it

but, annoying as it no doubt is to be on the receiving end, I do consider it an act of sisterly solidarity to draw people’s attention to the fact that their reactions may be instinctively centring men. The cultural soup we swim in makes seeing ourselves as service humans and that being a virtue our default setting