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/

It's not I who is now harping on and on about men on this thread. The only reason I've posted as I have (which has not only been about how female social gains may involve men too), is because MH herself made this point, in both the interviews I've seen of hers publicising her new book, which is the subject of this thread...

Anyway...

"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."

This demonstrates the nub of the problem, I think. Some thoughts:

'...women are disadvantaged due to their biology'. Disadvantaged, full-stop? In the 20th & 21st century capitalist labour market? How about 'women's lives are immeasurably enriched by their capacity to have children. It would be great if society could recognise this, value it (possibly also economically..?), work towards a working world which does not stop/discourage a woman from having children as well as working OTH for money.

'...women are only as safe as their male partner allows them to be'.

We can foment as much feminism as we like, but women will always be the physically weaker and therefore more physically vulnerable sex (also because of pregnancy/breastfeeding/infant dependants). Short of us all becoming bodybuilders on steroids, I don't see any 'solutions' to this one that do not involve...men. (Sorry. Done it again.)

I could expand on the last point but I'll likely be told off for being an apologist for male violence or something, so I won't bother. But I'd be interested to hear others' ideas as to what we can do about this perennial issue.

'We can either agree to the terms and conditions, negotiate, or separate (to a degree).'

Well, quite!

Agree to current status quo - not really, no thanks.

Separate to a degree - how? Give up on the survival of our species? Commoditise every aspect of human reproduction (another MH concern)? No thanks.

Which leaves negotiation. Remind me, with whom do we need to negotiate..? Could it be the other half of the human species, commonly known as men..?!

This is why it makes no sense to me to try to talk about feminism, & women's interests and women's rights, in isolation, as if we can achieve any of it without all of society's but-in. That's not 'centring men'; that's being pragmatic and realistic.

'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'm not sure about the first line, and I disagree with the second; I haven't read anyone as saying that we 'owe' men more than they 'owe' us.

Typo...: "...without all of society's BUY-in"

I don't mean to be divisive. @HBGKC I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet pretty much. I'm with Mary Harrington on the need for pragmatism and negotiation with men. The points from previous posters still stand though.

Disadvantaged due to biological sex - yes full stop because of our reproductive role and being physically weaker. As MH points out there are problems even after we are granted control over our reproduction. I still think we are better off this way but clearly it's still not equitable. Women do not have equal economic power to men, not because of lack of opportunity but because we haven't found a way to equalise motherhood and economic power (which under capitalism, IS power). Whilst fatherhood does not compromise economic power.

Separatism is only viable for individuals via lesbianism and celibacy and even that has limits. However small scale separatism, such as DV refuges campaigned for and set up by women, is a part-solution.

Maybe my last point was clumsily put. I mean that ultimately it's up to the stronger actor to ensure the survival of the weaker actor. It's up to men to bridge the difference between men and women - the notion of chivalry plays into this. Negotiation involves convincing men that what's in our interest is also in theirs. If they don't like the offer it's us and not them who are at a loss.

Recent news suggests it’s very much in men’s interests to have a woman in their life

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bachelors-twice-as-likely-to-die-of-heart-failure-than-married-men-b78fjm6t3

maybe over on piston heads they should be talking about how they can persuade women to stay married to men?

Does anyone else think MH (and others) puts way too much emphasis on the pill? Condoms were also a technology (albeit not an advanced one) that provided reproductive control and allowed some decoupling of sex from pregnancy. But to her the pill is the first form of transhumanism.

Feels like the pill is being unfairly demonised as the unravelling of society because women were interfering with their biology and absconding their sacred, life-creating powers. When people were already effectively doing that anyway with condoms.

Was the pill not part of a desire for men to have more consequence free sex too?
Who were the scientists and what were their motivations? Because I'm thinking at least part of it was straightforward money and scientific acclaim.

Chatting to a paediatrician friend recently

apparently premature girl babies have significantly better outcomes than premature boy babies

Premature twin boys have the same outcomes as singleton boys, twin girls the same as singleton girls

but in mixed sex twins, the boy does as well as the girl

just being in the womb with a female significantly improves the outcome for the male

my friend’s take was ‘men are basically faulty women’. Not sure I fully subscribe to that one

But we’re good for men. Just being around us makes their lives better on average. They’re just often not equipped to realise it

Feels like the pill is being unfairly demonised as the unravelling of society because women were interfering with their biology and absconding their sacred, life-creating powers.

for me there’s no solution. Only least bad ones

we’re these amazing brains in animal bodies

but you have to have both parts. Meat Lego isn’t real

but what our bodies want is often different and sometimes opposed to what our brains want

Yes, I think money and the desire to acheive a 'first' is as often a driver behind medical advances.

The pill seems different because men don't have to give it any thought, or compromise on their pleasure.

Women, meanwhile, had to both remember to take it and put up with all the fucking awful side effects.

Women do not have equal economic power to men, not because of lack of opportunity but because we haven't found a way to equalise motherhood and economic power (which under capitalism, IS power). Whilst fatherhood does not compromise economic power.

Yes we have found a way, we just culturally are taking our time transitioning. Plenty of mothers are the higher earner, more men are choosing to be lower earners or even SAHDs. The issue is cultural change takes generations. But we have found the way and the trend is clear- the gender pay gap which is 99% down to a parenthood penalty disproportionately affecting mothers- is narrowing decade after decade.

We also need to stop with the mystical mother bond and mum knows best patriarchal BS. When couples split 50/50 needs to be the norm from newborn on.

We also need to stop with the mystical mother bond and mum knows best patriarchal BS. When couples split 50/50 needs to be the norm from newborn on.

That can't happen if one is breastfeeding, for a start. And attachment theory suggests that babies need their 'primary caregiver' to be with them most of the time. In most cases, that will be the mother. It's not mystical, it's pretty straightforward mammalian behaviour.

Condoms do the same job as the Pill, but in a non-physically-invasive way. Condoms are not absorbed into the bloodstream, they do not alter women's hormone levels and cycles, they don't interact on a chemical, cellular level with our physical fabric.

(Disclaimer: I've never taken the Pill myself, but I would be fascinated to learn about its short/medium/long-term effects on women's health and fertility. Anecdotally, I know of women who have struggled to conceive after long periods of chemical contraception- though of course correlation need not equal causation.)

So I think the Pill does warrant special investigation, even though it's true that the condom had the same effect (for men). Is it worth pointing out that the condom was more the 'responsibility' of the man to procure and use, as opposed to the Pill which suddenly made it the woman's responsibility to avoid pregnancy.? So even though women felt more free with the Pill in their pocket, it was also a means by which men could take less responsibility for the outcome of their sexual encounters. So not an out-n-out win for women.

Cross post with @ArabellaScott!

Yes it can. It’s called a breast pump- you pump your breastmilk and then you put the bottles in a little cool bag and you hand it over with the baby to Dad for his time. If you can’t pump, then formula is perfectly equitable.

And primary caregiver doesn’t have to be one person, and certainly not always the mother. Attachment theory allows for more than one primary caregiver.

It’s got the status of folklore here and is imbued with mysticism alright.

It's not mystical, it's pretty straightforward mammalian behaviour.

yup. Once again, amazing minds, animal bodies

animal babies want their mothers. It’s how they’re safest and most likely to survive

Condoms do the same job as the Pill
But with a much higher failure rate! So same job, only they sort of suck at it compared to the pill.

See, there we go. We have found the way to ensure mothers can have equal economic power, but because of some Mother Nature BS women are choosing not to take that path.

"We also need to stop with the mystical mother bond and mum knows best patriarchal BS. When couples split 50/50 needs to be the norm from newborn on."

I totally disagree that this should be a feminist goal. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

@Onnabugeisha, are you a mother? (Genuine, non-goady question.)

Yeah. Mum to 4 DC.
And yes, was the sole breadwinner with a SAHD from as soon as I’d recovered from childbirth for 15yrs, then have been 100% the higher earner for our entire thirty year marriage.

All because I went against this whole culture of babies only want mum. Men can’t raise from newborn up. Blah blah sacred mammal Mother Nature mysticism.

And I exclusively breastfed all of them until they self-weaned between ages 1-2. I used a breast pump.

Oh, and a father raising babies isn’t throwing away a baby. 🤨
My DC are now all happy, well adjusted, and successful adults.

If men and women both saw SAHP as a valid choice and took it up in roughly equal numbers, the gender pay/wealth gap would disappear overnight.

See I’m going to deploy ‘you do you’ again

same as bottle feeding. At a population level breast feeding may be better than bottle feeding but at an individual level there’s bugger all in it

you want to leave your kids with their dad from extreme infancy? Fine. It sure wouldn’t be for me, but I’m sure on an individual level your kids are absolutely fine

but I could no more have walked away from my infant babies than I could have flown to the moon

and I’m not ashamed or afraid to talk about that for fear of setting back the feminist cause

Yes, there's a lot of data to back this up - so yes, they should be discussing that on pistonheads! But, being men, they probs find it easier to talk about their cars than their marital issues. That kind of discussion comes far more easily to women than men.

(MH on Triggernometry spoke about the need to rediscover some male spaces like the traditional working man's pub, so that older men could basically 'teach' younger men how to be Good Men, maybe by explicit mentoring or just leading by example. The online space doesn't work so well for that kind of thing, I don't think, though it's better than nothing.)

I’ve used the copper coil for 25 years

never understood why it isn’t more widely used

And that’s fine, but it still means it’s a choice, because we do in fact have a way as a society for mothers to have equal economic power. And perhaps we should not be judging women like me or making much ado about mystical mother baby bonds and needs and faux biology arguments.

You cant get equal economic power by sitting at home with babies. 🤷‍♀️

If men and women both saw SAHP as a valid choice and took it up in roughly equal numbers, the gender pay/wealth gap would disappear overnight.

This is a valid point but in the SAHD situation a woman has to choose between formula-feeding or breast-pumping, which are totally acceptable options if she chooses, but denies the natural option of breastfeeding. So a woman chooses between breastfeeding, which is how biology designed growth of the baby, or greater economic power. So it's not quite a fair choice still.