Three principles of reactionary feminism

[MalagaNights]

An article by Mary Harrington.

She thinks women need to:

Focus on the importance of marriage.
Let men have their own spaces.
Stop taking the pill.

She's taken some thoughts I've been having for a few years to logical conclusions, it's given me a lot to think about. I need to get my head around the idea of there being no progress.

It's certainly feels to me a very different approach to gender critical feminism presented on MN as being what feminism is.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2023/04/88473/

She's extremely critical of pornography?

If you had made some effort to explain your thinking, yes.
If you had just posted it and said it was an interesting perspective, yes.
To simply post it, say it fitted with how you thought, but give no further explanation other than a dig at GC feminism: it's an interesting first post followed by unmerited condescension. Brava?

Exactly this. Blaming women's choices for their exploitation: how edgy.

The premise that men have become poorer partners is I think false

Certainly there were a lot of bad husbands in the past , when women had no choice

I think there is a gradual realisation about the equality of sexes , about the injustice in expecting women to be the homemakers, and whilst there are still a load of people who have archaic thought patterns , many more people live a much more equitable life than would have been possible in the past

Just look at relationships board - so much is about women looking for the best way to get a better deal in the home life - be that a home work strike or getting married .

Most women are now expecting better from their men and many women are getting this as a result

You are utterly ridiculous.

I posted an interesting article with a general view relevant to the board.

It's a perfectly typical way to start a thread.

Why do you think you can tell me the correct way to start a thread.

And why are you so angry?

Mary Harrington has written some good and thoughtful stuff about technology's impact on society, but her writing on feminism is basically Dworkin's Right Wing Women only written from the perspective of someone who genuinely believes that just picking a nice/solvent chap is a worthwhile trade for independence.

Why are you so patronising? You wanted to provoke a response. Own it.
If you believe MH is right and women own the choices they should make in the name of feminism, why have a pop at other feminists without substantiating your reasoning?

She's certainly gloves off on queer theory and Transing kids on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1652964617415524353?t=GmBLt1pIxF6IyfDejIXAPg&s=19

I dunno, Malaga. Thanks for the share. Always find Harrington's work interesting, even if I frequently disagree with her conclusions.

Agree with this entirely.

I'm being patronising because I can't quite believe how ridiculous you are.

Was this my inflammatory language which provoked you so:

It's certainly feels to me a very different approach to gender critical feminism presented on MN as being what feminism is.

Gosh I suggested it's a different approach. Stone me.

Yes I wanted to provoke a response. Of reasoned debate which I'm contributing to.

The fact I didn't lay out full reasoning in my OP really is the most ridiculous reason for your anger and attack.

Oh - hang on. Is this reaction because you thought I meant you were new to MN?

Sweetie, if it's important to you that you're not new I can totally understand how you misread me saying "first post" to mean ever instead of on this thread.

You're valid and established.

So much so that you can drop in some backwards notions about women needing to be married and give men their space without explanation of your reasoning for supporting them other than "thoughts I've been having for a few years to logical conclusions".

Do you feel better now?

There’s nothing feminist about this. She’s buying wholesale into patriarchal institutions in the hope that THIS time it will make men better, and women will be happy. For most of human history men had their own spaces , marriage was mandatory, and there was no birth control and it was utterly shit for many, if not most, women. She seems to think that marriage, letting men hang out and do what they want, and the risk of children will make men step up and be men, but history shows that men have always been ready to abandon women and kids when it suits them. I mean she’s literally contradicting Mary Wollstonecraft (who actually lived in these times) who says that marriage is terrible as is uncontrolled reproduction (of course marriage was different then) . Her remedy is for women to get an education and have a purpose that is more than just serving men.

I dunno, it’s just far too male centric for me to get behind. I’ll happily keep my hormonal contraception, thanks.

I should bow out of this thread because OP finds tone-policing me far more alluring than addressing these better-articulated and well-reasoned challenges to the nonsense put forward by MH.

LoobiJee - No need to wonder why. It’s a straightforward “follow the money” question.

Exactly.

I think she's saying it's shit in a different way, and that progress is not linear but an adaptation to new circumstances and technology.

I think she's saying that our response to all the technology available (such as the pill) in presuming it will only represent positive progress for women needs to be questioned.

I'm saying 'I think' a lot as this is quite a new concept for me and I'm working through it
But it does resonate with me and some thinking that's been emerging for me for a few years and now seems to be being represented in Mary Harrington and Louise Perry's recent books.

It's certainly feels to me a very different approach to gender critical feminism presented on MN as being what feminism is

Funnily enough if you agree with gender critical feminism, ie women's sex based rights you post on a board that centre that feminist analysis.

Not because you are puffing yourself up to be the one and true feminist.

Secondly its a false conclusion because cleary MH doesn't seem to be any sort of feminist let alone a gender critical one. So as an OP it is bound to raise hackles.

If I was one of those meanies I would report this thread to MNHQ and say this thread is an interloper on FWR and should be moved to chat.

Just a little piece of fluff and nonsense to chat about.

Are you actually suggesting you could report me for starting a thread about a different view of feminism on the feminism board?

I think I'm done here.

Genuine question: is there anywhere I can engage in discussion with women with differing viewpoints and who can tolerate this but who share a common interest in women's issues?

This isn't it.
This is crazy town.

You posted in Feminism: Sex & gender discussions. You want Feminism: chat

Reddit, Tumblr and NetMums are also available.

In truth this is more a general feminism question than sex and gender specific

But if you ignored any derailing and replied only to those discussing the content it would be a better look

Of course this board is for different views. It's just one or two people posting these very strong, and sometimes bizarrely aggressive posts.

Why on earth are you being so hostile?

I seem to recall getting a bit of pushback before when trying to discuss Harrington's work. It's odd.

Ideas, theories, and books are for discussing.

I agree with you ArabellaScott - I had not come across Harrimgyon before and find it fascinating how different people can come to wildly differing conclusions when looking at the same world.

doesn’t mean I have to agree with all of any of it, but I still like to read & discuss it.