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/

Ditto.

I know, I'm not saying in practical terms it's bad. But the principle of menstrual taboos is never good.

Do you disagree with the Pill, then? What about other forms of contraception like condoms or IUDs?

I find her point of view interesting and I definitely think the sexual revolution not being uncomplicated moral progress is worth examining. But the fact of the matter is, I simply do not want to have children, and I am married and enjoy a loving physical relationship with my husband, and I will still be fertile for a number of years. Thank god for the pill!

Seconded!

I wouldn't say I disagree with the pill. I'm not sure it's about personal opinions/preferences really, just that it's worth trying to dispassionately analyse and evaluate particular developments.

Thanks for replying I think you probably have a less typical perspective on this given your background. Can I ask - why was addressing the matter of porn addiction something church leaders were reluctant to do?

I hear what you're saying, that religion is ineffective at curbing male sexual appetites, but I think some would argue that this was a corrupted form of Christianity in the first place, and Catholicism for instance is crystal clear on matters like porn, there would be no hesitance from a priest in reminding us that this is serious sin. If people stray from these teachings, it is not the fault of the teachings. These remain true, it is the individual or community who have turned their back on Christ.

When I said the goal with a fully Christianised culture was to have everyones will aligned with God (and therefore we wouldn't need hijabs) what I mean is that if everyone in that society worked to follow Christ, to be as Christlike as they could, hijabs wouldn't be necessary because men wouldn't want to commit lustful sins.

Too many feminists (elsewhere than MN, mainly) dismiss motherhood as a thing forced upon women by men. This creates a ready audience for MH, who brands herself as an edgy refusenik.

In practice, of course, she's anything but. A genuine "bio-realist" would understand that prolific childbirth is extremely risky for bipeds with large skulls. "Natural" , in this case, is not "healthy". Likewise: despite her loud complaints about the environmental effects of hormonal contraception, she has nothing to say about HRT, or indeed any other kind of hormonal medication. Shilling against Pill is just a dogwhistle.

Like her stable-mate Louise Perry, she's also profoundly uninterested in the reality of women - yes, married ones too - who face violence, emotional and financial abuse.

All of this comes packaged in an Olden-Days vision: a time when well-behaved women brought the best out in their men. The men, of course, simply pretended to behave themselves, while using low-income women for paid sex. For a jolly festive treat, read the medical records on spousal syphilis transmission to married women in the 19th century.

It also comes packaged in a resoundingly confident, upper-middle-class delivery, which MH seems to think will pacify the plebs. She hasn't spent much time on here, has she?

Can I ask - why was addressing the matter of porn addiction something church leaders were reluctant to do?

Hmm, I never asked myself that question! ... I guess they were reluctant partly because it's an unpleasant topic to discuss in itself, and partly because who wants to admit that quite a few men in the assembly are acting in a way so completely contrary to the teachings? I suppose it can look like a collective admission of weakness or something?

I hear what you're saying, that religion is ineffective at curbing male sexual appetites, but I think some would argue that this was a corrupted form of Christianity in the first place

I don't quite see it that way. A corrupted form of Christianity IMO would be one that would say there's nothing wrong with pornography. I would argue that men becoming addicted to porn is more of a perfectly average human weakness, which is what Christianity aims to combat in the first place. But you can only fight what you admit exists.

if everyone in that society worked to follow Christ, to be as Christlike as they could, hijabs wouldn't be necessary because men wouldn't want to commit lustful sins.

I guess that's true - but that's also never going to happen. Human beings are only human, not Christ-like. And as such, women should be fully aware of what mortal, human men are like, if they want to deal in an effective way with them.

A "fully Christianised society" is quite often a society that has drowned in religious civil war. Not good for women, children or families.

Given Scotland's terrible history of sectarianism, how very strange for a proud Scottish woman like @BlueJuniper94 to imagine otherwise. In a moment or two, she'll start telling us again that gun ownership is good for fundamentalist men in Idaho women in the UK.

This is a very interesting post, I want to reply more later.

For now, I'll say : Catholicism's attitude to outlets for male lust has traditionally been a bit more ambiguous than you suggest.

St Augustine, for one, argued in De ordine, '‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.’” Aquinas quoted this, apparently in agreement, in Summa Theologica. Ptolemy of Lucca, one of Aquinas' followers, argued that prostitutes were like a 'sewer' to keep the 'palace' clean. 🤮 (This quote is often misattributed to Aquinas but Lucca actually added it to a work Aquinas left unfinished at his death)

https://mises.org/mises-wire/catholic-theologians-prostitution-should-be-legal-0

The meaning of these statements by Augustine, Aquinas etc is debated, but in practice they paved the way for the church to condone and even benefit from the sex trade- the Bishop of Winchester being a prominent UK example.

https://wellcomecollection.org/stories/the-bishop-s-profitable-sex-workers

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=kb.osu.edu/bitstreams/8e3a0799-22d6-45ed-91f3-9837a244cf7d/download&ved=2ahUKEwjrxbq5sNyRAxULVEEAHYhUDZQQFnoECGAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw15bKIneIvM47w24XnO_7Jw

Catholic writers argue these passages were later misinterpreted etc and I would agree they may have been.

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2019/06/25/augustines-de-ordine-and-his-comment-on-prostitution/#footnote_3_19330

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3575000/Sacred-mysteries.html

Others argue they weren't misinterpreted but Aquinas & Augustine etc were simply wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/sex-work-is-not-work

Great post, thank you for taking the time to provide links, I look forward to investigating

Thank you, I hope they're useful.

I should add that different countries & churches regulated differently. Some, for instance, tried to stop women being held against their will, though in practice, poverty, trauma etc would probably have meant mist didn't have much choice even if not precisely coerced

Thanks, this encapsulates the issues with Perry & Harrington. A big blind spot for them, especially, is that marriage doesn't necessarily 'civilise' men. I have more thoughts I'll put tomorrow hopefully. .

Would be interested to learn more about your thoughts @Carla786.

Sorry, I was really tired today... I will add them tomorrow!

I didn't notice this was a zombie thread, but great to see it resurrected.

From the article originally linked:

One: if you want to be a mother, marriage is not a patriarchal institution designed to oppress you. It’s the minimum unit for human-scale solidarity. Unless you’re very rich raising kids in this atomized context, marriage is not the misogynist option but the pro-women one.
Agree - but only if you have fewer assets and less income than the man.

Also, as others have said in the thread above, marriage does not always lead to 'solidarity', e.g. men keeping separate finances and women being conned into paying 50/50 into the house even during their maternity leave when they have no or reduced income.

Two: co-ed social life has lots to offer, but there are times when single-sex social spaces are important. And this goes for men as well as women.
At first sight this sounds fair in principle; if women can have the WI and the girl guides, then men should also have single-sex clubs, but unfortunately in the context of patriarchy men's clubs have been used for political and business dealings in a way that specifically and deliberately excludes women from participating in power and decision-making.
So no, not everything that is 'equal' is fair. Sometimes women need things that should be denied to men.

And three: close to the heart of modern women’s dissociation from our own bodies, and the countless forms of exploitation that follow from this, is a technology that was sold as emancipatory to us: the Pill.
This is a lot more tricky.
I won't repeat all the points discussed above, except to repeat that it is naïve in the extreme to think that if women deny men access to sex, they won't go and find it elsewhere, meaning with poverty-stricken and vulnerable sex workers.
A good old-fashioned, Marxist-inspired, class-based analysis of feminism is lacking here.

Yes - & so much more is missing besides. Bound feet, corsetry and the scold’s bridle weren’t recent trends. For MH to brand bodily dissociation as a modern thing is staggeringly cynical.

Likewise the disingenuity, which you point out, of equating female clubs & gatherings with the corridors of power. Nothing that happens at Brownies impacts on men. Everything that happens in government impacts upon women.

In making these kinds of errors, reactionary feminists ignore the hard fact of historic male dominance over women. Which, as you also point out, the Marxist analysis sees very clearly.

What Marxism doesn’t see, I think perhaps though, is that the power-relation between women and men differs in some key respects from the power-relation between workers and bosses. Workers could combine together, sabotage production and oust the bosses. Women - even if ever they manage to operate as a single political unit - cannot sabotage the work of care, nor can they collectively sever themselves from men.

Marxism takes us about 2/3 of the way, though. It opens eyes to the squalor of what society does to women, which is a feat in itself. MH and pals meanwhile are busy bandaging their own eyes shut.

It’s not often remarked upon that today’s “conservative feminist” movement, for all of its froth about motherhood, doesn’t seem to have even one middle-aged conservative mother in its starry ranks. Everyone is young, rich and slim.

Do you think those girls will be as eager to dump on feminism when they get old, and the conservative manosphere dumps on them? I wonder.

"Do you think those girls will be as eager to dump on feminism when they get old, and the conservative manosphere dumps on them? I wonder."

I suspect these girls will cease dumping on feminism either when the hubby leaves (in part because his wife is less interesting as a result of narrowing her life to the home and kids) or when the money from dumping on feminism dries up and there is some other sort of agenda that needs to be pushed if you want to get paid)

Yes - once the grey hairs trickle in, they will move from attacking feminism to pumping some even darker agendas. Many already are. In a few short years, LP has gone from criticising rough sex to promoting eugenics and Anglo-supremacy.

In this, the conservative feminists have much in common with pornographers. They gain an audience by making some reasonable points, the audience (many males within it) want harder material, and to keep the punters loyal, they deliver. Rinse; repeat. It’s a dirty old cascade.

The thing is that Marxism is apparently a big influence on Mary Harrington. You can see this influence in a lot of her essays, but as you say, it's full of huge blind spots.

Not sure about 'young' - Mary Harrington is about 46. Louise Perry is younger, at 33. Nina Power, often cited as the third main reactionary feminist (at least in UK) is 47.

If you look at US similar types, many are also middle aged : many Catholic & some Protestant writers who have large families often (like 7 children) and promote this, yet presumably must have help (which they don't speak of) since they usually are active as fellows at institutions, authors, teachers etc, often in quite high positions. Amy Coney Barrett at the Supreme Court is similar: she's quietly admitted elsewhere that she has an aunt who provides substantial childcare, but otherwise she's generally promoted as a superwoman who works on the Supreme Court & raises 7 kids, including 2 adopted.

I think 'rich' is key here. Or at least, 'well-off'. Most of these people appear to have high earning partners and various income streams themselves. They can afford to promote no birth control, large families, and denigrate paid work while often doing a substantial amount themselves. Harrington herself has admitted to using childcare : despite her persistent negativity to mothers in paid work who use childcare, how different is she, for all her romanticising of butter-churning medieval women?