The latest fallouts in GC world

[Pluvia]

My terfing energy has been focussed elsewhere in recent months and I haven't been here or on TwiX or social media much. Now I've taken responsibility for tweeting/ comms on behalf of a small but potentially significant LGB group and I discover that there seems to be something going on — another schism — in GC world. Jane Clare Jones's name seems to be coming up a lot. Something seems to have gone on but I can't work out what.

If it was my own account I'd just ignore, but the followers of this account are bringing it up and seem to expect an opinion to be expressed or a side to be taken. Also I'm seeing a lot about 'ultras' and 'lites', which is new to me. Can anyone enlighten me? I need to tread carefully.

The difference between the reality of biologcal 'Sex' and the term 'Feminism' is fairly obvious. One is a physical and measurabile reality with real life consequences, and the other is a culturally constructed term which stands in for a political campaign whose aim is to centre the rights and protections of those born of the female sex.

One is fixed, the other is open to debate because its origins are various.

Secondly, you don't have to entirely agree or diagree with either JCJ or with KJK in an obvious tribalistic way......it is possible to observe and take some value and meaning of worth from both; and also be able to offer a critique of both as well.

I'm a bit of a contrarian myself...in that if you argue black - with unwavering certainty and moral positoning, then I'll argue white - just for balance.

Absolutely. We wouldn't want bloody insults, would we??

She has a male partner and sons, so maybe a bit more acceptable source to you

I find this notion that home making is anti feminist really offensive.

I gave up a successful career to home make for my children when it became apparent that their additional needs didn’t support them attending formal education. My skill set meant that I recognised the fact that the children would be better at home much earlier than my husband , who had the same career but was better paid due to more experience. It was a no brainier that I would take the ‘hit’ to career because he earned more and also because I was better skilled to recognise their needs. Not through training but through just being better at it.

I’ve done my ‘job’ amazingly well but i really resent this idea that it’s down to playing ‘gender roles’ .

I’m highly educated. Oxbridge sort. But have had part time, low wage jobs around family requirements. I’ve never studied feminism- I’m from the generation that thought it was done and dusted. Our predecessors had fought the good fight and swept the battlefield clear, or so it seemed. Then we started to slide backwards very quickly.

I have an exceptional ability to fail at networking- the whole JCJ, KJK, Jean Hatchet stuff passes me by because I don’t really do clans. If KJK says something sensible, I’ll applaud. That doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything or that I’m on her side. JCJ the same, though I admit I find it hard to follow her- she assumes a level of contextual knowledge many of us just don’t have.

I’ll vigorously disagree with anyone who tries to shut either woman up, though. And anyone who plays the player, not the ball. There’s no need to rubbish JCJ for having opinions that I don’t share. And no need to rubbish KJK. They can both be right sometimes and wrong sometimes. But they shouldn’t be nasty about other people. All the sidelong snide comments do is alienate people. And frankly make us look stupid.

We had similar. DSs were not doing well in mainstream education. My expertise, skill, and instinct got them into bloody good jobs earning well above the national average for their ages. DS1 in particular was looking like getting no qualifications. I am proud of what I helped my DC achieve.

other woman here against those who agree with CJC.

Just to note: she is Jane Clare Jones, so "CJC" is not the correct initials, and you keep doing it.

I'm so not an academic feminist. And I completely understand the philosophy that rails against stereotypical female roles.

But.

There are only two sexes. There aren't that many jobs. And one of them is raising children. Arguably, it's the most important job on the planet.

Deciding it's not as important as 'male jobs' is just patriarchal nonsense. And who the fuck wants to underpin that?

If a woman (or man) wants to outsource raising children, then that should absolutely be a feminist issue.

But it shouldn't be less of a feminist issue if a woman wants to do it.

I would like to know, if someone doesn't think a woman should be, in their words, a 'domesticated zombie'. Who do they think should be doing that work?

Splitting it equally between men and women? So a domesticated zombie can be either sex?

And if it isn't? Is that the fault of the women? And if it is either sex, why insult those doing it?

These are all genuine questions btw. Is it only domesticated zombie-hood if it's a woman doing it?

I think telling everyone they are educated whilst also saying they are not educated enough to know what feminism really is, is disordered thinking. In the nicest possible way it feels like it is being done on purpose. It's a bit too Qweer Feory for me.

Actually I wondered whether there was a US, UK confusion underway. The whole ‘homemaking’ thing may be more politically loaded in the US. They have the whole surrendered wife thing, whereas we’re a bit later to that.

I think telling everyone they are educated whilst also saying they are not educated enough to know what feminism really is, is disordered thinking. In the nicest possible way it feels like it is being done on purpose. It's a bit too Qweer Feory for me.

This!

I realise the thread has moved on but since when was there only one type of feminism?

As long as there's been feminism there's been different interpretations and explanations, resulting in different approaches to theory and practice.

Must admit I’ve always thought of it as an attitude rather than a doctrine.

Another Lasch book that I haven't read although this is an interesting discussion about the family: Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged

Quite a set of ideas from the 1970s. I'll look out for the book next year.

https://blog.ayjay.org/family-matters/

A very interesting read, thanks.

indeed! The left's claim to own feminism was a big feature of the 70's/80's UK scene - UK Lefty feminists were often discombobulated by the Not Left Capitalist feminism which they encountered coming over from the US. Margaret Thatcher made some of their heads explode....... metaphorically of course.

Another working class background woman with an 'ology' or two here. I even used to teach what was so gently called "Women's studies" back in the 80's. In the heady days of Women in Philosophy conferences all having a creche.

We were not just going to insert women into our academic disciplines - we were going to CHANGE the very nature of those disciplines - just as the women pushing for the Ordination of Women vowed to change the nature of the patriarchal models of Priesthood, exploring new, collaborative, forms of worship. Look how that turned out. Women just slotted into the existing structures, nothing changed except the Bishops and Deans wearing frocks are now more likely to be actual females........

JCJ is the academic equivalent of a female vicar with aspirations to become a Bishop, she's trying to get noticed by the "right" people so is using their language and really doesn't give a toss about communicating with anyone outside of those circles.

I say this as someone with not only one "ology" but a PhD in it - so I know about academic language, I used it for 40yrs, but horses for courses - you don't use it when you are trying to communicate with people outside of that specialised environment, and you don't show disdain for people who are not part of that group.

I used to teach my Master's students that what they had to demonstrate was a mastery of the Literature around the discipline. They needed to be able to say "Smith says this, Brown says that, Smith appears to be correct on this point because.... whereas Brown makes a valid argument against Smiths' arguments in chapter 2, where she says....."

I see this level of critical thinking all the time on the FWR board here. Women here are able to pull apart the arguments used by people such as JCJ and KJK and agree with them on some points, disagree on others. There has been a breaking out of the purity spiral demanded by so many on the left - but that does not make us right wing. It makes us critical thinkers.

One thing that seems almost taboo to say but is also self evident (and backed up by lots of data) is that women as a sex class care about children more than men. There is a huge imbalance in both paid and unpaid caring and safeguarding roles. Overwhelming the parent who stays to support the children is female.

That caring is undervalued and denigrated both in paid an unpaid work, despite the fact it saves the state a fortune and is pretty essential to a civilised, functioning, society.

The way that some academic feminism looks down on those roles is essentially - imo - anti woman and anti feminist.

KJK was a successful SAHM and now she's successful at her activism (largely in order to protect children) entirely outside of and without needing normal accepted academic / feminist institutions. It's truly grassroots but perhaps it's not surprising that those within the traditional structures are threatened by her. Perhaps the reason her voice resonates with so many women is that we too see the threat to our children and want to restore safeguarding and think this is the most urgent priority.

Ironically what women like kjk are doing is far more outside of and transgressing the norm than men involving unconsenting women and children in their fetish / desires. Which let's face it has been enabled in well funded institutions for years.

I think this is the real answer with people like JCJ, and frankly even people like JB.

They think that all the little women should fall in line and understand that the real feminists are working for their benefit. So if they have any differing views of reality they really should just keep quiet about them.

If that view of feminism is true, then it's not actually about centering women and their thoughts, it's about a very specific political ideology that wants to assert itself on others, male and female.

Which would be fine if they owned that rather than trying to claim other women's voices and agency on behalf of their own political ideology.

Other women taking a different view shows up that claim as bogus, it's a threat to their political power. And worse, self image.

Great post, I think all of this is true.

Whilst I think there genuinely are some academics who are pro women as a class (all women) academia itself is hugely patriarchal. It's perhaps unsurprising that a lot of thought coming out of such patriarchal structures is anti-grassroots women even when purporting to be the opposite. Same as with queer theory - it comes from privileged, well off people who have been successful within patriarchal structures, it just pretends (not hugely successfully) to be for the most vulnerable. Speaking for them and imposing an often harmful ideology upon them.

What I always find interesting is not so much the male/female element, it's that it's domesticated zombihood if you care for your own kids, but not, apparently, for the woman or women you pay to care for them while you work at.... presumably something better?

This to me is the class element I find most telling. It's apparently quite good enough for some women.

And it does have and interesting dovetail with the idea of men as carers, because while many women would be comfortable with their childrens' father caring for them full time, they are not particularly comfortable with a strange man in a nursery, or as a nanny, caring for them.

So it seems unlikely that normatively monetizing child rearing will reduce the number of women doing it and increase the number of men, if that is the goal.

I don't know. The surrendered wives thing is mainly a tic Tok type of phenomena, I don't think many people have actually ever met someone who lives this way.

It does seem to be how many on the American left think Republicans live, and want others to live, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Exactly. Someone has to raise the children. Is domestic zombiehood the job, or is it only if it's the children's actual mum doing it?

And if the dad's doing it, is he a domestic zombie? Or is he doing feminism really, really well.

It's a poser!

Yes the class element is stark.

I think there are two separate issues around childcare and domestic work which tend to get mixed up a bit.

One is a reasonable disquiet about the difficulties that may face a SAH woman (or indeed a SAH man) living in a money-based economy, whose access to money is largely or entirely based on somebody else's grace and favour. I'd say concern for how to avoid or mitigate that vulnerability is entirely feminist .

In that respect, someone who does someone else's childcare or housework for a wage is in a slightly different position and the feminist fight is for respect and decent remuneration.

The other and related issue is the social status of childcare and other domestic work (paid or not). Feminists denigrating it as unworthy because it is "woman's work" seems a bit cockeyed (why is woman's stuff lesser if women are not lesser?) unless what you mean by "woman's work" is "all the shitty stuff that gets dumped on women who don't want to do it, because men won't touch it." Either way, it needs doing, and won't go away. There are discussions to be had about how to get men to do a fair share etc. But simply despising it and women who do it undermines both women who do it for a wage and women who do it - with pleasure or otherwise - in their own home.

"One is a reasonable disquiet about the difficulties that may face a SAH woman (or indeed a SAH man) living in a money-based economy, whose access to money is largely or entirely based on somebody else's grace and favour. I'd say concern for how to avoid or mitigate that vulnerability is entirely feminist ."

It's quite strange though that a movement that is always talking about the need to address structural problems so often seems the only solution for this to be individual women also going out to earn a wage, and leaving the underlying context alone.

Why not talk about the fact that in marriage, the assets of the family are meant to have a communal element that means a partner staying home has as much right to access those assets as the one working? Can that fact be supported in some way so a husband can't keep funds from a SAHM?

Or look at the obligations of fathers when there is divorce in a different way, how pensions are divided, etc.

Or think about how these supports could be mediated through the state.

There are a lot of different things that could be discussed, it is very odd that the go-to answer seems to be - mums must work or it's their own fault when they are left with poor job prospects and no pension because they took time off work to care for their children.

I agree that there are other ways it could be tackled. I suspect that the "get yourself a job" option benefits from systemic inertia - it's easier and cheaper to dump the problem back on individual families than implement something about family assets at a national, legal level.

Also perhaps from a sense, among feminists, of a bitter past fight for the right of women, especially married women, to have a job and earnings outside the home at all. After all, the timescales are not so long. My own mother had to give up her job when she got married, not because my father didn't want her to have one but because that was the rule in her workplace.