Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The latest fallouts in GC world

976 replies

Pluvia · 11/12/2024 11:06

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
ArabellaScott · 18/12/2024 07:08

UtopiaPlanitia · 17/12/2024 21:37

Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch) very aptly describes the tensions among women seeking liberation. The quotes below presciently describe the differing approaches of Let Women Speak and WPUK.

And, of the methods and options that Greer sees as being available to women to fight for liberations, groups like Let Women Speak and Women’s Rights Network seem the closest to what Greer argues will benefit most women most immediately.

“…The New Left has been the forcing house for most movements, and for many of them liberation is dependent upon the coming of the classless society and the withering away of the state.

…The organized liberationists are a well-publicized minority; the same faces appear every time a feminist issue is discussed. Inevitably they are presented as the leaders of a movement which is essentially leaderless. They are not much nearer to providing a revolutionary strategy than they ever were; demonstrating, compiling reading lists and sitting on committees are not themselves liberated behaviour, especially when they are still embedded in a context of housework and feminine wiles. As means of educating the people who must take action to liberate themselves, their effectiveness is limited. The concept of liberty implied by such liberation is vacuous; at worst it is defined by the condition of men, themselves unfree, and at best it is left undefined in a world of very limited possibilities. On the one hand, feminists can be found who serve the notion of equality ‘social, legal, occupational, economic, political and moral’, whose enemy is discrimination, whose means are competition and demand. On the other hand there are those who cherish an ideal of a better life, which will follow when a better life is assured for all by the correct political means. To women disgusted with conventional political methods, whether constitutional or totalitarian or revolutionary, neither alternative can make much appeal. The housewife who must wait for the success of world revolution for her liberty might be excused for losing hope, while conservative political methods can invent no way in which the economically necessary unit of the one-man family could be diversified. But there is another dimension in which she can find motive and cause for action, although she might not find a blue-print for Utopia. She could begin not by changing the world, but by re-assessing herself.

…To be free to start out, and to find companions for the journey is as far as we need to see from where we stand. The first exercise of the free woman is to devise her own mode of revolt, a mode which will reflect her own independence and originality. The more clearly the forms of oppression emerge in her understanding, the more clearly she can see the shape of future action. In the search for political awareness there is no substitute for confrontation. It would be too easy to present women with yet another form of self-abnegation, more opportunities for appetence and forlorn hope, but women have had enough bullying. They have been led by the nose and every other way until they have to acknowledge that, like every one else, they are lost. A feminist elite might seek to lead uncomprehending women in another arbitrary direction, training them as a task force in a battle that might, that ought never to eventuate. If there is a pitched battle women will lose, because the best man never wins; the consequences of militancy do not disappear when the need for militancy is over. Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it. It is not a question of telling women what to do next, or even what to want to do next. The hope in which this book was written is that women will discover that they have a will; once that happens they will be able to tell us how and what they want.

…In the computer kingdom the centres of political power have become centres of impotence, but even so, nothing in the book precludes the use of the political machine, although reliance on it may be contra-indicated. The most telling criticisms will come from my sisters of the left, the Maoists, the Trots, the I.S., the S.D.S., because of my fantasy that it might be possible to leap the steps of revolution and arrive somehow at liberty and communism without strategy or revolutionary discipline.”

Is that from TFE?! Nineteen seventy - six?

Amazing. And interesting that the same arguments still break along the same fault lines.

One might hope that fighting for the recognition that 'gender' is corroding and undermining the definition of 'woman' could bring women of all positions together, but there will always be tension.

That tension can be a strength, as well as a hindrance.

ArabellaScott · 18/12/2024 07:21

JessaWoo · 18/12/2024 03:59

It's fashionable. It's a trend driven by the alt-right, so of course they're doing it too. So predictable.

Who is 'they"?

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:32

CandyMaker · 18/12/2024 00:03

There were articles in the media 6 years ago and further back, but not many.
Julie Burchills article about transgender was in 2013. That got a lot of coverage. As did Germaine Greers remarks.

Do you mean Julie Bindel's article? Or did Julie Burchill actually write that " men in bad wigs" piece that long ago?

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:38

CandyMaker · 18/12/2024 01:07

Why do you spend so much time criticising academics? It just seems so nasty.

It is more about making observations; though, of course criticism of any approach is valid. It is not "nasty". When such accusations are made it tends to position the accuser as an antagonist in the discussion, rather than a participant.

JessaWoo · 18/12/2024 07:41

@ArabellaScott

Who is 'they"?

Specifically, those on this board that have joined in on the 'academia is worthless' trend.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:44

AnotherDayComeMonday · 18/12/2024 01:37

That's one post...
Are so called newcomers not welcome to this board?

It may be just one example, but it is a continuing and ever returning theme.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:49

CandyMaker · 18/12/2024 01:48

@JemimaTiggywinkles In 2012 it was an issue that was only affecting lesbian and feminist communities. No one else cared.

What is a 'feminist community'. And how is it different to 'women gathering together to make situations better for other women'?

ArabellaScott · 18/12/2024 07:52

JessaWoo · 18/12/2024 07:41

@ArabellaScott

Who is 'they"?

Specifically, those on this board that have joined in on the 'academia is worthless' trend.

Who has said that?

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:53

JessaWoo · 18/12/2024 07:41

@ArabellaScott

Who is 'they"?

Specifically, those on this board that have joined in on the 'academia is worthless' trend.

I'd say a fair few people here are by nature academic, have degrees and further degrees. Can think critically and express themselves in an articulate manner. I think what is really meant is those who make a living out of being 'an academic' or whose public profile is tied up with being an academic. Professional feminists.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:57

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/12/2024 02:54

Thinking that you can maintain infinitely hard boundaries in all circumstances, and that that will deliver a fantasy of absolute security is patriarchal.

It's not patriarchal to maintain boundaries. End of.

Is is a bit bit like saying "mathematics is white privilege".

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 08:01

CandyMaker · 18/12/2024 01:49

I have been repeatedly attacked on this thread. Again and again.

Countering arguments and robustly critiquing them is not the same as attacking - though if someone continually posts against the commonlity and flow of a board they do tend to end up feeling that way.

If one takes up the role of challenger then one can expect to be challenged.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 08:07

CandyMaker · 18/12/2024 01:52

And for the record, the commenter said she was not a feminist and I agreed.

What I said was if the definition of feminism was so rigid and prescribed as to imply certain articles of faith, then I didn't identify with it ( in other words); but if 'feminism' was defined in another way ( one which centres women and female experiences) then I might well be.

You said that the meaning of feminsim was fixed and if someone didn't conform to the doctrine, then they were not 'feminists'. Then you went on to say what a shame it was that this forum was full of such women.

AlisonDonut · 18/12/2024 08:29

JessaWoo · 18/12/2024 07:41

@ArabellaScott

Who is 'they"?

Specifically, those on this board that have joined in on the 'academia is worthless' trend.

You are misrepresentingor maybe misunderstanding the argument.

It isn't that 'academia is useless', indeed the 4 degress I have in a range of subjects helped me get good jobs, after I put myself through my first one whilst also working full time in construction, they very much are not useless.

It is that women who position themselves as academics seem to not be able to speak to, and completely isolate working class women from their 'analysis'.

For example the article linked above goes into detail about Tommy Robinson but they cannot look at why women might be in any way interested in what he had to say, particularly earlier this year. Any time anyone goes against anything they just assume the person they are Far Right within minutes, and a particular thing I noticed JCJ doing is a back and forth rant that will not listen to the other side at all, and then that stops, and the quote tweeting starts which infers the opposer has blocked her, and is meant to instigate a pile on from all her followers. There is ZERO actual good faith engagement. It goes straight to ranting and nazi. It is quite incredible to watch.

If 'feminism' doesn't cover all women, then it cannot by definition call itself 'feminism'. It isn't something that higher classes do in university to lower classes. That's a different thing entirely.

Floisme · 18/12/2024 08:32

@CandyMaker I am sorry if you feel personally attacked but quite frankly, you arrived on this thread in the manner of some 19th century preacher sent to educate the unwashed. You told us what we should read. If it was not your intention to come across in quite such a condescending way then maybe you could say so and then maybe we could start again.

illinivich · 18/12/2024 08:44

The current drama around the use of the word disgust is representive of the problem.

Its perfectly normal in the real world to say that something, someone or some behaviours lead to disgust.

Now theres a mass of posts about why that's problematic. So instead of trying to protect women and children from male sexualised behavour in public, theres discussion around why the word and the emotion isnt correct. Or is just like how other people felt about another thing therefore is wrong.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/12/2024 09:02

If JCJ keeps getting misrepresented, maybe reduce the word count so that people don't have to take a days annual leave just to read one essay in order to follow one tweets context.

Grin
Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/12/2024 09:05

Do you mean Julie Bindel's article? Or did Julie Burchill actually write that " men in bad wigs" piece that long ago?

I think she did write a piece that long ago as well.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/12/2024 09:08

What I said was if the definition of feminism was so rigid and prescribed as to imply certain articles of faith, then I didn't identify with it ( in other words); but if 'feminism' was defined in another way ( one which centres women and female experiences) then I might well be.

You said that the meaning of feminsim was fixed and if someone didn't conform to the doctrine, then they were not 'feminists'. Then you went on to say what a shame it was that this forum was full of such women.

Yes, exactly, and I think that goes for a lot of women. I considered myself a feminist before I had read a single feminist work.

2Rebecca · 18/12/2024 09:31

For me feminism is just about wanting women and girls to have the same opportunities and protections as men and boys allowing for sex based differences in our bodies. This includes medical research ensuring trials include women in a way that makes the data reliable for female bodies.
Feminism for me has nothing to do with political or religious beliefs or your attitude to abortion.

BackToLurk · 18/12/2024 09:53

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/12/2024 07:53

I'd say a fair few people here are by nature academic, have degrees and further degrees. Can think critically and express themselves in an articulate manner. I think what is really meant is those who make a living out of being 'an academic' or whose public profile is tied up with being an academic. Professional feminists.

Edited

I think that one of JCJ's main problems is not that she is an academic (or not only that), but that she just isn't that effective a communicator. Emma Hilton is 'an academic' and Helen Joyce is certainly 'academic' in the sense of being highly educated, and they both communicate their ideas far better than JCJ. They can do that both in person and on social media. And whether you agree with KJK or not she is a powerful communicator. I imagine it galls JCJ that someone, who she perceives as not well enough informed (or just plain wrong), has that ability.

illinivich · 18/12/2024 09:56

For me feminism is just about wanting women and girls to have the same opportunities and protections as men and boys allowing for sex based differences in our bodies.

And that what makes the 'trans debate' difficult to navigate.

It's not always the sex difference in our bodies that is the problem, or giving men and women the same opportunities. There is a diffference between a woman wearing a suit and a man wearing a padded bra to work. Some are saying these are just treating men and women the same, and are ignoring the sexual element of why some men wear womens clothes.

UtopiaPlanitia · 18/12/2024 09:59

ArabellaScott · 18/12/2024 07:08

Is that from TFE?! Nineteen seventy - six?

Amazing. And interesting that the same arguments still break along the same fault lines.

One might hope that fighting for the recognition that 'gender' is corroding and undermining the definition of 'woman' could bring women of all positions together, but there will always be tension.

That tension can be a strength, as well as a hindrance.

It’s from The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer, 1970, Paladin, pp. 11-22.

Yes, the tension was there during the second wave even when everyone in society understood what a woman was. And it was there during the fight for suffrage too. Some of the tension is between gradualist reformers and those who have a need for immediate change/justice and, also, some of it is very much class based.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/12/2024 10:05

There is a diffference between a woman wearing a suit and a man wearing a padded bra to work. Some are saying these are just treating men and women the same, and are ignoring the sexual element of why some men wear womens clothes.

YES. That's why it comes across as dishonest to many women.

Floisme · 18/12/2024 10:22

What I will say in JCJ's favour is that she stuck her head above the parapet and talked about this when it was much riskier to do so than it is now. I've never enjoyed her writing style and she's lost a lot of my goodwill over the years but I still credit her for that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread