Thanks for this analysis Edie. I’m with you; please start the new WSPU! I’m also not a radical feminist and (I just had this discussion with my Mum) I find it difficult to call myself any sort of feminist, because liberal feminism’s so bloody awful. Come to think of it, I’m not a believer in any ideology as people tend to get trampled in the name of ideas. I enjoy your writing and as I have never done Cultural Studies, I learn a lot too. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Edie: "

• ... cracks in the growing gender critical movement

• Radical feminism has a way of understanding the culture of sex (gender) as a system where one class oppresses the other. How much male oppression of women is innate ad how much is culture is a question for the ages ...

• If ... male pattern violence is innate .... If male pattern violence is cultural ....

• I think that humans are a mix of biology and culture that I don’t have the expertise to fully understand. ...

• I don’t know where the line is between culture and biology, but the slate is definitely not blank ..."

A fairly solid bit of analysis in general, but while I can’t say much towards any of your comments about and related to Marxism, I think the five listed points above speak to the crux of the matter.

As I’ve argued recently in another comment here, it seems the biggest problem with much of feminism in general and radical feminism in particular is its tendency to rather dogmatically insist that gender is just a matter of culture, that it was hatched in the inner sanctums of “The Patriarchy” with the sole intent of “oppressing” women, that the slate is indeed blank. I think you’re entirely justified to wonder where “the line is between culture and biology”, but the evidence seems clear that both contribute, in varying degrees depending on the traits in question, to the various personalities and personality types that are subsumed under the rubric of “gender”. Failing to acknowledge those facts tends to preclude optimal solutions to their worst consequences.

ICYMI, UK lawyer and Substacker Helen Dale had a fairly illuminating, if not damning essay on “Feminising Feminism”, the pretext for which was a review of Louise Perry’s “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century”. A couple of particularly damning comments related to the above:


• ... a counterblast to the braindead feminism I encountered at university. Pseudoscientific feminism never took me in ...

• ... [Perry’s book] represents a sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality.

• ... led [Perry] to do what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously."


That seems to be the biggest problem with far too much of feminism – a rather pigheaded and dogmatic reluctance to “take the biology seriously”. Offhand, it seems there’s more than a bit of value in the concept of gender – at least, as many argue, as a synonym for those personalities and personality types. Where much of feminism seems to have gone off the rails is in “thinking” that those personality types – AKA gender – don’t have their roots in significant personality differences by sex that are, in turn, based on fundamental bedrock biological differences.

As I’ve argued here, much of gender is incoherent and quite antiscientific claptrap, but there are some worthwhile elements and perspectives that might reasonably be put on a more scientific footing:


Expand full comment
Dec 22, 2022Liked by Edie Wyatt

I am a working class grass roots 2nd wave rad fem. I disagree with any idea that talks about ‘empowering’ women and girls. You cannot empower us, we can only empower ourselves through our own grass roots activism.

Gender based violence replaced

MVAWGd, was the states ,under UN leadership, attempt to erase mention of those perpetrating not just violence but terrorism against women, , men. CEDAW 79 was the convention that was suppose to eliminate discrimination against the female sex. Culture in this matter is far stronger than any nonsense Convention by the UN, to suppose that can be dismantled just by saying so is a gratuitous lie. Culture of MVAWG is deeply imbedded and on the increase , the dial goes up every year, never down. Only radical feminists remain to name men as the actors in the undeclared war on women. Only RFs activate against/expose all forms of female exploitation, porn, prostitution, surrogacy, ender/queer ideology/ patriarchal control if the females sex through barbaric sexual practices, forced marriage , FGM, freedom of movement so much more too complex to debate here.

As we speak womens basic right to name themselves as biological females is relentlessly under attack, erasing our sex based oppression with linguistic nonsense is evidence that MVAWG is not just physical but includes mind control and propaganda that women have equality with men. As Greer says, there is no such thing as equality for the female sex , it’s a myth, takes women off their guard, puts them into a false state of consciousness.

As for the Left, Just for once can feminists be honest about how the Left has betrayed the sex class of women. Working class women ( the majority of women) are bearing the brunt of the monumental failures of the Left. Poverty is rife, abuse is rife, ignoring women’s basic needs is rife, survival is an exhausting daily task that globally women deal with.

I am not an academic, but I hold a MA in the discipline of Womens studies and have worked all my life at grassroots level alongside women. I see no other feminism that has articulated and put into practice the lived experience of women as found within RF theory and activism.

My life in RF has been one in which others who call themselves feminists shun us and degrade our grassroots efforts that rail against all forms of sex based exploitation. We are not ‘choice, Liberal, left, lipstick, cultural , or any other newly minted feminism, we are radical feminists.and proud!

Expand full comment
Dec 22, 2022Liked by Edie Wyatt

Excellent. This is where I find myself.

Expand full comment

I really love this piece Edie. I'll keep re-reading it to marvel over the nuances in the next few days.

Having examined some of the facets of the gem I will say this..


One of the things that irritates me about institutional feminism is that they seldom observe women, individually and in organised groups, have always resisted male hegemony, all throughout history and in all cultures. We just didn't have a name for it or the means to organise beyond tiny local groups. The suffragettes didn't have the word "feminist" and didn't need it. Since the word came into common usage mid 20thC now every woman who is resisting some sort of masculinist privilege is expected to, and pressured to, define her resistance within that paradigm.

I'm suggesting that "feminist" and an individual womans subjective relationship to the political principle has become more a restrictive category, rather than one that frees us (resisting - haha! - using the word "empowers" us, precisely because that verb has become part of feminist lingo)

There are a lot of women who want to resist the way we sense patriarchy is mobilising to keep us colonised, but we are also resisting being subsumed into "Feminist" because the left has owned the movement and cynically coopted it into being one their tools. I am resisting the left too!

The one thing I can celebrate about the shock of crashing into trans gender ideology is having the scales ripped my from eyes about the underlying masculinist agenda driving the left. I have absolutely, totally dumped the left, and stomp on it like the leech it is.

Expand full comment

child abuser

Expand full comment