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.
• ... 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:
Yes. For anyone who comes from the sciences rather than the arts the fact that feminism seems to think that there is NO difference between males and females ( as a species) is just ridiculous. To try and pretend that all difference is cultural is just shooting yourself in the foot if you are trying to understand ourselves as a species and why we do the things we do. Humans like any mammal have instincts that they act on without reason or logic and which in many cases they are completely unaware of, instincts are acted on without rational consciousness, we don’t always don’t see ourselves objectively. Of course as a species which has evolved with extreme communication abilities and tools culture also plays a huge part but to pretend human nature is of no importance is just crazy. Any feminism that doesn’t take the nature of our species into account will never succeed.
Quite agree with you about the science versus the arts. You probably know of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures where he apparently lamented "the gulf between scientists and 'literary intellectuals'. ...":
No doubt some significant value in the arts and humanities, but feminism has largely turned the whole concept of gender into a pile of unscientific claptrap because of an inability to face the facts.
Likewise agree on "the nature of our species". You may know of a quip by the late biologist E.O. Wilson -- a noted expert on ants -- to the effect that Marxism was a "wonderful theory, [but the] wrong species" as he argued it was more applicable to ants than to humans:
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!
Personally I find it boring and irrelevant trying to define what sort of feminist I am. I also have to admit, despite trying to set aside more time for reading than most working class people, the books about feminist history and epistemology are especially tedious so I tend to prioritise reading selections to generalised philosophy and cultural studies.
I really resent the frequently snobbish attitudes of radfems, libfems and fem ideologues that I'm barely tolerated to speak about feminism and have opinions. I even got kicked out of the secret board of the Coalition for Biological Reality for being suspected of being not quite the right sort of activist (shock, horreur! imagine suggesting I might bring my husband along to a meeting!). Having been involved in resistance to trans gender ideology going on 4 years now I am less and less inclined to call myself a feminist. A few days ago I sat in on a feminist Zoom meeting thinking I might find friends and useful actions only to end up gobsmacked how much time they spent arguing how many angels can fit on the head of pin.
MVAWGs means Male Violence Against Women and Girls…as a RF since mid 1970’s and still an activist for womens liberation.. it can be a tough choice. But I chose it…fundamentally … I am sorry you felt I welcomed in certain groups.. there are others. WDI is worth a go ..
ICYMI, you might have some interest in this post by Kathleen Stock where she argues, with some justification, that it is "barking (mad)" of rad-fems to want to "abolish gender":
Largely on the view, apparently, that gender -- as a synonym for personalities -- has some solid roots in "nurture", that it isn't just a matter of "nature" which many feminists, rad-fems in particular, seem rather desperately committed to. One of Edie's points if I'm not mistaken.
You might also have some interest in this post of Stock's which argues, again with some justification, that feminism is in serious need of a "reboot", largely because it's riven with various "risible absurdities" -- abolishing gender, for example:
Yet to be convinced that ‘gender’ exists in reality it’s a made-up set of classifications attributed to one sex and the other , with the obvious caveat that men occupy the dominant position of power within the gender ascribed to them. Gender is not a caste system, however in reality it acts as if it is!
RFs seek to abolish gender since it’s constructed to disadvantage women on the basis of sex.
It’s barmy to assert ‘feminism’ is ridden with risible ideas…. Citing abolition of gender being one of them.
Think those who advocate mocking RadFems have been cosy within academia for far too long. Comfortable safe jobs with excellent pensions , isolated from the material reality of the lives and struggles of average working class women.
RF as I know it, is grass roots , taking the hits from those who seek to remove the few miserable rights women/girls have gained.
It’s only since the mid 1990’s that in U.K. Rape in marriage became a crime, who fought for that abolition? RFs , I know, because I was our RCs rep on the campaign. Was that a ‘risible’?
I tire of academics promoting their theories that do nothing to improve the material reality of womens lives.
While Stock was being harangued and threatened by ‘gender queer’ students she received huge support from RFs , I was amongst them. It got so bad that she was forced to leave her job. Forced out by barely adult students, embolden by silencing all opposition to their barmy Butler cult.
So now Stock wants a re-boot.. will take a look when the undeclared war on women/girls ends…..
You agree that there are average differences in behaviour and personalities between men and women? That is what many people, quite reasonably, call "gender":
Many definitions for the word "gender" -- the question is whether it refers to and describes real phenomena. Putting a word to them -- particularly to those personalities and personality types -- is what allows us to talk about them, and to deal with them.
You may wish to take a look at my post where I attempt to separate the wheat and the chaff:
But quite agree with you about "academics" in "safe jobs with excellent pensions". We should close all of the "Gender Studies" departments and put their denizens out digging ditches or some other productive work. You probably know of Nussbaum's critique of the infamous Judith Butler:
And ICYMI, a decent review of "Professing Feminism" which talked of the rot in feminism, the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment" in most "Women Studies programs":
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.
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.
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."
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
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:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/rationalized-gender
Yes. For anyone who comes from the sciences rather than the arts the fact that feminism seems to think that there is NO difference between males and females ( as a species) is just ridiculous. To try and pretend that all difference is cultural is just shooting yourself in the foot if you are trying to understand ourselves as a species and why we do the things we do. Humans like any mammal have instincts that they act on without reason or logic and which in many cases they are completely unaware of, instincts are acted on without rational consciousness, we don’t always don’t see ourselves objectively. Of course as a species which has evolved with extreme communication abilities and tools culture also plays a huge part but to pretend human nature is of no importance is just crazy. Any feminism that doesn’t take the nature of our species into account will never succeed.
Quite agree with you about the science versus the arts. You probably know of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures where he apparently lamented "the gulf between scientists and 'literary intellectuals'. ...":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow
No doubt some significant value in the arts and humanities, but feminism has largely turned the whole concept of gender into a pile of unscientific claptrap because of an inability to face the facts.
Likewise agree on "the nature of our species". You may know of a quip by the late biologist E.O. Wilson -- a noted expert on ants -- to the effect that Marxism was a "wonderful theory, [but the] wrong species" as he argued it was more applicable to ants than to humans:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/04/14/species/
Given the apparent reliance of much of feminism on Marxism, one would think that more feminists would learn something from the failures of Communism.
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!
what does the acronym MVAWGd stand for?
Personally I find it boring and irrelevant trying to define what sort of feminist I am. I also have to admit, despite trying to set aside more time for reading than most working class people, the books about feminist history and epistemology are especially tedious so I tend to prioritise reading selections to generalised philosophy and cultural studies.
I really resent the frequently snobbish attitudes of radfems, libfems and fem ideologues that I'm barely tolerated to speak about feminism and have opinions. I even got kicked out of the secret board of the Coalition for Biological Reality for being suspected of being not quite the right sort of activist (shock, horreur! imagine suggesting I might bring my husband along to a meeting!). Having been involved in resistance to trans gender ideology going on 4 years now I am less and less inclined to call myself a feminist. A few days ago I sat in on a feminist Zoom meeting thinking I might find friends and useful actions only to end up gobsmacked how much time they spent arguing how many angels can fit on the head of pin.
Very thought provoking piece Edie.
MVAWGs means Male Violence Against Women and Girls…as a RF since mid 1970’s and still an activist for womens liberation.. it can be a tough choice. But I chose it…fundamentally … I am sorry you felt I welcomed in certain groups.. there are others. WDI is worth a go ..
ICYMI, you might have some interest in this post by Kathleen Stock where she argues, with some justification, that it is "barking (mad)" of rad-fems to want to "abolish gender":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
Largely on the view, apparently, that gender -- as a synonym for personalities -- has some solid roots in "nurture", that it isn't just a matter of "nature" which many feminists, rad-fems in particular, seem rather desperately committed to. One of Edie's points if I'm not mistaken.
You might also have some interest in this post of Stock's which argues, again with some justification, that feminism is in serious need of a "reboot", largely because it's riven with various "risible absurdities" -- abolishing gender, for example:
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/feminist-reboot-camp
Yet to be convinced that ‘gender’ exists in reality it’s a made-up set of classifications attributed to one sex and the other , with the obvious caveat that men occupy the dominant position of power within the gender ascribed to them. Gender is not a caste system, however in reality it acts as if it is!
RFs seek to abolish gender since it’s constructed to disadvantage women on the basis of sex.
It’s barmy to assert ‘feminism’ is ridden with risible ideas…. Citing abolition of gender being one of them.
Think those who advocate mocking RadFems have been cosy within academia for far too long. Comfortable safe jobs with excellent pensions , isolated from the material reality of the lives and struggles of average working class women.
RF as I know it, is grass roots , taking the hits from those who seek to remove the few miserable rights women/girls have gained.
It’s only since the mid 1990’s that in U.K. Rape in marriage became a crime, who fought for that abolition? RFs , I know, because I was our RCs rep on the campaign. Was that a ‘risible’?
I tire of academics promoting their theories that do nothing to improve the material reality of womens lives.
While Stock was being harangued and threatened by ‘gender queer’ students she received huge support from RFs , I was amongst them. It got so bad that she was forced to leave her job. Forced out by barely adult students, embolden by silencing all opposition to their barmy Butler cult.
So now Stock wants a re-boot.. will take a look when the undeclared war on women/girls ends…..
You agree that there are average differences in behaviour and personalities between men and women? That is what many people, quite reasonably, call "gender":
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Many definitions for the word "gender" -- the question is whether it refers to and describes real phenomena. Putting a word to them -- particularly to those personalities and personality types -- is what allows us to talk about them, and to deal with them.
You may wish to take a look at my post where I attempt to separate the wheat and the chaff:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome#%C2%A7rationalized-gender
But quite agree with you about "academics" in "safe jobs with excellent pensions". We should close all of the "Gender Studies" departments and put their denizens out digging ditches or some other productive work. You probably know of Nussbaum's critique of the infamous Judith Butler:
https://newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody
And ICYMI, a decent review of "Professing Feminism" which talked of the rot in feminism, the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment" in most "Women Studies programs":
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
Far too many charlatans and grifters in "feminism". Too bad really as no shortage of justified grievances.
Excellent. This is where I find myself.
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.
child abuser