Meghan Murphy makes a good point about it being assumed that women will be "infected" by being near people who are not in favour of abortion, or women's rights, or whatever. Why not consider that strong-minded politicised women, out protesting for their rights, and risking attack and vilification will influence those who come along to support demonstrations against gender self ID. These events can and indeed are MEANT TO BE influencing and consciousness raising events. Aren't they?
I can't comment under Megan's article, but, if I could, I'd reiterate my reply to Chris Baumgarten under Julie's last post. She is getting far too hung up on labels that mean little to nothing. What needs scrutinising is what people and groups actually stand for, and what the implications for women are. Taking a purposive approach does help, and (at least with individuals (in my experience) makes it possible to decide whether any individual's views are sufficiently dangerous as to be unacceptable to me, regardless of whether we might agree on one important point.
When it comes to groups, it has to be realised that there is always a quid pro quo in alliances/supporters. Those groups, for example, which are gender critical but also anti-LGB and anti-women's rights will leverage their support in the future to the detriment of women and same-sex attracted people. I can't countenance that - the price for their support is too high.
I appreciate this back and forth and hearing your insights. One thing that emerged from Meghan's last post for me is that this is a significantly different question/issue depending on where you live. Julie is from the UK, Meghan from Canada. It's yet another snarl of issues in the US, where we just had an election. And where democracy itself was/is on the ballot (the final results are not in yet). I believe this because I consume media of all kinds. I watched the January 6th committee hearings, which demonstrated, through Republican testimony, that Trump fomented a violent coup to prevent the peaceful transition of power--that almost succeeded. In our form of democracy, different from either of yours, the party with the power determines so much. Many women I know and know of understandably voted Republican as it is Republicans who agree with gender critical views and have proposed or passed legislation in states to protect children The same folks who are working to remove all reproductive rights for women, yes, but even more importantly, the same folks who have demonstrated that they wish to keep Democrats from ever holding power again. There was nobody on my ballot to represent my views, and yet in a close Senate race, I voted Democrat because of my fear of the Republicans taking over and destroying free and fair elections forever. The radical feminist organizations in the US (WoLF and WDI) cannot be partisan, must "partner" or "ally" with conservatives on issues like the institutionalization of gender ideology. The path forward in the US is litigation, which has begun. Settling this issue in the courts, like settling the abortion issue in the courts, is a terrible solution, but it seems to be all we have here. For me, the entire idea of left and right has crumbled into dust. In some ways, there seems to be a hopeful path as people like me leave the progressive tribe and find common cause with conservatives. The (sliver of) hope for me is that our hearts and views can change when we stop the warfare and really listen and allow ourselves to be changed to find solutions that can work for all of us.
I don't even understand what is happening here. Meghan Murphy not only denies ever being a radical feminist at present, but goes out of her way to disparage us as misogynist puritans with a raging "humanity problem," along with offering such compelling insights as: "it is fucking retarded (not sorry don't @ me) to treat every single man who uses porn as an abusive misogynist and to cut them out of your life.”
Anyone else who sold out for a right-wing platform we should rope into this discussion? Maybe we could set up a panel at the Heritage Foundation. After all, "the left" (who notices women's work anyhow?) won't host us and taking cover from right-wing men or left-wing men is the basis of feminist praxis. That's obvious to all but those out-of-touch persnickety man-haters who were largely raised in the right (a group that doesn't struggle with labels) but clearly just have an irrational grudge against people they have never even met.
I don't actually know what is more obnoxious: Meghan Murphy announcing her four-hundredth departure from the left (is she really gone yet?) or being expected to pretend this exchange has any relationship whatsoever to feminism — apart from that part where we should all be seriously questioning if radical feminism is, in fact, long dead and buried.
It now seems to be impossible to find everything you believe encapsulated within one party or group if you are a free thinker. I believe that only by having dialogue and being free to articulate our beliefs can we arrive at rational conclusions. I am left-leaning but now politically homeless, and that does not seem to be unusual these days. I would not willingly ally myself with anyone whose views I find distasteful, but when an issue is so pressingly urgent, I don't blame anyone for doing so. It may be as important to state what you don't believe in as what you do believe in. It's much more complex than it used to be.
"If there is something that qualifies as “far right,” few seem to agree on what it means. Nor can we seem to explain what it means to “ally” with them." - Murphy
The label 'far right' may be flung around carelessly from the gender-ideology-captured left against feminists who are gender abolitionist. However, the term 'feminazi' was popularized by conservatives to frame feminists as authoritarian in our demands for women's liberation from exploitative reproductive labor. As such I've been called 'pro-Gilead' by the left and 'feminazi' by the right. Muddying the waters by recklessly labeling people authoritarian who are clearly not anything of the sort, will only benefit the true authoritarians who can make their moves more freely since anybody can now legitimately dismiss any callouts of being authoritarian.
The fact Murphy states that "few seem to agree on what it means" is why we must work extra hard at being as clear as we can be about what we mean. An effort to filter out the mud out of the muddied waters must be made so to speak. Then women fighting for women's liberation can make their choices on what organizations to support on grounds that fit each woman's values. Any actual allyships built with conservatives in times of muddied waters risks costing feminist organizations (built on gender abolitionist grounds) in terms of delegitimization in the eyes of women fighting for women's liberation. This will result in lost time for women's liberation as new organizations will have to be built up from scratch again just as we had to do in the wake of the co-optation of previous feminist organizations by gender ideology.
I'm very grateful for this exchange between Bindel and Murphy.
Meghan Murphy makes a good point about it being assumed that women will be "infected" by being near people who are not in favour of abortion, or women's rights, or whatever. Why not consider that strong-minded politicised women, out protesting for their rights, and risking attack and vilification will influence those who come along to support demonstrations against gender self ID. These events can and indeed are MEANT TO BE influencing and consciousness raising events. Aren't they?
I can't comment under Megan's article, but, if I could, I'd reiterate my reply to Chris Baumgarten under Julie's last post. She is getting far too hung up on labels that mean little to nothing. What needs scrutinising is what people and groups actually stand for, and what the implications for women are. Taking a purposive approach does help, and (at least with individuals (in my experience) makes it possible to decide whether any individual's views are sufficiently dangerous as to be unacceptable to me, regardless of whether we might agree on one important point.
When it comes to groups, it has to be realised that there is always a quid pro quo in alliances/supporters. Those groups, for example, which are gender critical but also anti-LGB and anti-women's rights will leverage their support in the future to the detriment of women and same-sex attracted people. I can't countenance that - the price for their support is too high.
I appreciate this back and forth and hearing your insights. One thing that emerged from Meghan's last post for me is that this is a significantly different question/issue depending on where you live. Julie is from the UK, Meghan from Canada. It's yet another snarl of issues in the US, where we just had an election. And where democracy itself was/is on the ballot (the final results are not in yet). I believe this because I consume media of all kinds. I watched the January 6th committee hearings, which demonstrated, through Republican testimony, that Trump fomented a violent coup to prevent the peaceful transition of power--that almost succeeded. In our form of democracy, different from either of yours, the party with the power determines so much. Many women I know and know of understandably voted Republican as it is Republicans who agree with gender critical views and have proposed or passed legislation in states to protect children The same folks who are working to remove all reproductive rights for women, yes, but even more importantly, the same folks who have demonstrated that they wish to keep Democrats from ever holding power again. There was nobody on my ballot to represent my views, and yet in a close Senate race, I voted Democrat because of my fear of the Republicans taking over and destroying free and fair elections forever. The radical feminist organizations in the US (WoLF and WDI) cannot be partisan, must "partner" or "ally" with conservatives on issues like the institutionalization of gender ideology. The path forward in the US is litigation, which has begun. Settling this issue in the courts, like settling the abortion issue in the courts, is a terrible solution, but it seems to be all we have here. For me, the entire idea of left and right has crumbled into dust. In some ways, there seems to be a hopeful path as people like me leave the progressive tribe and find common cause with conservatives. The (sliver of) hope for me is that our hearts and views can change when we stop the warfare and really listen and allow ourselves to be changed to find solutions that can work for all of us.
I don't even understand what is happening here. Meghan Murphy not only denies ever being a radical feminist at present, but goes out of her way to disparage us as misogynist puritans with a raging "humanity problem," along with offering such compelling insights as: "it is fucking retarded (not sorry don't @ me) to treat every single man who uses porn as an abusive misogynist and to cut them out of your life.”
Anyone else who sold out for a right-wing platform we should rope into this discussion? Maybe we could set up a panel at the Heritage Foundation. After all, "the left" (who notices women's work anyhow?) won't host us and taking cover from right-wing men or left-wing men is the basis of feminist praxis. That's obvious to all but those out-of-touch persnickety man-haters who were largely raised in the right (a group that doesn't struggle with labels) but clearly just have an irrational grudge against people they have never even met.
I don't actually know what is more obnoxious: Meghan Murphy announcing her four-hundredth departure from the left (is she really gone yet?) or being expected to pretend this exchange has any relationship whatsoever to feminism — apart from that part where we should all be seriously questioning if radical feminism is, in fact, long dead and buried.
It now seems to be impossible to find everything you believe encapsulated within one party or group if you are a free thinker. I believe that only by having dialogue and being free to articulate our beliefs can we arrive at rational conclusions. I am left-leaning but now politically homeless, and that does not seem to be unusual these days. I would not willingly ally myself with anyone whose views I find distasteful, but when an issue is so pressingly urgent, I don't blame anyone for doing so. It may be as important to state what you don't believe in as what you do believe in. It's much more complex than it used to be.
"If there is something that qualifies as “far right,” few seem to agree on what it means. Nor can we seem to explain what it means to “ally” with them." - Murphy
The label 'far right' may be flung around carelessly from the gender-ideology-captured left against feminists who are gender abolitionist. However, the term 'feminazi' was popularized by conservatives to frame feminists as authoritarian in our demands for women's liberation from exploitative reproductive labor. As such I've been called 'pro-Gilead' by the left and 'feminazi' by the right. Muddying the waters by recklessly labeling people authoritarian who are clearly not anything of the sort, will only benefit the true authoritarians who can make their moves more freely since anybody can now legitimately dismiss any callouts of being authoritarian.
The fact Murphy states that "few seem to agree on what it means" is why we must work extra hard at being as clear as we can be about what we mean. An effort to filter out the mud out of the muddied waters must be made so to speak. Then women fighting for women's liberation can make their choices on what organizations to support on grounds that fit each woman's values. Any actual allyships built with conservatives in times of muddied waters risks costing feminist organizations (built on gender abolitionist grounds) in terms of delegitimization in the eyes of women fighting for women's liberation. This will result in lost time for women's liberation as new organizations will have to be built up from scratch again just as we had to do in the wake of the co-optation of previous feminist organizations by gender ideology.
I'm very grateful for this exchange between Bindel and Murphy.