This is my third letter in my exchange with Meghan Murphy, in response to the question: “Can feminist causes be furthered by working with right wing or religious people and groups?”
You make some good points in the article IMO, but I think where one of the definitional issues still remains is in what "allying" means. Iit feels like there is an undertone ihere that assumes women are gullible and stupid and will inevitably get sucked in by the right because we are homeless. I don't think using the Fox news or any other so called right wing platform is any sort of becoming an ally on the right. If the so-called left wing media won't allow our voices then we have to speak at every opportunity. I also think there is a huge lack of analysis in general about the term left now. What most people are calling left are actually pro capitalist, pro-oligarchy, pro-corporate and are what is traditionally considered to be right. Men on the so called left and so called right hate us because they are of the same stripe these days. I don't think men on the genuine left do. I'm also taken a back in a negative way at the assumption of our asking for or falling for being protected. Right now we NEED protection! And we are going to need it in coming days. But again, the assumption that that somehow will dissolve our brains, integrity, and positions into a shapeless form of goo is insulting at best. I am looking forward to Meghan's reply.
"What most people are calling left are actually pro capitalist, pro-oligarchy, pro-corporate"
Yes, this is the genius of rainbow lanyard, DIE capitalism - it defangs workers, collective action has become impossible when we have to start with where are on the oppression hierarchy and fear that we will be outed for micro-agressions.
If you want to define "allying", first I think you need to distinguish between an alliance vs. allyship.
Alliances have been around for millennia and are based on reciprocity. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
'Allyship' is a recent concept invented by the woke movement, and it's completely a one-way street. One could summarize allyship as "You scratch my back, I check your privilege".
Women seem to be constantly told they need to provide *allyship* to the transgender community, and that they should never, ever, ever attempt any kind of *alliance* with socially conservative men. It seems to me that of the two options, women are better off in an *alliance* with socially conservative men, because at least it can be mutually beneficial.
e.g. Fox News gains legitimacy by hosting gender-critical feminists who agree with pushing back against transanity (thus demonstrating it's not exclusively a right-wing hangup), while the feminists themselves gain wider audience exposure. Both sides get something out of it, so it's a useful if shaky alliance of convenience.
Providing *allyship* to the trans community, on the other hand, is never going to yield any benefits for women apart from some opportunities to virtue signal, because allyship is NOT a reciprocal arrangement. I personally think it takes a certain amount of narcissism to expect allyship from anyone; it reminds me of what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie once described as the woke mentality (though she didn't use the word woke):
"In certain young people today...I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; a massive sense of entitlement; an inability to show gratitude; an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; language that is slick and sleek but with little emotional intelligence; an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others...I find it obscene."
I tend to agree more with Meghan than Julie in these letters, because it seems like Meghan is being pragmatic and seeing the potential value in things like going on Fox News (I can see how that gets called "allying with right wingers", but so what?). Julie, on the other hand, seems like she feels gender-critical feminists are entitled to allyship from men. I'm broadly sympathetic to the gender-critical movement, but at the same time I don't owe allyship to Julie Bindel or anyone else.
Men: STOP namalting. If it doesn't apply to you then you can quietly say that in your own head. Don't worry about whether women think it's true. We aren't here to talk about your virtues, we are here to talk about WOMEN.
Some of us are just trying to live our lives and do things such as - my no 1 priority - raise awesome teenagers.
I have a daughter and a son. I am teaching my son to be respectful, kind and gentle. And happy, and a force for good.
My daughter is amazing, 18 and just started a law degree. She had to work very hard to achieve this - life wasn’t a routine gift of privileges.
I am encouraging my daughter to be independent, strong and happy. And to follow whichever path she chooses, for HER not for me. Financial independence, self-defence, cookery, investment just some of the practical things which I have also worked on with her.
My late mum was a cnd legend, a greenham common mother, and a fearsome proponent of equality and fairness. She guides me every day.
I am enjoying this exchange and learning from it. For a long time I had thought that feminist causes were inexorably advancing and didn't need my help. Gender ideology crept up on me and showed me I had been sleepwalking the whole time. I feel that I have to get back in the fight and lend my weight to it. This has been my focus recently, but I acknowledge that we need to tackle the whole gamut of feminist issues. As women like me join the gender critical war, there is an opportunity to have them join in fighting the wider set of feminist causes. We are in fighting mode and, I think, more readily persuaded.
Nobody is saying we do - in fact, Julie specifically says so in her letter. There is no need for "not all men" - the focus should be on women and feminism.
You make some good points in the article IMO, but I think where one of the definitional issues still remains is in what "allying" means. Iit feels like there is an undertone ihere that assumes women are gullible and stupid and will inevitably get sucked in by the right because we are homeless. I don't think using the Fox news or any other so called right wing platform is any sort of becoming an ally on the right. If the so-called left wing media won't allow our voices then we have to speak at every opportunity. I also think there is a huge lack of analysis in general about the term left now. What most people are calling left are actually pro capitalist, pro-oligarchy, pro-corporate and are what is traditionally considered to be right. Men on the so called left and so called right hate us because they are of the same stripe these days. I don't think men on the genuine left do. I'm also taken a back in a negative way at the assumption of our asking for or falling for being protected. Right now we NEED protection! And we are going to need it in coming days. But again, the assumption that that somehow will dissolve our brains, integrity, and positions into a shapeless form of goo is insulting at best. I am looking forward to Meghan's reply.
"What most people are calling left are actually pro capitalist, pro-oligarchy, pro-corporate"
Yes, this is the genius of rainbow lanyard, DIE capitalism - it defangs workers, collective action has become impossible when we have to start with where are on the oppression hierarchy and fear that we will be outed for micro-agressions.
If you want to define "allying", first I think you need to distinguish between an alliance vs. allyship.
Alliances have been around for millennia and are based on reciprocity. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
'Allyship' is a recent concept invented by the woke movement, and it's completely a one-way street. One could summarize allyship as "You scratch my back, I check your privilege".
Women seem to be constantly told they need to provide *allyship* to the transgender community, and that they should never, ever, ever attempt any kind of *alliance* with socially conservative men. It seems to me that of the two options, women are better off in an *alliance* with socially conservative men, because at least it can be mutually beneficial.
e.g. Fox News gains legitimacy by hosting gender-critical feminists who agree with pushing back against transanity (thus demonstrating it's not exclusively a right-wing hangup), while the feminists themselves gain wider audience exposure. Both sides get something out of it, so it's a useful if shaky alliance of convenience.
Providing *allyship* to the trans community, on the other hand, is never going to yield any benefits for women apart from some opportunities to virtue signal, because allyship is NOT a reciprocal arrangement. I personally think it takes a certain amount of narcissism to expect allyship from anyone; it reminds me of what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie once described as the woke mentality (though she didn't use the word woke):
"In certain young people today...I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; a massive sense of entitlement; an inability to show gratitude; an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; language that is slick and sleek but with little emotional intelligence; an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others...I find it obscene."
I tend to agree more with Meghan than Julie in these letters, because it seems like Meghan is being pragmatic and seeing the potential value in things like going on Fox News (I can see how that gets called "allying with right wingers", but so what?). Julie, on the other hand, seems like she feels gender-critical feminists are entitled to allyship from men. I'm broadly sympathetic to the gender-critical movement, but at the same time I don't owe allyship to Julie Bindel or anyone else.
Men: STOP namalting. If it doesn't apply to you then you can quietly say that in your own head. Don't worry about whether women think it's true. We aren't here to talk about your virtues, we are here to talk about WOMEN.
It’s not about virtue. We’re showing support. Are we not allowed to contribute?
You are not allowed to center yourself, which you are doing currently. Stop and have some respect.
Some men, surely!
Some of us are just trying to live our lives and do things such as - my no 1 priority - raise awesome teenagers.
I have a daughter and a son. I am teaching my son to be respectful, kind and gentle. And happy, and a force for good.
My daughter is amazing, 18 and just started a law degree. She had to work very hard to achieve this - life wasn’t a routine gift of privileges.
I am encouraging my daughter to be independent, strong and happy. And to follow whichever path she chooses, for HER not for me. Financial independence, self-defence, cookery, investment just some of the practical things which I have also worked on with her.
My late mum was a cnd legend, a greenham common mother, and a fearsome proponent of equality and fairness. She guides me every day.
Some men are on the good side!
I am enjoying this conversation very much.
Bloody marvellous! I reckon this exchange could - should! - go way beyond 3 letters each. If you have the heart, we will give the support. Go Julie!
I am enjoying this exchange and learning from it. For a long time I had thought that feminist causes were inexorably advancing and didn't need my help. Gender ideology crept up on me and showed me I had been sleepwalking the whole time. I feel that I have to get back in the fight and lend my weight to it. This has been my focus recently, but I acknowledge that we need to tackle the whole gamut of feminist issues. As women like me join the gender critical war, there is an opportunity to have them join in fighting the wider set of feminist causes. We are in fighting mode and, I think, more readily persuaded.
👏
It's not about purity politics, we can see through their agenda.
Well written, clear and persuasive. Thank you.
This very good. Excellent in fact. Thank you.
Accurate accurate accurate
That was an amazing read. Loved it. Keep up the good fight.
I agree, I'd like to see more than 6 letters. This is a necessary conversation.
Nobody is saying we do - in fact, Julie specifically says so in her letter. There is no need for "not all men" - the focus should be on women and feminism.