On the two points that you claim justify a "feminist" movement:
1. The ability for women (especially non-conforming) to choose a different path: Western liberal systems are already at the point where freedom of choice for such women is maximized (outside some religious communities perhaps). This is still absolutely a worthy cause to rally around, but not in the western world.
2. To politically represent women who are likely to be politically under-represented: There are two specific problems with this argument. One is that while theoretically, you could have a feminist movement full of disagreeable, high achieving women that are democratically representing the interests of women at large, this is currently as far from reality as one can get. I'm also sceptical that in the western context, the average woman's interests are better politically represented by women who don't look, feel or act like them as opposed to men in their lives. More importantly, it doesn't seem like we're at risk of having fewer women join economic or political life every year. It's not a trend that seems to warrant pushing against. If anything, your earlier posts seem to suggest that on the margin, women should be more, not less, willing to prioritize feminine values and families. If that's the world we live in, why do we need a movement that has other women advocate for women who don't seem to share their values or goals?
In practise, in order to speak to the woman that is likely to be underrepresented in public life, "feminism" is a bad umbrella to rally under. Most conservative women I've met don't associate the feminist movement, as it stands currently, with anything positive. Given that, it's unclear why this form of identity politics needs to continue under this banner. Why not strategically form alliances with groups of men and women on specific issues? Not everything warrants a mass movement...
1. I’m not saying that western liberal systems aren’t doing enough to provide choice for women right now. I’m saying that these freedoms for women were attained in part thanks to previous feminist activism and that one of the benefits of maintaining a feminist movement is to protect those gains.
2. Yes, as I’ve said before, I agree that mainstream contemporary feminism doesn’t do a good job of representing the goals of “typical” women. I think this is the result of a self selection effect, part of which is unavoidable since movement leaders of any type need to be more disagreeable and aggressive than average. But the other part of the self selection effect has more to do with social dynamics and what’s rewarded within the movement which does have the potential to change. There was a shift in later second wave feminism away from representing the concerns of wives and mothers and towards representing the concerns of gender non-conforming women. As I’ve said I think both projects are important but we’ve been failing on the former. This is why we’re seeing women like Louise Perry, who I mentioned, rising in popularity. She’s one of others who are trying to fill that gap. And she talks about herself as being generally gender conforming apart from being highly disagreeable. I don’t come to the same conclusions as she does in many cases but I think what she’s trying to do is generally right.
This isn’t to say that I think we need more women to get into the workforce, I’m saying that we want a movement to argue for things like the value of domestic work and child care, and to represent the needs of the people (mostly women) who do that work.
Sure, you may be right that the word feminism has become so off putting to my potential allies that it’s not worth keeping. This is something I’ve thought about but given how basic the male/female roles are to our society (and all societies) I think it does make sense to have some organization around that pole.
Not to get too meta, but I think this disagreement gets back to Caplan's method of defining feminism. The movement you describe has very little in common with contemporary feminism (in the West at least), and I'm not convinced that calling it feminism will help.
On the merits of your argument:
1. "Protecting those gains": do you believe there's a reasonable possibility of women being banned or coerced away from male-dominated roles? I think that's a necessary assumption for your argument.
2. Once in the political realm, definitions become more important. By advocating for feminism, I think you make these goals less likely. Calling yourself anti-feminist is probably a better choice!
Status is a zero sum game. You can’t elevate the status of motherhood and families without relatively taking status away from career oriented women. In so far as this project is sincerely about doing that, that seems diametrically opposed to what most people who call themselves feminists are doing now.
Whenever I hear the words - "the value of domestic work and child care" I think of two things. My involvement with the care of our three children (doing every job their mother did for them) AND the unpaid labor or domestic work of: fixing three cars, reroofing, plumbing, carpentry, laying carpet, electrical, air conditioning installation, no to mention delivering our youngest, I think that all things considered the work was equally divided but the monetary value would be heavily weighted towards my jobs. Don't believe me? Do a cost estimate for carpenter, plumber, electrician , car mechanic or obstetrician.
Did you also get pregnant and give birth? But jokes aside, you may be doing more than your share in your relationship but not sure how it’s relevant to cultural norms and the value of domestic work in general-surely you’re aware that women continue to do more domestic work on average than men while men continue to work more outside of the home.
I don't disagree in principle with anything above, the problem I have is calling these beliefs 'feminist'. At the end of the day, I just don't think it is possible to reclaim that word, let alone use it to describe a movement whose foundational belief is the importance of innate psychological sex differences. When I'm in polite society, I pretend to be a blank-slatest, evopsych truther like all the other good libs. If I said "Sex differences are real, they impact men and women's brains, and you should acknowledge that if you are a feminist" wouldn't just have me branded as a sexist, but as an utterly insane one at that.
Thanks for the comment David. I've been having this exact debate with my boyfriend for several months lol. Perhaps I'll change my mind eventually, but as of now I still disagree. While I acknowledge that mainstream contemporary feminists (and liberals in general) avoid admitting to any psychological sex differences and would reject me from their movement I'm far from alone in thinking that sex differences are relevant to feminism. In addition to the trad/reactionary feminists of today, who I have many disagreements with, I'd name Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia and basically all TERFs. And while first wave feminists certainly thought that some sex differences were socially constructed (which they were, at least back then), I view their fight as focused on liberty rather than equality. And so, I see my views as in line with long-running strains of feminist thought and with many recent and contemporary public thinkers who also view themselves as feminists.
First off, thanks for the reply! It is always cool to get responses from the author.
On an academic/theoretical level, I am 110% in agreement with you. Hell, I have even come across a few feminist studies papers which have directly addressed the problem of sex differences, which is definitely refreshing. However, I feel like identifying as such a feminist would still get you in hot water in a lot of liberal and progressive environments. While I think we are past 'peak-woke', I still feel we are more woke than when Jamed Damore got fired for his memo. As liberals keep stacking up W's and progressives keep taking L's, I think this could change. However, until things get better, I'd have to keep all of these opinions to myself in order to make sure I don't get myself in trouble.
One thing to note is that I do exist within a more progressive bubble than 95% of people, so my perspective is definitely going to be biased by that.
Totally get that need to keep opinions to yourself - I’d say I exist in a liberal mini bubble within a larger progressive bubble, but also that I get a little more leeway to discuss this stuff as a woman
On the two points that you claim justify a "feminist" movement:
1. The ability for women (especially non-conforming) to choose a different path: Western liberal systems are already at the point where freedom of choice for such women is maximized (outside some religious communities perhaps). This is still absolutely a worthy cause to rally around, but not in the western world.
2. To politically represent women who are likely to be politically under-represented: There are two specific problems with this argument. One is that while theoretically, you could have a feminist movement full of disagreeable, high achieving women that are democratically representing the interests of women at large, this is currently as far from reality as one can get. I'm also sceptical that in the western context, the average woman's interests are better politically represented by women who don't look, feel or act like them as opposed to men in their lives. More importantly, it doesn't seem like we're at risk of having fewer women join economic or political life every year. It's not a trend that seems to warrant pushing against. If anything, your earlier posts seem to suggest that on the margin, women should be more, not less, willing to prioritize feminine values and families. If that's the world we live in, why do we need a movement that has other women advocate for women who don't seem to share their values or goals?
In practise, in order to speak to the woman that is likely to be underrepresented in public life, "feminism" is a bad umbrella to rally under. Most conservative women I've met don't associate the feminist movement, as it stands currently, with anything positive. Given that, it's unclear why this form of identity politics needs to continue under this banner. Why not strategically form alliances with groups of men and women on specific issues? Not everything warrants a mass movement...
1. I’m not saying that western liberal systems aren’t doing enough to provide choice for women right now. I’m saying that these freedoms for women were attained in part thanks to previous feminist activism and that one of the benefits of maintaining a feminist movement is to protect those gains.
2. Yes, as I’ve said before, I agree that mainstream contemporary feminism doesn’t do a good job of representing the goals of “typical” women. I think this is the result of a self selection effect, part of which is unavoidable since movement leaders of any type need to be more disagreeable and aggressive than average. But the other part of the self selection effect has more to do with social dynamics and what’s rewarded within the movement which does have the potential to change. There was a shift in later second wave feminism away from representing the concerns of wives and mothers and towards representing the concerns of gender non-conforming women. As I’ve said I think both projects are important but we’ve been failing on the former. This is why we’re seeing women like Louise Perry, who I mentioned, rising in popularity. She’s one of others who are trying to fill that gap. And she talks about herself as being generally gender conforming apart from being highly disagreeable. I don’t come to the same conclusions as she does in many cases but I think what she’s trying to do is generally right.
This isn’t to say that I think we need more women to get into the workforce, I’m saying that we want a movement to argue for things like the value of domestic work and child care, and to represent the needs of the people (mostly women) who do that work.
Sure, you may be right that the word feminism has become so off putting to my potential allies that it’s not worth keeping. This is something I’ve thought about but given how basic the male/female roles are to our society (and all societies) I think it does make sense to have some organization around that pole.
Not to get too meta, but I think this disagreement gets back to Caplan's method of defining feminism. The movement you describe has very little in common with contemporary feminism (in the West at least), and I'm not convinced that calling it feminism will help.
On the merits of your argument:
1. "Protecting those gains": do you believe there's a reasonable possibility of women being banned or coerced away from male-dominated roles? I think that's a necessary assumption for your argument.
2. Once in the political realm, definitions become more important. By advocating for feminism, I think you make these goals less likely. Calling yourself anti-feminist is probably a better choice!
Status is a zero sum game. You can’t elevate the status of motherhood and families without relatively taking status away from career oriented women. In so far as this project is sincerely about doing that, that seems diametrically opposed to what most people who call themselves feminists are doing now.
Agreed
Whenever I hear the words - "the value of domestic work and child care" I think of two things. My involvement with the care of our three children (doing every job their mother did for them) AND the unpaid labor or domestic work of: fixing three cars, reroofing, plumbing, carpentry, laying carpet, electrical, air conditioning installation, no to mention delivering our youngest, I think that all things considered the work was equally divided but the monetary value would be heavily weighted towards my jobs. Don't believe me? Do a cost estimate for carpenter, plumber, electrician , car mechanic or obstetrician.
If there is really a problem, learn to fix cars
Did you also get pregnant and give birth? But jokes aside, you may be doing more than your share in your relationship but not sure how it’s relevant to cultural norms and the value of domestic work in general-surely you’re aware that women continue to do more domestic work on average than men while men continue to work more outside of the home.
I don't disagree in principle with anything above, the problem I have is calling these beliefs 'feminist'. At the end of the day, I just don't think it is possible to reclaim that word, let alone use it to describe a movement whose foundational belief is the importance of innate psychological sex differences. When I'm in polite society, I pretend to be a blank-slatest, evopsych truther like all the other good libs. If I said "Sex differences are real, they impact men and women's brains, and you should acknowledge that if you are a feminist" wouldn't just have me branded as a sexist, but as an utterly insane one at that.
Thanks for the comment David. I've been having this exact debate with my boyfriend for several months lol. Perhaps I'll change my mind eventually, but as of now I still disagree. While I acknowledge that mainstream contemporary feminists (and liberals in general) avoid admitting to any psychological sex differences and would reject me from their movement I'm far from alone in thinking that sex differences are relevant to feminism. In addition to the trad/reactionary feminists of today, who I have many disagreements with, I'd name Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia and basically all TERFs. And while first wave feminists certainly thought that some sex differences were socially constructed (which they were, at least back then), I view their fight as focused on liberty rather than equality. And so, I see my views as in line with long-running strains of feminist thought and with many recent and contemporary public thinkers who also view themselves as feminists.
First off, thanks for the reply! It is always cool to get responses from the author.
On an academic/theoretical level, I am 110% in agreement with you. Hell, I have even come across a few feminist studies papers which have directly addressed the problem of sex differences, which is definitely refreshing. However, I feel like identifying as such a feminist would still get you in hot water in a lot of liberal and progressive environments. While I think we are past 'peak-woke', I still feel we are more woke than when Jamed Damore got fired for his memo. As liberals keep stacking up W's and progressives keep taking L's, I think this could change. However, until things get better, I'd have to keep all of these opinions to myself in order to make sure I don't get myself in trouble.
One thing to note is that I do exist within a more progressive bubble than 95% of people, so my perspective is definitely going to be biased by that.
Totally get that need to keep opinions to yourself - I’d say I exist in a liberal mini bubble within a larger progressive bubble, but also that I get a little more leeway to discuss this stuff as a woman