The title made me fear you were going to alienate some sister radfems with this piece, and perhaps it will. But your argument is so compelling to me that I cannot imagine what an effective counter would be. I think you have shown what you set out to show: “it doesn't work”, and “there isn’t any future devoid of sex-associated sociocultural meanings, generally.”
One of my favorite passages:
“To be clear: I’m not denying the cultural diversity of such experiences across time and place – in fact my point depends on it. I’m saying, rather, that to think that as a species we could voluntarily stop the spontaneous production of sex-specific social norms around such fundamental events and experiences - let alone stop the infusion of these events with sex-associated meanings of any kind - is to fantasise a version of ourselves with far more conscious control than humans actually have. It’s inconceivable that such a scenario could ever be implemented without massive and organised coercion by the state, and even then I don’t think it’s possible.”
In addition to Mao, I think Stalinist Russia instituted some unhelpful ‘gender abolition’ also. Perhaps the Left is prone to social engineering societies in an attempt to liberate us all. It’s like destroying the village in order to save it.
Big ideas have their place. But shadow boxing with vast elusive generalizations like patriarchy or heteronormativity or even ‘whiteness’ seems inherently fruitless, frustrating, and maddening. I do not like movements that rely on shaming vast swaths of the population based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.
I would much rather we take up defensible achievable goals. Radfems have made very good progress that way in the past. The difficult ongoing work is to identify specific changes we want and press a case for such.
I hope the Queer/TRA ‘biology abolition’ movement will ultimately collapse of it’s own weight, albeit with a huge number of casualties along the way. You would know.
I eagerly look forward to what more you will offer us in the year ahead. I am glad you are free to do this work. Much respect and best regards. Thank you.
Hi Kathleen, my heart goes out to you for the suffering you have experienced recently from the brutalities metered out against you. On top of this you must wake up every morning feeling it is 'groundhog day' having to argue things that you must have hoped would have been accepted as common wisdom decades ago but you still have to make the case for. Everything you write in your essay makes sense to me and would have done so 40 years ago when I was a young man. I like to think that most men and women 'on the clapham omnibus' would agree with what you write and I hope this is both a consolation and an inpiration. Keep up the good fight - we need you now more than ever.
Personally, my main objection to radical feminism is the notion of 'the patriarchy'. The r-f patriarchy is invisible, tasteless, you cannot smell it, touch it, adequately describe it. Because it is amorphous and untouchable, it is also indestructible. It doesn't matter how much is achieved in the field of women's rights, the patriarchy will still be there. There are patriarchies in the world, many of them, which can be observed and described; the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan,, for example, where women are prohibited from education, or driving. British society certainly used to be patriarchal and had remnants of that patriarchal system hanging around for a long time - the right of a man to rape his wife was only abolished in the 1990s (I think). But 'the patriarchy'? I prefer an adversary I can see.
I too have some doubts about the way the idea of patriarchy is often framed - it often sounds like an unverifiable hypothesis, as you say - I'm mulling and may write them down here sometime.
Yes indeed. The concept of "the patriarchy" seems to me to bypass nature. Which doesn't work for me. It's an easy stick to batter blokes with though, but for me, an instant turn off. I walk away.
Though the "The Patriarchy" (!!11!!🙄 ) does seem rather like Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": a reification, an abstraction, an "emergent property" rather than a real entity - which many seem to think it qualifies as:
"The invisible hand is an economic concept that describes the unintended greater social benefits and public good brought about by individuals acting in their own self-interests. ....
Interpretations of the term have been generalized beyond the usage by Smith and some academic sources claim that the modern understanding of the concept was invented much more recently by Paul Samuelson to back up spontaneous [emergent] order."
I've certainly never received any invitations to any of their general meetings, much less to their inner sanctums ...
But misunderstanding the nature of the beast isn't likely to lead to much success at attentuating or rectifying any of the "crimes" perpetrated by individuals who contribute to the apparent phenomenon.
For fairly obvious reasons, I've not kept up especially closely with how the tribes have divided (and torn at each other's throats) in the past, say, 10-15 years, but is it really the case that only radical feminists are the ones now saying the sorts of things you point out in your opening paragraphs? Only I was teaching my third year module on liberalism the other week, and we do a week on 'Liberalism and Feminism', and all the stuff you mention is *exactly* what Okin and Nussbaum were saying needed to be prioritised, back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. And I still think that their argument - given the facts of the real world, if you are a consistent liberal, you better be a feminist, and vice versa - is extremely persuasive now as it was then. If saying these things has become the preserve of only 'radical'* feminists...then god, things are even worse than I realised.
*though as I teach my students: this is a dumb label, because *all* feminism is radical, given the world we live in
You're right to imply that I'm playing a bit fast and loose with academic liberal feminism, though I'm deliberately not really talking about academics, or even to them (apart from you!). The populist version of the libfem doesn't read Nussbaum or Okin though -she's more like Emma Watson and it's all about "choice" - and these days it seems to me that the ideal of popular liberalism/ liberal feminism has no ability to talk about the political importance of biology - or of the problems with e.g. practices that harm the body - because it has no underlying account of objective well-being or harm that could support it. It collapses into "if you consent and really want it, it's ok".
Right, I’m on the same (up to date) page now - yes I can see why what now passes for liberal feminism is only inadequately the former and probably not worthy of the name in the latter. Thanks
p.s. you probably already know it, but Clare Chambers' book Sex, Culture and Justice is really good on how liberal feminists need to take on board the point about choice being socially constructed (through socially-inherited norms) and why they therefore need a much more critical view of the construction of agency vis-a-vis the female subject. Personally I think it's a critique liberalism needs to take on board, and that sensible liberal outlooks can indeed do so (so much the worse for the less sensible ones), though I think Clare herself is a bit more sceptical about liberal feminism's viability than I am.
You hint at, but do not engage with, the biological basis for many sex-based social norms. Women do most of the nurturing for the young because they produce hormones that foster nurturing behavior. And this has --to most of us--obvious survival benefits. Men are physically more aggressive (and physiologically stronger/more powerful) because of testosterone--and this has very obvious survival advantages.
What is important to remember about this is that survival in the biological sense is all about an individual's genes--not primarily the group. A woman is more likely to care for her own young--and a man for his progeny--than non-related young. A tribe is cohesive in large part because the individuals tend to be genetically related.
The idea that norms are all socially constructed fails to grapple with the reality that many norms are physiologically derived. This is why so many norms ARE consistent across millennia and cultures. They really differ only at the margins.
Here is one example with a parallel in non-human primates: male chimps will slaughter the young of other male chimps--individual genetic preferencing; and when one troop of chimps conquers another, the victors will slaughter the young and the males of the vanquished. Similarly, when a woman with children takes up with a male who is not the father of those children, that male will abuse those children with frightening regularity. He has no genetic interest in preserving them and fostering their well-being.
In fact, that most stepfathers do NOT sacrifice the offspring of their predecessors is an artificial social norm that we should celebrate. But perhaps the older social norm--based in actual biology--that women remain with the father of their children is one we should embrace.
I'm a gender abolitionist, but by this I mean eschewing the word "gender" owing to its insidious ambiguity: sex versus sex stereotype. Your essay has provided a perfect synonym for the "sex stereotype" or "sex role" meaning, namely "sex-specific social norms." In my opinion, your term is a major advance in clarity and for my "word abolition" project. Thank you.
I’m a new paid subscriber so catching up on your posts.
This really interests me on so many levels. I am not an academic despite being at university currently studying - I am a retired midwife so sex and biology are dear to my heart. I am also a Radical midwife which has a very clear understanding in my mind - I subscribe to the roots of my beloved profession and not the misogynistic version served up by modern obstetric practices. However in formulating where I stand as a feminist is much harder. I’ve never really thought about what kind of feminist I am until the whole gender ideology debate surfaced. I mostly say that I am a radfem because I know that I’m not a libfem - when asked otherwise I stick to the one size fits all ‘feminist’. But I’m comfortable stating where I stand on issues and in the world of midwifery just now it’s a terrifying hotbed of bullying - although frankly, it always has been; if not the gender issue then others. (I could comment in a sexist way about female dominant groups here - purely based on experience...) Anyway, the one thing I am certain of is that we do like in a Patriarchy in the UK (I disagree with Jane in her comment). I am about to give my first ever academic paper at a conference - and it discusses these subjects speaking only from my point of view so I feel in safe territory. At least my university accepted my paper even though I was specific in saying that I am arguing from a Radical Feminist point of view.
I’m learning so much from you Kathleen - keep writing - thank you.
Not sure I'm getting this (though a toy vet's clinic sounds amazing). So is the idea that the boy was just interested in the technical set up, and your daughter was more interested in the story of what happens there?
And yes, Ha, I see my anecdote is somewhat irrelevant to your discussion of ‘abolishing gender’ (‘gender’ as sex-specific norms of behaviour).
Re anecdote, I saw in their play something of a general difference, a sexed difference, in attention/intention, one example, perhaps, of a predictable pattern of behaviour. I often think of it. I want to show I appreciate the seriousness of what you are discussing, but this didn’t really do it!
I am trying again, now, to grasp your arguments and see what I think.
The title made me fear you were going to alienate some sister radfems with this piece, and perhaps it will. But your argument is so compelling to me that I cannot imagine what an effective counter would be. I think you have shown what you set out to show: “it doesn't work”, and “there isn’t any future devoid of sex-associated sociocultural meanings, generally.”
One of my favorite passages:
“To be clear: I’m not denying the cultural diversity of such experiences across time and place – in fact my point depends on it. I’m saying, rather, that to think that as a species we could voluntarily stop the spontaneous production of sex-specific social norms around such fundamental events and experiences - let alone stop the infusion of these events with sex-associated meanings of any kind - is to fantasise a version of ourselves with far more conscious control than humans actually have. It’s inconceivable that such a scenario could ever be implemented without massive and organised coercion by the state, and even then I don’t think it’s possible.”
In addition to Mao, I think Stalinist Russia instituted some unhelpful ‘gender abolition’ also. Perhaps the Left is prone to social engineering societies in an attempt to liberate us all. It’s like destroying the village in order to save it.
Big ideas have their place. But shadow boxing with vast elusive generalizations like patriarchy or heteronormativity or even ‘whiteness’ seems inherently fruitless, frustrating, and maddening. I do not like movements that rely on shaming vast swaths of the population based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.
I would much rather we take up defensible achievable goals. Radfems have made very good progress that way in the past. The difficult ongoing work is to identify specific changes we want and press a case for such.
I hope the Queer/TRA ‘biology abolition’ movement will ultimately collapse of it’s own weight, albeit with a huge number of casualties along the way. You would know.
I eagerly look forward to what more you will offer us in the year ahead. I am glad you are free to do this work. Much respect and best regards. Thank you.
Hi Kathleen, my heart goes out to you for the suffering you have experienced recently from the brutalities metered out against you. On top of this you must wake up every morning feeling it is 'groundhog day' having to argue things that you must have hoped would have been accepted as common wisdom decades ago but you still have to make the case for. Everything you write in your essay makes sense to me and would have done so 40 years ago when I was a young man. I like to think that most men and women 'on the clapham omnibus' would agree with what you write and I hope this is both a consolation and an inpiration. Keep up the good fight - we need you now more than ever.
Personally, my main objection to radical feminism is the notion of 'the patriarchy'. The r-f patriarchy is invisible, tasteless, you cannot smell it, touch it, adequately describe it. Because it is amorphous and untouchable, it is also indestructible. It doesn't matter how much is achieved in the field of women's rights, the patriarchy will still be there. There are patriarchies in the world, many of them, which can be observed and described; the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan,, for example, where women are prohibited from education, or driving. British society certainly used to be patriarchal and had remnants of that patriarchal system hanging around for a long time - the right of a man to rape his wife was only abolished in the 1990s (I think). But 'the patriarchy'? I prefer an adversary I can see.
I too have some doubts about the way the idea of patriarchy is often framed - it often sounds like an unverifiable hypothesis, as you say - I'm mulling and may write them down here sometime.
Yes indeed. The concept of "the patriarchy" seems to me to bypass nature. Which doesn't work for me. It's an easy stick to batter blokes with though, but for me, an instant turn off. I walk away.
Bravo; spoken like a "True Man (tm)" ... 😉
Though the "The Patriarchy" (!!11!!🙄 ) does seem rather like Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": a reification, an abstraction, an "emergent property" rather than a real entity - which many seem to think it qualifies as:
"The invisible hand is an economic concept that describes the unintended greater social benefits and public good brought about by individuals acting in their own self-interests. ....
Interpretations of the term have been generalized beyond the usage by Smith and some academic sources claim that the modern understanding of the concept was invented much more recently by Paul Samuelson to back up spontaneous [emergent] order."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
I've certainly never received any invitations to any of their general meetings, much less to their inner sanctums ...
But misunderstanding the nature of the beast isn't likely to lead to much success at attentuating or rectifying any of the "crimes" perpetrated by individuals who contribute to the apparent phenomenon.
"It’s always about the attempted production of shame."
I love when a great explainer shows me what is directly under my nose.
For fairly obvious reasons, I've not kept up especially closely with how the tribes have divided (and torn at each other's throats) in the past, say, 10-15 years, but is it really the case that only radical feminists are the ones now saying the sorts of things you point out in your opening paragraphs? Only I was teaching my third year module on liberalism the other week, and we do a week on 'Liberalism and Feminism', and all the stuff you mention is *exactly* what Okin and Nussbaum were saying needed to be prioritised, back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. And I still think that their argument - given the facts of the real world, if you are a consistent liberal, you better be a feminist, and vice versa - is extremely persuasive now as it was then. If saying these things has become the preserve of only 'radical'* feminists...then god, things are even worse than I realised.
*though as I teach my students: this is a dumb label, because *all* feminism is radical, given the world we live in
You're right to imply that I'm playing a bit fast and loose with academic liberal feminism, though I'm deliberately not really talking about academics, or even to them (apart from you!). The populist version of the libfem doesn't read Nussbaum or Okin though -she's more like Emma Watson and it's all about "choice" - and these days it seems to me that the ideal of popular liberalism/ liberal feminism has no ability to talk about the political importance of biology - or of the problems with e.g. practices that harm the body - because it has no underlying account of objective well-being or harm that could support it. It collapses into "if you consent and really want it, it's ok".
Right, I’m on the same (up to date) page now - yes I can see why what now passes for liberal feminism is only inadequately the former and probably not worthy of the name in the latter. Thanks
p.s. you probably already know it, but Clare Chambers' book Sex, Culture and Justice is really good on how liberal feminists need to take on board the point about choice being socially constructed (through socially-inherited norms) and why they therefore need a much more critical view of the construction of agency vis-a-vis the female subject. Personally I think it's a critique liberalism needs to take on board, and that sensible liberal outlooks can indeed do so (so much the worse for the less sensible ones), though I think Clare herself is a bit more sceptical about liberal feminism's viability than I am.
Yes I like that book and I want to read the new one too.
You hint at, but do not engage with, the biological basis for many sex-based social norms. Women do most of the nurturing for the young because they produce hormones that foster nurturing behavior. And this has --to most of us--obvious survival benefits. Men are physically more aggressive (and physiologically stronger/more powerful) because of testosterone--and this has very obvious survival advantages.
What is important to remember about this is that survival in the biological sense is all about an individual's genes--not primarily the group. A woman is more likely to care for her own young--and a man for his progeny--than non-related young. A tribe is cohesive in large part because the individuals tend to be genetically related.
The idea that norms are all socially constructed fails to grapple with the reality that many norms are physiologically derived. This is why so many norms ARE consistent across millennia and cultures. They really differ only at the margins.
Here is one example with a parallel in non-human primates: male chimps will slaughter the young of other male chimps--individual genetic preferencing; and when one troop of chimps conquers another, the victors will slaughter the young and the males of the vanquished. Similarly, when a woman with children takes up with a male who is not the father of those children, that male will abuse those children with frightening regularity. He has no genetic interest in preserving them and fostering their well-being.
In fact, that most stepfathers do NOT sacrifice the offspring of their predecessors is an artificial social norm that we should celebrate. But perhaps the older social norm--based in actual biology--that women remain with the father of their children is one we should embrace.
I'm a gender abolitionist, but by this I mean eschewing the word "gender" owing to its insidious ambiguity: sex versus sex stereotype. Your essay has provided a perfect synonym for the "sex stereotype" or "sex role" meaning, namely "sex-specific social norms." In my opinion, your term is a major advance in clarity and for my "word abolition" project. Thank you.
Brace!
I’m a new paid subscriber so catching up on your posts.
This really interests me on so many levels. I am not an academic despite being at university currently studying - I am a retired midwife so sex and biology are dear to my heart. I am also a Radical midwife which has a very clear understanding in my mind - I subscribe to the roots of my beloved profession and not the misogynistic version served up by modern obstetric practices. However in formulating where I stand as a feminist is much harder. I’ve never really thought about what kind of feminist I am until the whole gender ideology debate surfaced. I mostly say that I am a radfem because I know that I’m not a libfem - when asked otherwise I stick to the one size fits all ‘feminist’. But I’m comfortable stating where I stand on issues and in the world of midwifery just now it’s a terrifying hotbed of bullying - although frankly, it always has been; if not the gender issue then others. (I could comment in a sexist way about female dominant groups here - purely based on experience...) Anyway, the one thing I am certain of is that we do like in a Patriarchy in the UK (I disagree with Jane in her comment). I am about to give my first ever academic paper at a conference - and it discusses these subjects speaking only from my point of view so I feel in safe territory. At least my university accepted my paper even though I was specific in saying that I am arguing from a Radical Feminist point of view.
I’m learning so much from you Kathleen - keep writing - thank you.
Correction - ‘live’ in a Patriarchy...
Not sure I'm getting this (though a toy vet's clinic sounds amazing). So is the idea that the boy was just interested in the technical set up, and your daughter was more interested in the story of what happens there?
Thanks for your reply!
The ‘vet’s clinic’ was a super toy, yes. 🙂
And yes, Ha, I see my anecdote is somewhat irrelevant to your discussion of ‘abolishing gender’ (‘gender’ as sex-specific norms of behaviour).
Re anecdote, I saw in their play something of a general difference, a sexed difference, in attention/intention, one example, perhaps, of a predictable pattern of behaviour. I often think of it. I want to show I appreciate the seriousness of what you are discussing, but this didn’t really do it!
I am trying again, now, to grasp your arguments and see what I think.
Thanks again for your writing!