Denise: Is it still useful to call oneself a feminist even in the broadest definition of the term? It seems that it may only ever set up women in opposition to their family and children, as being a member of a family requires sacrifices to be made by every member and when we champion women's wants and needs they inevitably clash with others wants and needs (particularly those of the child). Could it be more useful to be something like a "familyist" where we balance everybody's needs in context, build in the assumption of duty to one another and not champion individualism?
Thank you for posting this, and I agree completely with every word. I am absolutely 100% not prepared to say women do not need any kind of woman-specific advocacy or voice -- that our political interests as women are meaningless and should just be folded up under something like "family issues." That would be a great way to ensure women's viewpoints are totally marginalized. I also don't like the implication that women and children have *the same* interests and should be lumped together in such a way. That's a great way to ensure we are not taken seriously at all.
One other thing that strikes me is how terms like "familyism" simply just attempt to de-sex our lives in the same way that a lot of trans activists advocate for. For example, I am interested in attending a seminar on (stregnth) training and the menstrual cycle, and there has been some pushback as apparently it should be called "training and the hormonal cycle" to be more inclusive. Same with language around "pregnant people" 'bleeders', "people with front holes", "mensturators", "chest feeding" instead of "breast feeding" etc. There seems to be a huge push to pretend that our bodies and some of our interests aren't sexed. But we aren't just gender neutral people with gender neutral hormonal cycles. The menstrual cycle is specific to female bodies and it's important we can train around this specific cycle without getting lost in some generic hormone blob.
I fear some kind of sex neutral term like "familyism" will just paper over important sex differences. Yes, there should be a general sympathy for family friendly policies. But within that, in some instances, women may have specific needs or concerns, or they may have concerns that aren't strictly about "family", but could be related, like domestic violence and rape shelters, etc. some things stem from just our physiology, the fact that we're smaller and weaker, and the ones who get pregnant. The sex specifity of it matters.
To be clear, I think feminism should or could always be a negotiation with male interests and also don't need to override the interests of children. Louise has spoken before about how "reactionary feminism" also takes masculinity seriously. I also support male only spaces. I think there should be specific male mentoring relationships, men showing men the ropes, specific things on fatherhood, etc. So yes, we should talk generally about what is best for family formation, family units, how to beat support families, etc but there will also be specific sex interests that shouldn't get lost in the gender neutral soup that we are also expected to swim in these days.
Wise words, and I completely understand the reasoning. Women need women-specific advocacy for sure; the issues that you mention such as domestic violence are important to address. The issue, however, is precisely with the "my feminism" area of this. It seems that essentially anyone who wishes to advocate for women (some only for the women they like, but not others) calls themselves "feminist", which muddies the waters and nobody really knows anymore what the term actually means and what is talked about. There is just too many feminisms - and indeed some are outright "anti-men" and some are of your own ilk, which address the issues women face without generalising to "all men".
There is also this idea - my own wife's opinion, by the way - that "feminism" is not the same as being for "women's rights".
Personally, I think that a new term is required that would identify and clarify the way of thinking / advocating for women, which is pro-family, pro-mother, pro-father, chivalry-accepting, not adversarial, constructive, balanced and careful with messing with massive social structures - a term that would separate the Louises of this world from the more reactionary and "freedom/consent-only" feminists.
Thanks for such a thoughtful answer Louise. It's the reason I subscribe and pay for your podcast.
I find some other conservative-leaning or anti feminist campaigners incredibly naive and dismissive about what the world looks like in other cultures without some of the specific feminist causes / victories that we take for granted in the UK and other Western countries, without reliable hormonal birth control, and without some way of women being able to contribute economically to a household. (Yes, I see raising the children and keeping the home as both an economic contribution and a major physical / care contribution to household, but you can't put that into your bank account in the same way if your husband, God forbid, ends up abusing you). It's refreshing to hear someone who can articulate the risks of all out sexual liberalism without throwing some of important feminist babies out with the bathwater.
Great answer to tough question. From your response it seems that the issue is that the strand of feminism that you explained has to have another name. Feminism as a word is too loaded and not ceding it could be a problem given that most people wince at the mention of it given the dominant hijacked strands
I disagree. I think the thing to do is to is reclaim the term or present as a different flavor of feminism. Any other term either sounds silly (womanism for example) or risks doing what the writer suggests and sublimating women’s political advocacy into some weird lump where we will turn up last in our own movement, and which I personally couldn’t abide.
Thank you for posting this, and I agree completely with every word. I am absolutely 100% not prepared to say women do not need any kind of woman-specific advocacy or voice -- that our political interests as women are meaningless and should just be folded up under something like "family issues." That would be a great way to ensure women's viewpoints are totally marginalized. I also don't like the implication that women and children have *the same* interests and should be lumped together in such a way. That's a great way to ensure we are not taken seriously at all.
The word feminism has acquired a lot of bad connotations but female-specific advocacy will always be necessary regardless of what it's called.
I would also say this is a definition of feminism fewer men can disagree with, while also keeping to a code of gentlemanly chivalrous honour.
Well said! Love your clarity of thought - what a breath of fresh air.
One other thing that strikes me is how terms like "familyism" simply just attempt to de-sex our lives in the same way that a lot of trans activists advocate for. For example, I am interested in attending a seminar on (stregnth) training and the menstrual cycle, and there has been some pushback as apparently it should be called "training and the hormonal cycle" to be more inclusive. Same with language around "pregnant people" 'bleeders', "people with front holes", "mensturators", "chest feeding" instead of "breast feeding" etc. There seems to be a huge push to pretend that our bodies and some of our interests aren't sexed. But we aren't just gender neutral people with gender neutral hormonal cycles. The menstrual cycle is specific to female bodies and it's important we can train around this specific cycle without getting lost in some generic hormone blob.
I fear some kind of sex neutral term like "familyism" will just paper over important sex differences. Yes, there should be a general sympathy for family friendly policies. But within that, in some instances, women may have specific needs or concerns, or they may have concerns that aren't strictly about "family", but could be related, like domestic violence and rape shelters, etc. some things stem from just our physiology, the fact that we're smaller and weaker, and the ones who get pregnant. The sex specifity of it matters.
To be clear, I think feminism should or could always be a negotiation with male interests and also don't need to override the interests of children. Louise has spoken before about how "reactionary feminism" also takes masculinity seriously. I also support male only spaces. I think there should be specific male mentoring relationships, men showing men the ropes, specific things on fatherhood, etc. So yes, we should talk generally about what is best for family formation, family units, how to beat support families, etc but there will also be specific sex interests that shouldn't get lost in the gender neutral soup that we are also expected to swim in these days.
Wise words, and I completely understand the reasoning. Women need women-specific advocacy for sure; the issues that you mention such as domestic violence are important to address. The issue, however, is precisely with the "my feminism" area of this. It seems that essentially anyone who wishes to advocate for women (some only for the women they like, but not others) calls themselves "feminist", which muddies the waters and nobody really knows anymore what the term actually means and what is talked about. There is just too many feminisms - and indeed some are outright "anti-men" and some are of your own ilk, which address the issues women face without generalising to "all men".
There is also this idea - my own wife's opinion, by the way - that "feminism" is not the same as being for "women's rights".
Personally, I think that a new term is required that would identify and clarify the way of thinking / advocating for women, which is pro-family, pro-mother, pro-father, chivalry-accepting, not adversarial, constructive, balanced and careful with messing with massive social structures - a term that would separate the Louises of this world from the more reactionary and "freedom/consent-only" feminists.
Thanks for such a thoughtful answer Louise. It's the reason I subscribe and pay for your podcast.
I find some other conservative-leaning or anti feminist campaigners incredibly naive and dismissive about what the world looks like in other cultures without some of the specific feminist causes / victories that we take for granted in the UK and other Western countries, without reliable hormonal birth control, and without some way of women being able to contribute economically to a household. (Yes, I see raising the children and keeping the home as both an economic contribution and a major physical / care contribution to household, but you can't put that into your bank account in the same way if your husband, God forbid, ends up abusing you). It's refreshing to hear someone who can articulate the risks of all out sexual liberalism without throwing some of important feminist babies out with the bathwater.
Great answer to tough question. From your response it seems that the issue is that the strand of feminism that you explained has to have another name. Feminism as a word is too loaded and not ceding it could be a problem given that most people wince at the mention of it given the dominant hijacked strands
I disagree. I think the thing to do is to is reclaim the term or present as a different flavor of feminism. Any other term either sounds silly (womanism for example) or risks doing what the writer suggests and sublimating women’s political advocacy into some weird lump where we will turn up last in our own movement, and which I personally couldn’t abide.
You're my favourite feminist, Aunty Louise.
❤️