June 20, 2023

"For more than a decade, the dominant form of American feminism has maintained that differences between the sexes—whether in libido, crime rates, or even athletic performance..."

"... largely result from female socialization. Anything else is biological essentialism. The feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon recently declared that she did not want to be part of 'a movement for female body parts … Women are not, in fact, subordinated or oppressed by our bodies. We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries.'..."
The reactionary feminists have no patience for this line of argument. In her new book, Feminism Against Progress, [Mary] Harrington writes... 'Realizing my body isn’t something I’m in but something I am is the heart of the case for reactionary feminism'... 
In her advocacy for marriage and opposition to the birth-control pill, Harrington finds fans among religious conservatives. In her opposition to commercial surrogacy, the sex trade, and gender self-identification, she is aligned with radical feminists. And in her language and arguments, you can see the influence of internet micro-celebrities such as the pseudonymous author Bronze Age Pervert, whose self-published manifesto warned that modern society was replacing masculine strength with phalanxes of weedy “bugmen.” (His book became briefly popular with junior staffers in the Trump administration.)... 
Harrington sees trans medical care, too, as unhappily consumerist—an empowerment movement acting as a sales rep for Big Pharma. She also believes that feminists who advocate for government-supported day care—downplaying the importance of maternal attachment to small babies, in her view—are useful idiots for corporations who want women back at their desks. 
“There are a great many conservatives who haven’t noticed quite how much Marxism I’ve smuggled in,” Harrington says. “Don’t put that in The Atlantic.” Then she relents: Reactionary feminism was coined half as a joke—turning an insult into a badge of honor—and half as a “signal scrambler.” If it isn’t provoking you, then it hasn’t worked.

51 comments:

Gahrie said...

Women are not, in fact, subordinated or oppressed by our bodies. We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries.'...

This is in fact true. However the problem is, women are trying to be men, increasingly quite literally. The answer is to stop trying to be men, and instead concentrate on being the best woman you can be.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Harrington sees trans medical care, too, as unhappily consumerist—an empowerment movement acting as a sales rep for Big Pharma.

And Big Medicine. There's a lot of doctors making a lot of money off of that

She also believes that feminists who advocate for government-supported day care—downplaying the importance of maternal attachment to small babies, in her view—are useful idiots for corporations who want women back at their desks.

Yep, and gov't thugs who want to charge income tax on all those moms, and all those child care workers

tommyesq said...

Harrington sees trans medical care, too, as unhappily consumerist—an empowerment movement acting as a sales rep for Big Pharma.

I think the author (Lewis, not Harrington) has this backwards - trans medical care is a sales/marketing service for big pharma disguised as an empowerment movement.

Sebastian said...

"the dominant form of American feminism has maintained that differences between the sexes—whether in libido, crime rates, or even athletic performance... largely result from female socialization"

Has it? The dominant form maintained that some differences were due to socialization and oppression--particular unequal opportunities and rewards. It also argued that women are special--in need of special consideration in the courts and on abortion, to be valued for their special experience and outlook etc. ("difference feminism" celebrated difference). I may have missed relevant feminist literature on the topics, but I have never heard any feminist argue that crime and athletic differences are due to socialization.

rhhardin said...

I'd go for brain differences more than body differences.

Enigma said...

I'm always dumbfounded by the ideological dogma of 'anti-biological essentialism' feminism. It is extremely easy to spot masculine versus feminine behaviors in toddlers and kittens and puppies. Humans are first and foremost animals and apes. Our behaviors closely follow other mammal and ape behaviors, even down to predictable leadership/submission roles linked to physical size and strength differences.

Female baby humans, kittens, and puppies continue to behave as female mammals. You need air, you need water, you must respect gravity, and you must respect evolution. Traditional sex roles have been sustainable throughout the history of biological sex. Feminist dreams and fashions change every 10 or 20 years, they routinely end in failure, and they rotate around the ideological clock. All the while, anti-feminist females don't get bogged down in ideology and just live by what comes naturally.

Excessive self-consciousness and anxiety will destroy anyone.

Tom T. said...

"We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries..."

Wait, what? Then what was Roe v Wade and fifty years of abortion law all about?

Gator said...

There has never been a more privileged person than a Western Caucasian woman. Their sense of entitlement could be very problematic for the US

tim in vermont said...

The idea that the same hormones and chromosomes that produce undeniable dimorphism physically can not affect the brain, as a matter of faith, is kind of ridiculous.

They are just gaslighting us. It's Fifth Generation Warfare on the American public, designed to dispirit us and to render us resigned and compliant because it's just too much to argue with all of their B.S.

BarrySanders20 said...

"An emerging strand of feminism zeroes in on the differences between male and female bodies"

Took them long enough. It's not rocket surgery.

Jupiter said...

The "dominant form of American feminism". What do you suppose that means? The form practiced by a majority of American feminists?

Indigo Red said...

The Today Show (NBC) this morning demonstrated the perfect male/female test -- office temperature. Women are too cold and men are too hot. When I was working in quality control, two offices, one of male engineers and the other of female accountants, were always complaining about the temperature controlled by the same thermostat. It was constantly being adjusted up and down which caused strife between the two groups. I went to the women telling them I had raised the temp. Then I went to the men telling them I had lowered the temp. At the end of the week, I asked both groups if the temp was good and they all said it was good and the problem was solved. I had. in fact, not changed the setting at all. Merely the idea that demands had been met was enough to satisfy those involved.

My name goes here. said...

"Liberated from our ovaries", that is funny. I am a dude and even I ran into articles growing up (from Cosmo? I don't know) that would have some woman lamenting the fact that she felt a huge urge to get all of her hair cut short and did it and then the next day have her period start and find out that she hated her new cut.

Kai Akker said...

"These are heretical thoughts."

To people who haven't done much thinking for two generations.

Aggie said...

"An emerging strand of feminism zeroes in on the differences between male and female bodies"

And as Pepé le Pew once famously said - before he was cancelled - "Vive la différence !"

Can the return of romance be far behind?

Rockeye said...

Testosterone is a banned drug in sports competition: performance-enhancing is the term. It's given to treat low libido.

madAsHell said...

Even common sense has to be dressed up in feminist anger, otherwise it's not newspaper worthy!!

madAsHell said...

And as Pepé le Pew once famously said......

My daughter recently married a Parisian. She was surprised to learn that in Paris, Pepe le Pew is NOT a French man. He's an Italian!!

madAsHell said...

The Atlantic seems to be a neurotic nuthouse!!

Validate your neurosis in a national publication!!

pious agnostic said...

(His book became briefly popular with junior staffers in the Trump administration.)

Gotta get his name in there somewhere. What a disqualifying parenthetical!

rhhardin said...

THe chief difference of men and women is voting idiocy.

Rabel said...

"the dominant form of American feminism"

It's a tough call. The Lesbian bondage stuff is occasionally interesting and the whips really don't hurt as much as you might think but I just have to draw the line at pegging.

However, nothing ventured, nothing gained, and if it's on video you'll pick up a lot of street cred in this New America.

Kai Akker said...

---Can the return of romance be far behind?

Gloves. The answer is gloves. Women in gloves make romance, well, not always easy, but very much worthwhile.

Rocco said...

“There are a great many conservatives who haven’t noticed quite how much Marxism I’ve smuggled in,” Harrington says.

Or conservatism is steadily creeping into her Marxism.

JAORE said...

Reactionary feminist: Damn it. Maybe my lyin' eyes were right after all.

Wince said...

Greater Male Variability Hypothesis – the idea that men are more variable than women on a variety of abilities, interests, and personality traits – and the possibility that males are overrepresented in the upper and lower tails of such distributions. This hypothesis was first proposed by Ellis over 100 years ago, in 1894. It is also the hypothesis that Lawrence Summers was referring to in 2005 when, at the National Bureau of Economic Research Conference, he weighed in on the gender gap in STEM professions. Like Damore’s memo, Summers’ comments spurred controversy.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/the-greater-male-variability-hypothesis/

Mikey NTH said...

Thry better focus on the differences between men's bodies and women's bodies or the trans women are going to elbow them out of the way.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Althouse's theme today seems to be that America is a country of delusional dumbasses. Well, half of America, anyway.

Divide it on whatever lines you like.

cassandra lite said...

“'Reactionary feminism'—the name was popularized by the British writer Mary Harrington—rests on a premise that sounds far more radical today than it once did: Men and women are different."

It doesn't now sound radical, nor has it ever. Which is why I stopped reading the article at that sentence. Any writer who'd purvey that nonsensical denial of reality isn't going to be putting words on the page that will inform or persuade me.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

The only thing I've ever understood about women was their pronouns.

Bender said...

Catharine MacKinnon, the self-hating, woman-hating feminist.

Bender said...

If there is anything that radical feminists hate more that misogyny, it is the one thing that is unique to woman - what differentiates women from men and makes her a woman - a woman's natural fertility and ability to conceive and bear children. It is something to be despised and suppressed.

Lawrence Person said...

What don't we call this "Reality-Based Feminism."

Which makes it different from all the other kinds.

There are two biological sexes.

If you have XX chromosomes, you are female.

If you have XY chromosomes, you are male.

Everything else is genetic abnormality or sophistry.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Girls Just Wanna Have Fu-un...

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/06/20/kids-drugs-6-drag-queens-sex-toys-a-dead-body-a-story-sure-to-be-memory-holed-n559272

gilbar said...

How, On EARTH, could "biological" differences cause ANY distinction between a man and a woman?
a Woman is oppressed, and KEPT DOWN.. BECAUSE she is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman is someone that identifies as a woman...

Earnest Prole said...

No biological differences between the sexes: I'm sure the author has a sign in her front yard that reads, "In this house we believe science is real."

The woke American Left now exceeds the evolution-denying American Right in ideological dopiness.

Political Junkie said...

Hmmm...Ok.

Narayanan said...

We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries.'..."
=========
trying to figure out if that is feminist metaphysical claim of body-dysmorphism or denial of same?

so which is it?

Anna Keppa said...

Bender said...
Catharine MacKinnon, the self-hating, woman-hating feminist.
--

An equal-opportunity hater, she despises men as well.

MacKinnon was engaged to one Jeffrey Masson, a would-be psychoanalyst who attacked Freud's theory of seduction, for which crime he was mercilessly cancelled and de-platformed by Big Therapy.

It is rumored the couple broke up after an ugly incident where MacKinnon tried to bite Masson's head off during sex.

wildswan said...

Women have the basic mammalian female body plan. They have a womb in which protected place a baby mammal forms its complete body with all its organs. And female mammals have breasts which are an organic part of the female mammalian system so that when a baby mammal is born, the female body creates milk and supplies it to the breasts at that time. This is managed through a system of hormonal signals whose structure is part of the female mammalian body plan. This whole body plan is common to all female mammals from chipmunks to cats and dogs to bears, cheetahs, dolphins and lions to women. It is absent in all male mammals from chipmunks to cats and dogs to bears, cheetahs, dolphins and lions to men. The female mammalian body plan is an organic system, that is a system in which the different organs work together to achieve a single goal as, in this case, protecting a baby while it forms its own body and nourishing it after it is born. Every cell in a woman's body knows what organ it is in and what its part is in that organ and thereby what its part is in the organism as a whole. It follows that when men try to be women they can only achieve a superficial "look," and to achieve that they have to suppress with drugs for the rest of their lives the organic action of all the cells in their body and substitute for it an engineered inorganic diversion. These men made for themselves a male body in the womb and every cell in their never ceases thereafter to strive to carry out its organic function in a male mammalian body.
But what if a man does not want to be like other men in his society? He could try to make society a little more flexible. This will never be easy but social reform has happened whereas no one with the male mammalian body plan has ever become a woman by using surgery and hormones to mimic an external shape. And it will never happen. That female mammalian shape is a form following a function and unless your external form rests on and is carried by the body plan designed to carry out the function, you're not an organic woman.

Gator said...

I had a roommate that is female and still a good friend. Women are hormonal and when they go through peri menopause or menopause lose it mentally and emotionally. My friend confirmed that.

Sean said...

Thank goodness I am a man and don't have to be linked to such sophistry.

dbp said...

""the dominant form of American feminism has maintained that differences between the sexes—whether in libido, crime rates, or even athletic performance... largely result from female socialization""

I don't know about "dominant" but I've certainly met feminists who claimed and seemed to believe, that the only reason men were stronger was due to socialization. One such was a man who was a post doc in our lab. I guess this was a classic case of a really smart person who had somehow managed to ignore massive evidence to the contrary of his ideological conclusion.

In any case, if some feminists, who in the past, rejected objective reality are now in favor of recognizing reality, that seems like, progress.

Tina Trent said...

I can't see past that evil capitalist paywall, but this is probably one of the least controversial things Catharine MacKinnon has said in decades.

So why does book author Mary Harrington have to salt the earth of her newborn cognition of utterly normal and dominant views of women with antagonistic terms such as "reactionary," and references to Bronze Age Pervert?

Is she just one more in a long line of feminist authors who struggles against the truth that contemporary feminism is not only as much a cynical and incoherent mess as BLM and the new T-first GLBT movements, but also their subservient handmaiden? Or is she sincerely trying to move beyond the unhinged, anti-woman, gender vanguard?

I'm with Rocco: her snark about "sneaking in" Marxism at least exposes her as being unaware of the presumptions she's making about the people creating these political and economic realignments and realities.

I doubt I'm the audience for this book. Maybe in the Marxist utopia of no paywalls, I would read it. Maybe she can fool Rod Dreher. But she's apparently demanding capitalist recompense for her sneaky Marxist labor, so no dice. I don't need to pay to be insulted by the latest warmed-over apostate who wants it both ways.

MayBee said...

Excellent, wildswan.

Roger Sweeny said...

It is no doubt unfair to say that modern feminism has been motivated by the idea that since males oppress women, what men have must be better, and so women should be as much like men as possible (e.g., career-oriented, enjoying consequence-free sex). But it would explain a lot :)

Two interesting books arguing against that idea are Joyce Benenson's Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes (Oxford, 2014) and Louise Perry's recent The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. I have been surprised by the amount of respectful response there has been to the latter.

SGT Ted said...

“There are a great many conservatives who haven’t noticed quite how much Marxism I’ve smuggled in,” Harrington says.

She does not realize that Marxism is at the center of what she is opposing. But that is typical of the reactionary feminist critiques.

The reactionary or gender critical feminists blame capitalism and patriarchy for the decidedly neo-Marxist identity politics theories that gender and biology are western constructs designed to oppress peoples sexuality. and that casting them off is liberation. IF you can't accurately identify the problem, you won't be able to solve it.

I suppose that what we are witnessing is akin to the infighting of the early 20th century socialist movements. They are all inherently wrong at their core.

Michael K said...

pious agnostic said...

(His book became briefly popular with junior staffers in the Trump administration.)

Gotta get his name in there somewhere. What a disqualifying parenthetical!


No, it's the only way to get this nonsense published in a leftist publication.

Greg Toombs said...

The AMA has endorsed surgical sex changes and subsequent (lifetime) treatment thus, er, transforming into the American Mutilation Association.

cfs said...

"Emerging"? Is this writer a newly credentialed 24 year-old journalist?

Josephbleau said...

“trying to figure out if that is feminist metaphysical claim of body-dysmorphism or denial of same?”

Yes, the coochie in the machine. Well developed philosophy. Or is it the self identifying ghost in the fungible coochie/dong. Ninth wave feminism, Rage against the coochie.