I stopped when I got to Schmitt. Schmitt gives reasons (convincing to many) for siding with the Nazis as he did. I can't be bothered finding out exactly how the current TERF-Nazi alignment fits into this, and what excuses Lawford-Smith is making for it.
Yeah it's definitely an ominous choice of sources. I suppose this is the problem with giving a 2500 word summary of a talk most of my readers will disagree with, and only then giving my criticism of it.
Does she get to the point that most of her proposed allies are homophobic as well as transphobic, and many of them would prefer that she became a tradwife.
Not really. As someone pointed out in the questions, she seems to view the right are well behaved moderates. The questioner suggested that this is maybe a fair description of the liberal party of Australia, but not of the Republicans. That seems too generous to the Liberal party to me.
Bryan Caplan posits in DeAngelis Generalized on his blog that libertarians have common cause with both left and right, and that aligning with your allies where they are strong is more efficient than other strategies:
"In Red States, push school choice (duh), tax cuts, privatization, deregulation, and tort reform. Focus on DEI abolition, rollback of persecution of fossil fuels, selling off state land, and welfare state austerity. Aggressively push user fees instead of tax cuts: “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize hobbies.” For housing, focus on slashing minimum lot sizes for single family homes rather than “market urbanism.” Rhetorically, reframe even long-standing forms of Big Government as heinously “woke.”
In Blue States, thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws, push sanctuary policies (especially non-enforcement against employers) and drug liberalization. For housing, focus on “market urbanism” — allowing more skyscrapers and multifamily, and ending parking mandates. Rhetorically, equate any form of immigration enforcement with Trump — and treat legal employment of illegal immigrants as a crucial matter of basic human rights. Try to redirect all drug enforcement to visible public abuse. Even very leftist states aren’t ready for full legalization, but once addict encampments disappear, the public will mostly stop caring.
The argument for redirecting activism to the state level has long been strong. Federal politics is at least 10x as exciting as state politics. Most Americans find state politics utterly boring. Which makes it much easier for concentrated interests — including libertarian activists — to prevail."
Feminism might take a similar approach, easier if you don't insist that it is a monolithic Left thing.
I think the most interesting feminist insight is that the root problem of many intersecting oppressions is certain interpretations of masculinity. If you read alt-righters right Walt Bismarck, they are basically saying SDO is masculinity, as they interpret it. Also not SDO the way the questionnaires try to measure that, that is pretty boring, "should some groups be below some other groups" - no, it is more like worshipping ambition in the sense of a desire for power, which comes from the aesthetic cult of strength, vitalism, of wanting to become like Napoleon or some heroic entrepreneur and thus always instinctively siding with power and so on. Structural problems do not come from personal ambition in the present, of course, but they come from personal ambitions in the past, plus their preservation comes with personally ambitious people will never listen to people who do not already have power.
Seeing interpretations of masculinity as the root cause explains capitalism (ambition), homophobia (disliking kind of weak-looking men and then painting the whole lgbtq community with that kind of brush), politican authoritarianism (loving how strong Putin looks) and so on.
fwiw Lawford-Smith covers at least some of the theories of oppression you'd listed in her previous book, Gender Critical Feminism. She does so when considering various theories of intersectional oppression as described by feminists like Kimberle Crenshaw, bell hooks and Audre Lorde (and, she's coauthored? a paper with Kate Phelan on the subject, but I haven't read that in a while so idk if they go a different route there). A general criticism by her which resonated with me is the idea that feminist orgs become stretched too thin if they are expected to also address racism, climate change, disability justice etc. Also, it seems more common to expect women's groups to advocate for other issues than it is for, say an anti-racism org or climate justice org advocate for an explicitly feminist issue such as reproductive access.
And,,, as a radical feminist Lawford-Smith would think that women's oppression has an original? cause? (I'm probably using those words wrong rip) that is separate to class-based/race-based/other forms of oppression (re marxism specifically Catherine MacKinnon and Carol Hanisch have made compelling arguments for why feminist activism should be separate from socialist activism). One gripe I have with GCF is that Lawford-Smith acknowledges that addressing sexism could have incidental benefits for effeminate men, gay people and trans people who also experience gendered forms of discrimination although if this is the case I'm not sure why patriarchy/feminism should be seen as a theory/project for women's liberation,,,, than say a theory to liberate everyone from gender norms but anyways ekdbwjshbwhbiw
I had a look at the abstract and first page of HLS's article on intersectionality but didn't read it or include it in the analysis (which is fine- one doesn't need to read everything an author has responded to- each piece needs to stand alone).
The stretched thin stuff neglects the advantage one gains from collaborating with all these other causes, that they have one's back and will also expend energy the pursuit of feminist goals. The favour is reciprocated. In my experience all organisations are expected to have clear pro-feminist agenda. I mean there's a kind of applause line where people will say "The environmental movement needs to do more about racism!", "The queer movement is not doing enough to be pro-choice!" the "Feminist movement needs to be more pro-working class!" etc. and everyone nods and says yes, yes this very true, and there is a justice to that, but overall I think everyone is gaining from working together.
Crucially, HLS isn't saying feminists should focus on their core issues, she is saying they should line up with racists, climate deniers and so on, provided they agree with her on transphobia.
Perhaps, but at that point you would be advocating for a global justice movement and the organisation would not be 'feminist' in a meaningful sense. I also think a feminist org is ill-equipped to address issues of racism, climate justice, etc. and that it would be more appropriate to delegate those matters to the relevant group than to retrofit a feminist org to fight against all forms of injustice.
In a more limited function, it would be appropriate for a feminist org to advocate for the special interests of working women, disabled women, etc. but I think Lawford-Smith is right to argue that a feminist org can only support women in their discrimination *as women*. It would be within their scope to support a black woman experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, but it is not appropriate for them support a black woman experiencing racism in the workplace (there are already organisations with an explicit focus on anti-racism and have specialised resources that could better address this form of injustice). Perhaps, as some intersectional feminists have argued there is racism within feminist orgs and this has limited their support for women of colour experiencing sexism. Stamping out racism within the organisation, then, is important, but it does not mean the organisation should be addressing anti-racism in their activism.
Also ~ I hope my earlier comment didn't seem passive aggressive. I didn't think your argument was 'deficient' for not citing Lawford-Smith's earlier work, it was just something I happened to know a little about :)
"Also, it seems more common to expect women's groups to advocate for other issues than it is for, say an anti-racism org or climate justice org advocate for an explicitly feminist issue such as reproductive access."
I disagree, at least with respect to climate issues. All sorts of progressive groups have had to deal with the implications of #MeToo. By contrast, while lots of feminists see climate justice as a feminist issue, I've never seen feminists criticised for focusing their attention on feminist issues and leaving climate to others
And it's not as though an alliance with the right is going to help here. The modern right is far more focused on culture war issues than the left. There is a right wing line on everything from superhero movies to high-protein diets
I've expanded my argument in another comment, but I agree with you that is appropriate for a feminist org to stamp out, say, racism within the org as this means they would be able tosupport more women of colour experiencing sexism. I don't think it is appropriate for a feminist org to address climate change because it doesn't affect them disproportionately because they are women. Sexism might have lead to women having lower incomes, living in houses that are less suited for a warming climate that increases the chance for extreme weather and natural disasters. A feminist org should address those structural issues that have lead to women being disproportionately affected by climate change. This does not mean they should inside use their limited resources on climate initiatives. It also seems clear to me that using resources this way is irresponsible, as they will not be helping the most women possible (the primary goal for a feminist org) because they are not helping women directly.
re the feminists working with the right, I don't think that their interest in 'culture war' issues is a deal-breaker. Heck, feminism itself has a broad scope -- you could be a cultural critic disagreeing with the portrayal of women in film and pop music or have an opinion on pro-natalism (which seems to a topic of renewed interest with the American Right), or on the limits of neoliberalism and its support for working mothers and 'trad wives'. Certain unusual strains of feminism have also advocated for things like vegetarianism and environmentalism from a feminist lens, but I find those arguments equally asinine as the carnivore diet fads/whatnot (no shade against vegetarians as I am one, just against bad theory lol).
As Bear has argued, I think there are serious strategic concerns to contend with. The Right may agree with radical/gender-critical feminists on transgender inclusion and on prostitution and pornography, however they hold opposite views on abortion and perhaps even in the funding of certain women's services (in the last federal election, a weakness in Deves' campaign I thought was the fact the Liberals did not fund women's sporting groups as much as Labor had). I would prefer if a left-aligned party supported all my policy prescriptions, as they generally support most of my views on various issues. If, however, they seem too committed to a disagreeable policy on an issue I care a lot about then I might briefly work with/support a (moderate member/faction of the) right-aligned party. If enough people switch their vote/become vocal in their disagreement alongside members of the opposing party it would encourage the left-leaning party to moderate their policies on a particular issue.
HLS does not seem to articulate any type of theory on the root of patriarchy and is unable to articulate any definition of oppression. I would say she leans more towards the essentialist brand of feminism and is more politically aligned a libertarian but she wouldn’t even know what that means.
I have found that all of her arguments begin with a presumed premise/conservative politics which she fails to ever question.
I found her book ‘gender critical feminism’ so incredibly bad that I genuinely can’t understand how it was able to get it published.
Eg. While she covers a lot of feminist theories (as if they’re cut and paste from Wikipedia) she doesn’t interrogate or articulate their logic. She criticises (not critiques) intersectionality because she clearly misunderstands or misrepresents what it is to justify racism. She doesn’t define the conceptual definitions or frameworks she’s applying. Finally, there is no logic or reasoning to how she jumps from 2wave feminist theory to GC feminism. It’s all just a given apparently.
I would say that the book itself is not read by most and it is more about giving her and the GC movement some kind of legitimacy.
It seems that being an associate professor Melbourne University means you can have an opinion in any field, especially feminism it seems that it is so undervalued.
I stopped when I got to Schmitt. Schmitt gives reasons (convincing to many) for siding with the Nazis as he did. I can't be bothered finding out exactly how the current TERF-Nazi alignment fits into this, and what excuses Lawford-Smith is making for it.
Yeah it's definitely an ominous choice of sources. I suppose this is the problem with giving a 2500 word summary of a talk most of my readers will disagree with, and only then giving my criticism of it.
Does she get to the point that most of her proposed allies are homophobic as well as transphobic, and many of them would prefer that she became a tradwife.
Not really. As someone pointed out in the questions, she seems to view the right are well behaved moderates. The questioner suggested that this is maybe a fair description of the liberal party of Australia, but not of the Republicans. That seems too generous to the Liberal party to me.
Certainly too generous to the kinds of LIberals (Deves, Bolt etc) who are likely to team up with her.
Bryan Caplan’s interview with the Lewis’s is very good—I find Caplan’s objectionable plausible https://youtu.be/fIS4UWVEuJc?si=vxrOBqvDz5_soxpJ
Bryan Caplan posits in DeAngelis Generalized on his blog that libertarians have common cause with both left and right, and that aligning with your allies where they are strong is more efficient than other strategies:
"In Red States, push school choice (duh), tax cuts, privatization, deregulation, and tort reform. Focus on DEI abolition, rollback of persecution of fossil fuels, selling off state land, and welfare state austerity. Aggressively push user fees instead of tax cuts: “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize hobbies.” For housing, focus on slashing minimum lot sizes for single family homes rather than “market urbanism.” Rhetorically, reframe even long-standing forms of Big Government as heinously “woke.”
In Blue States, thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws, push sanctuary policies (especially non-enforcement against employers) and drug liberalization. For housing, focus on “market urbanism” — allowing more skyscrapers and multifamily, and ending parking mandates. Rhetorically, equate any form of immigration enforcement with Trump — and treat legal employment of illegal immigrants as a crucial matter of basic human rights. Try to redirect all drug enforcement to visible public abuse. Even very leftist states aren’t ready for full legalization, but once addict encampments disappear, the public will mostly stop caring.
The argument for redirecting activism to the state level has long been strong. Federal politics is at least 10x as exciting as state politics. Most Americans find state politics utterly boring. Which makes it much easier for concentrated interests — including libertarian activists — to prevail."
Feminism might take a similar approach, easier if you don't insist that it is a monolithic Left thing.
I think the most interesting feminist insight is that the root problem of many intersecting oppressions is certain interpretations of masculinity. If you read alt-righters right Walt Bismarck, they are basically saying SDO is masculinity, as they interpret it. Also not SDO the way the questionnaires try to measure that, that is pretty boring, "should some groups be below some other groups" - no, it is more like worshipping ambition in the sense of a desire for power, which comes from the aesthetic cult of strength, vitalism, of wanting to become like Napoleon or some heroic entrepreneur and thus always instinctively siding with power and so on. Structural problems do not come from personal ambition in the present, of course, but they come from personal ambitions in the past, plus their preservation comes with personally ambitious people will never listen to people who do not already have power.
Seeing interpretations of masculinity as the root cause explains capitalism (ambition), homophobia (disliking kind of weak-looking men and then painting the whole lgbtq community with that kind of brush), politican authoritarianism (loving how strong Putin looks) and so on.
Ultimately deep down this is "war spirit".
fwiw Lawford-Smith covers at least some of the theories of oppression you'd listed in her previous book, Gender Critical Feminism. She does so when considering various theories of intersectional oppression as described by feminists like Kimberle Crenshaw, bell hooks and Audre Lorde (and, she's coauthored? a paper with Kate Phelan on the subject, but I haven't read that in a while so idk if they go a different route there). A general criticism by her which resonated with me is the idea that feminist orgs become stretched too thin if they are expected to also address racism, climate change, disability justice etc. Also, it seems more common to expect women's groups to advocate for other issues than it is for, say an anti-racism org or climate justice org advocate for an explicitly feminist issue such as reproductive access.
And,,, as a radical feminist Lawford-Smith would think that women's oppression has an original? cause? (I'm probably using those words wrong rip) that is separate to class-based/race-based/other forms of oppression (re marxism specifically Catherine MacKinnon and Carol Hanisch have made compelling arguments for why feminist activism should be separate from socialist activism). One gripe I have with GCF is that Lawford-Smith acknowledges that addressing sexism could have incidental benefits for effeminate men, gay people and trans people who also experience gendered forms of discrimination although if this is the case I'm not sure why patriarchy/feminism should be seen as a theory/project for women's liberation,,,, than say a theory to liberate everyone from gender norms but anyways ekdbwjshbwhbiw
I had a look at the abstract and first page of HLS's article on intersectionality but didn't read it or include it in the analysis (which is fine- one doesn't need to read everything an author has responded to- each piece needs to stand alone).
The stretched thin stuff neglects the advantage one gains from collaborating with all these other causes, that they have one's back and will also expend energy the pursuit of feminist goals. The favour is reciprocated. In my experience all organisations are expected to have clear pro-feminist agenda. I mean there's a kind of applause line where people will say "The environmental movement needs to do more about racism!", "The queer movement is not doing enough to be pro-choice!" the "Feminist movement needs to be more pro-working class!" etc. and everyone nods and says yes, yes this very true, and there is a justice to that, but overall I think everyone is gaining from working together.
Crucially, HLS isn't saying feminists should focus on their core issues, she is saying they should line up with racists, climate deniers and so on, provided they agree with her on transphobia.
Perhaps, but at that point you would be advocating for a global justice movement and the organisation would not be 'feminist' in a meaningful sense. I also think a feminist org is ill-equipped to address issues of racism, climate justice, etc. and that it would be more appropriate to delegate those matters to the relevant group than to retrofit a feminist org to fight against all forms of injustice.
In a more limited function, it would be appropriate for a feminist org to advocate for the special interests of working women, disabled women, etc. but I think Lawford-Smith is right to argue that a feminist org can only support women in their discrimination *as women*. It would be within their scope to support a black woman experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, but it is not appropriate for them support a black woman experiencing racism in the workplace (there are already organisations with an explicit focus on anti-racism and have specialised resources that could better address this form of injustice). Perhaps, as some intersectional feminists have argued there is racism within feminist orgs and this has limited their support for women of colour experiencing sexism. Stamping out racism within the organisation, then, is important, but it does not mean the organisation should be addressing anti-racism in their activism.
Also ~ I hope my earlier comment didn't seem passive aggressive. I didn't think your argument was 'deficient' for not citing Lawford-Smith's earlier work, it was just something I happened to know a little about :)
"Also, it seems more common to expect women's groups to advocate for other issues than it is for, say an anti-racism org or climate justice org advocate for an explicitly feminist issue such as reproductive access."
I disagree, at least with respect to climate issues. All sorts of progressive groups have had to deal with the implications of #MeToo. By contrast, while lots of feminists see climate justice as a feminist issue, I've never seen feminists criticised for focusing their attention on feminist issues and leaving climate to others
And it's not as though an alliance with the right is going to help here. The modern right is far more focused on culture war issues than the left. There is a right wing line on everything from superhero movies to high-protein diets
I've expanded my argument in another comment, but I agree with you that is appropriate for a feminist org to stamp out, say, racism within the org as this means they would be able tosupport more women of colour experiencing sexism. I don't think it is appropriate for a feminist org to address climate change because it doesn't affect them disproportionately because they are women. Sexism might have lead to women having lower incomes, living in houses that are less suited for a warming climate that increases the chance for extreme weather and natural disasters. A feminist org should address those structural issues that have lead to women being disproportionately affected by climate change. This does not mean they should inside use their limited resources on climate initiatives. It also seems clear to me that using resources this way is irresponsible, as they will not be helping the most women possible (the primary goal for a feminist org) because they are not helping women directly.
re the feminists working with the right, I don't think that their interest in 'culture war' issues is a deal-breaker. Heck, feminism itself has a broad scope -- you could be a cultural critic disagreeing with the portrayal of women in film and pop music or have an opinion on pro-natalism (which seems to a topic of renewed interest with the American Right), or on the limits of neoliberalism and its support for working mothers and 'trad wives'. Certain unusual strains of feminism have also advocated for things like vegetarianism and environmentalism from a feminist lens, but I find those arguments equally asinine as the carnivore diet fads/whatnot (no shade against vegetarians as I am one, just against bad theory lol).
As Bear has argued, I think there are serious strategic concerns to contend with. The Right may agree with radical/gender-critical feminists on transgender inclusion and on prostitution and pornography, however they hold opposite views on abortion and perhaps even in the funding of certain women's services (in the last federal election, a weakness in Deves' campaign I thought was the fact the Liberals did not fund women's sporting groups as much as Labor had). I would prefer if a left-aligned party supported all my policy prescriptions, as they generally support most of my views on various issues. If, however, they seem too committed to a disagreeable policy on an issue I care a lot about then I might briefly work with/support a (moderate member/faction of the) right-aligned party. If enough people switch their vote/become vocal in their disagreement alongside members of the opposing party it would encourage the left-leaning party to moderate their policies on a particular issue.
HLS does not seem to articulate any type of theory on the root of patriarchy and is unable to articulate any definition of oppression. I would say she leans more towards the essentialist brand of feminism and is more politically aligned a libertarian but she wouldn’t even know what that means.
I have found that all of her arguments begin with a presumed premise/conservative politics which she fails to ever question.
I found her book ‘gender critical feminism’ so incredibly bad that I genuinely can’t understand how it was able to get it published.
Eg. While she covers a lot of feminist theories (as if they’re cut and paste from Wikipedia) she doesn’t interrogate or articulate their logic. She criticises (not critiques) intersectionality because she clearly misunderstands or misrepresents what it is to justify racism. She doesn’t define the conceptual definitions or frameworks she’s applying. Finally, there is no logic or reasoning to how she jumps from 2wave feminist theory to GC feminism. It’s all just a given apparently.
I would say that the book itself is not read by most and it is more about giving her and the GC movement some kind of legitimacy.
It seems that being an associate professor Melbourne University means you can have an opinion in any field, especially feminism it seems that it is so undervalued.