This is my third letter in my exchange with Julie Bindel, in response to the question: “Can feminist causes be furthered by working with right wing or religious people and groups?”
"But the right hasn’t rejected me on account of my position on women’s reproductive sovereignty and abortion"
I overall agree with you, but I'll point out that Tomi Lahren got canceled pretty hard by the right when she came out as pro-choice on Fox https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/media/tomi-lahren-lawsuit-glenn-beck-blaze.html
FWIW, I see nothing wrong with an alliance-of-convenience with right-wing men (I'll include Matt Walsh in there). Obviously feminists won't have much common ground with social conservatives outside of gender critical topics, but agreeing with every single one of a person's beliefs shouldn't be a prerequisite to working with them on shared issues. Julie's concern that diabolical genius right-wingers will exploit the poor naive feminists, or that going on Fox will mean those women have been suckered into working for the patriarchy, seems ironically paternalistic.
Plus, her purity politics play right into classic 'divide and conquer' tactics from the trans left, which makes it all the easier for them to enact their agenda.
I’m so enjoying this series. You both make excellent points, and I find myself ping-ponging back and forth with each letter. Much thanks to you and Julie for doing this.
Thanks for doing this series with Julie, it feels like a respectful reach across some sort of aisle. I find it interesting that some of the most vicious attacks on women, or at least on you Meghan, come from other women, particularly feminists. Of course, when you go into why, it makes sense (in a backwards sort of way). One of my biggest worries is that the two party system and the polarization it fosters cannot be allowed to continue if we hope for a healthy society, and I just want to say that I appreciate how you highlight the insidious problems with it.
I promise to try and make this the last thing I say/ask but is "a sane and nuanced middle, wherein conversation, listening, and debate is encouraged" even possible, or are we going to need some sort of rewrite of the whole system, where us vs them isnt really a part of the conversation? I know this is super meta but it's an idea I toy with a lot; can we fix what we have or do we need to restart from some earlier "save point" as my gamer friends might call it.