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?”
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 mean, she was on the right... (Not excusing). I am not. They can't cancel me because I am not beholden to them or invested in their support. I guess my point was partly that they haven't rejected or abused me on account of some of the feminist beliefs I hold, and mostly that the left and feminists have been much worse to me than any right wing or conservative person. Like, people I know in real life — leftists and feminists — have been HORRID to me. On account of their blind allegiance to their tribe. Why is it that the left has been after me for so long, and that feminists have been so awful to me, but I have not been targeted like that by the right? Either way, I think it's best to stay independent, not beholden to parties or ideologies... Party or ideological loyalty is a problem no matter which side you are on.
"Why is it that the left has been after me for so long, and that feminists have been so awful to me, but I have not been targeted like that by the right?"
Cult-like mentality is the short answer - heretics and apostates are always treated worse than infidels.
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.
Ugh. I don't know. I mean, I feel like Andrew made a good effort, though one always wonders if these new middle grounds can get the kind of funding needed to run a successful campaign... I'm not a huge fan of the idea of 'revolution' — it seems as though 'tearing things down' tends to make things worse/not resolve the problem. In Canada, for example, I see more hope in a sort of 'liberal' Conservative Party, seeing as the Conservatives in Canada are already not very right wing. In the US, the abortion divide between left and right seems massive, which is troubling. I'm hoping we can support some good middle-ish candidates and create something decent, though I suspect those types would have to be on the Republican side, as clearly the Tulsi's can't get anywhere with the Democrats. I am not an expert on American politics, of course, so I'm sure there are people better equipped to discuss those kinds of specifics than I.
"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 mean, she was on the right... (Not excusing). I am not. They can't cancel me because I am not beholden to them or invested in their support. I guess my point was partly that they haven't rejected or abused me on account of some of the feminist beliefs I hold, and mostly that the left and feminists have been much worse to me than any right wing or conservative person. Like, people I know in real life — leftists and feminists — have been HORRID to me. On account of their blind allegiance to their tribe. Why is it that the left has been after me for so long, and that feminists have been so awful to me, but I have not been targeted like that by the right? Either way, I think it's best to stay independent, not beholden to parties or ideologies... Party or ideological loyalty is a problem no matter which side you are on.
"Why is it that the left has been after me for so long, and that feminists have been so awful to me, but I have not been targeted like that by the right?"
Cult-like mentality is the short answer - heretics and apostates are always treated worse than infidels.
Right yes good point
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.
So glad to hear this! Thanks!
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.
Ugh. I don't know. I mean, I feel like Andrew made a good effort, though one always wonders if these new middle grounds can get the kind of funding needed to run a successful campaign... I'm not a huge fan of the idea of 'revolution' — it seems as though 'tearing things down' tends to make things worse/not resolve the problem. In Canada, for example, I see more hope in a sort of 'liberal' Conservative Party, seeing as the Conservatives in Canada are already not very right wing. In the US, the abortion divide between left and right seems massive, which is troubling. I'm hoping we can support some good middle-ish candidates and create something decent, though I suspect those types would have to be on the Republican side, as clearly the Tulsi's can't get anywhere with the Democrats. I am not an expert on American politics, of course, so I'm sure there are people better equipped to discuss those kinds of specifics than I.