Well this morning my mentions are full of people telling me that I look down on people who live in the suburbs and have children. To clarify, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with living outside a city if that’s your thing (though I do have a bit of an issue with farmers)
I also (and probably more certainly) don’t think there’s anything wrong with having children. I have a child. Many of my family and friends have children. I’m leading on a project about the right to have children. I love children!
My points in question were about the ways in which PP constructs a narrative around her suburban life as a housewife with lots of children. She does this for political purposes - to appeal to that democratic.
This has a long history particularly in the US and especially around race and gender politics. Appealing to the suburban housewife is a well trodden political strategy that PP is following- she has even constructed its perfect aesthetic. Think Phyllis Schlafly.
Andrea Dworkin wrote a great book on this called ‘Right-wing Women’.
So I’m not concerned with Posie’s (or any other woman’s) lifestyle choices, I’m concerned with the political rhetoric, how it’s being operationalised and to what effect. I’m talking about political ideology. About the strategies of reaching out to the ‘moral majority’.
I’m concerned with how right wing anti-feminist politics are tied up with a bow and repackaged as ‘women’s rights’ by people such as PP and VA.
And I’m very concerned about the rights and welfare of women with several children on benefits. These women though rarely romanticise and operationalise the status of housewife.
*demographic
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
IMPORTANT The Equality and Human Rights Commission. has opened a public consultation to run until the end of October. See link above. Please fill in the survey. Points to stress 👇equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/draft…
One of their key themes is “Justice and the Balance of Rights” with specific reference to sex and gender - see below
1Legal clarity around issues where there may be tension between the rights of two or more groups, for example, in relation to sex and gender or matters of religion or belief.
5 years ago, in relation to the views of supporters of high profile GC feminists, I asked ‘can a movement be judged by its followers?’ Little did I know the very worst was yet to come. It astonishes me that the supposedly liberal GCs aren’t aghast at what they are part of.
The people who regularly come into my mentions in support of GC beliefs are the very worst of humanity
And if you don’t publicly speak out against these ultra sexist, homophobic and racist people who support your views, any hand ringing you might do in private is utterly worthless
This week the 'silencing' of Kathleen Stock reached extraordinary levels as Stock told her 'story' in a @BBCWomansHour 'exclusive', in a full length article in the @Telegraph and to @bindelj in a 50 minute video interview for @unherd This was the week of Kathleen getting revenge
There is, as @graceelavery has noted, a shift of emphasis in the latest narrative of events leading to Stock's *decision* to resign from her post at Sussex. Student protests become 'high jinks' and it is the academic 'enablers' who are blamed for Stock *choosing* to leave her job
While students still get a hard ride for the crimes of putting up posters and handing out flyers on campus, wearing masks on a demo during a pandemic, and lighting a flare (in 'trans colours' no less), Stock moved this week to hold the 'academic enablers' to account
Very soon the current movement against the rights of trans people will be viewed in exactly the same way as most people see the movements against minoritized people of the past.
That the advancement of rights for a disadvantaged group was catastrophised as an impending cut back on the rights of a privileged group will be seen with the distaste that most people view these same arguments of the past re race, class and sexuality.
The binary model of gender will be taught alongside its sexological and colonial counterparts, those of essentialist models of race and sexuality. Sex as existing on a spectrum will be a given within the mainstream scientific community.
One of the aspects of GC politicking that is particularly disgraceful is their collaboration with men who have no history with feminist movements and no interest in, or engagement with, feminist political thought.
Indeed, these are largely men who, in the best case scenario, have no wider involvement at all with social justice movements or, in the worst-though frequent- case scenario, stand against the rights of minoritized groups. Men on the far right.
Moreover, GC ‘feminists’ do not only join forces with these men, they actively utilise them as bully boys to attack one of the most vulnerable groups of women in society. Apparently this is done in the name of feminism.
On Wednesday 3 cis women gave evidence to the @Commonswomequ select committee on #GRA reform. These panellists spent the majority of their allocated time arguing that proposed reform has the potential to harm cis women due to the presence of trans women in ‘women’s’ spaces
Yet anyone who has knowledge about the issues at stake knows that changes proposed to the GRA would have absolutely no impact here. There is no connection as the Equality Act, by recognising trans women as women, ensures their right to women’s spaces such as toilets
The arguments presented at @Commonswomequ by these panellists were thus completely irrelevant- they might as well have been arguing that changes to the GRA would lead to a rise in the price of bread - and should have been told so by the committee Chair.