Commentary

Heterodox Feminism vs. ‘Feminist’ Orthodoxy

The word "feminism" has come to mean its original opposite

When did feminism begin to change, all but eating itself in the process? Suddenly, anyone could claim to be a feminist – just as anyone, for whatever reason, could defame and dismiss feminism. How did this happen? Before we knew it, “‘feminism” was both a dirty word (again) – and an irrelevant one. For Beyoncé, Owen Jones, Billy Bragg, and many others, all they had to do was declare themselves feminists and just like that, they could own it; all they had to do was “dilute to taste”.

Next came something more insidious than this watering down. Active, misogynistic, deeply anti-feminist individuals and ideologies were framed as feminism. Women like me started to be accused of irrelevance, bigotry, and ignorance. We were told to get in the bin. This was in the early 2000s – around the same time that I was being called a bigoted transphobe, accused of colluding with the far right and causing harm to marginalized groups, including all of those I belong to.

Then there were the accusations of Islamophobia, which were first targeted at me when I started writing about the so-called grooming gangs in the northern towns and cities of England. 

It’s important that we allow women to say they regret motherhood, which is very different from saying they regret their children. But when I suggested, in 2004, that many women, if they had their time over again, would make decisions based on actual choice as opposed to presumed, or very limited, choice, I was attacked more viciously than I could ever have imagined. I was accused of hating children, and looking down on (even despising) mothers. “Surely, feminists are supposed to prioritise mothers?” I was asked. “Over what?” I would respond.

Since the first serious outbreak, in the 1980s, identity politics has played an unfortunate role in feminism. From, “speaking as an Irish, working class, lesbian mother” to the current day of, “I am a Queer gender goblin”, identities seem to hold more currency than either political positions and action. 

Enter a bastardized version of “intersectionality”. The original meaning was explained by the legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw as a useful term which shows that when multiple forms of oppressions meet, they create new oppressions that are experienced acutely by those who belong to certain marginalized groups. For the anti-feminists masquerading as feminist, shameful misrepresentation of Intersectionality was a very handy tool. Anyone with an interesting hairstyle and micro-identity (think sapiosexual) could hurl abuse at actual feminists, from an assumed superior position, for refusing to capitulate to woman-hating ideology.

Feminism has always been criticised as “wrong think” – but today, women (and men) are setting themselves up as feminists or pro feminists in order to tell actual feminists we are going against the grain by not accepting men as women. According to these people, feminism is seen as wrong not only within the sexist mainstream, but also within so-called progressive institutions. We are now seen as doubly wrong, and those of us with some line-in-the-sand feminist principles are coming in for the worst abuse.

The problem is that back in the 1980s and 1990s, feminists stopped talking to each other. We had a proud tradition of consciousness-raising groups as well as the discussion of feminist theory about all manner of issues: sexuality, sexual practice, children, men’s role, etc. Somewhere along the line, those discussions disappeared behind a keyboard, and we found ourselves lumbered with a set of absolutes that had to be signed up to if you wanted to be considered a proper feminist.

A proper feminist would, for example, never criticise a woman for clothing. But somehow this seemed to bleed over into not allowing anyone to criticise the full face veil – not even the Iranian born, ex-Muslim feminist Maryam Namazie.

Become a free Member

Sign up to the newsletter

Lesbians coming from the “born that way/gay gene” position accused those of us questioning innate sexual preference of being ‘fakes’ who were throwing ‘genuine’ lesbians to the wolves. 

I have been in serious trouble for my suggestion that there is neither any such thing as a gay or lesbian gene, nor any genetic component that can explain sexual preference or orientation. This anti-essentialist argument also happens to be a feminist one; I reckon that when we have less anti-lesbian bigotry, more women will be free to take that path. I never meant “choice” in the same manner that you choose your cereal, but I was accused of handing ammunition to anti-gay legislators and others, because they might argue that states should introduce mandatory conversion therapy. I suggested we campaign to end conversion therapy.

Biological determinist theories of sexual orientation are passionately supported by many lesbians, not because they are backed up by empirical evidence or correspond with experience, but because they are (supposedly) a means of challenging prejudice. I can only point out that being female is innate, but that does not stop misogyny. 

Either way, I was and am considered a heretic for my rejection of the “born that way” argument, just as I am for refusing to adopt a cultural relativist position on the veil or to “be kind” and allow men in our spaces. I believe all of my positions are feminist ones – but others, who also identify as feminists, say they are not.

To be a feminist in any era, and in any society and culture, is to be heterodox. But here’s the rub: this means an actual, real feminist. And although I have been heavily criticized over the decades regarding these three key issues: gender ideology, the “born that way” argument, and political Islam – for me this is not heterodox feminism, it is common sense feminism.

To be a feminist in any era, and in any society and culture, is to be heterodox. But here’s the rub: this means an actual, real feminist.

 

In saying this, I have perhaps just defied its very theme – which is that feminism has in recent years become so bastardized, twisted to suit any agenda, that a heterodox approach is required, as are, therefore, heterodox feminists.

I see this as a fascinating twist of logic – a contradiction in terms, even.

For me, an active feminist all my adult life, feminism has to mean something in order to be effective. Therefore, feminists doing the work, making the changes, hanging on by our fingernails to demand not just our rights but liberation, have not only a right but a duty and an imperative to define it.

In other words, the key aims and principles of feminism are, in my view, about a movement which works towards overthrowing male domination, or patriarchy, or male supremacy, whatever term you prefer. It means the liberation of all women, including those we do not like; those at the top of the tree; and all those stuck in the basement, with the least agency.

Other than that, can we be diverse in our thinking and in our political aim and objectives? Yes of course, and we must be. For me, feminism is about campaigning to end men’s violence towards women and girls, which exists only because of the power and privilege boys are accorded at birth. And it is because of the prevalence of male violence, which affects all women and girls in every society across the planet, whether directly or indirectly, that I became involved in the war over gender and sex.

It was 2004 when the Guardian published my article “Gender Benders, Beware” which focused on Vancouver Rape Relief in Canada. These women, both staff and volunteers at this organisation, had at that time been put through a decade of litigation by a trans identified man called Kimberley Nixon. Nixon had insisted on being trained as a counsellor for victims and survivors, and the rape relief women politely told him no, offering him a place on some subcommittee.

This was not good enough. Waiting in the wings was a so-called human rights organisation that helped Nixon sue VRR. The rest is history, but from that day I was labelled transphobic, bigoted, and even a Nazi. (Though I did come to wonder, in the ensuing years, why Hitler was always the go-to? Why not give mid-range dictators an opportunity to shine – maybe Pol Pot?)

I was also the first feminist in the UK to be placed on the prestigious “Islamophobia Watch”, a rollcall of those that had, in one way or another, challenged Islamic fundamentalism. Some were doing this from a right wing, even racist perspective, and I was doing so from a staunchly feminist one. I refused to accept that the full face veil was anything other than an insignia of women’s oppression, as I would for any other symbols and coercive dress imposed on women under the rule of conservative, religious men. 

How then, do we tackle the subject of heterodox feminism, when the word feminism has come to mean its original opposite? Where surrogacy is celebrated, prostitution considered a freely chosen job like any other, and sex has been trumped by gender?

How then, do we tackle the subject of heterodox feminism, when the word feminism has come to mean its original opposite? Where surrogacy is celebrated, prostitution considered a freely chosen job like any other, and sex has been trumped by gender?

If what passes for feminism is actually anti-feminism, then where is the space for women to claim that feminism, now signed up to a set of rules and regulations, has become rigid and prescriptive? Part of me wants to say, “if only”, but the other part recognises that some of the earlier day radical feminist theory was too uncompromising. But then, surely that’s how we got things done? And then, on the other hand, is this what put so many women off?

What we must be careful about is opening feminism up to the point where it means nothing at all. Indeed, it could well be that in the future, the term heterodox will be applied only to those of us who turn to seemingly old-fashioned terms like patriarchy in naming problems such as male violence towards women and girls.

Pinning down the definitions and categories of feminism in the world where the gates have been left wide open, the horses have bolted, and all manner of potential enemies have sauntered in, is an almost impossible task. 

Whatever feminism is, and however it can be framed or reframed, I want to encourage both critical thinking and the testing of boundaries, in a world that celebrates orthodoxy – the sworn enemy of feminism.

Recommended

Comments (0)

Want to join the conversation?

Only supporting or founding members can comment on our articles.