This week on Liberal Conspiracy has been something of a feminist-fest, with Cath Elliot starting proceedings over prostitution and Kate Belgrave following through, as well as two posts in quick succession from Laurie Pennie, the first an instance of the habitual leftist tradition of counter-attacking the Vatican (who have been under fire from the Right as well this week courtesy of their stance on the Gaza Strip) and the second a call for arms and a “Fourth Wave” that thrilled even this gnarled post-feminist.

In that spirit I wish to approach the issue of abortion in a fashion that hopefully will prove positive & productive.

The defeat of the anti-abortion bill forwarded by the loathsome Nadine Dorries last year was seen as such a success that I was party to the rather unedifying view of two factions squabbling over bragging rights at the first Liberal Conspiracy blogger’s “summit”. As far as I am concerned few deserve praise save Labour and LibDem MPs for standing and their voters for giving them seats. Especially compared to the comparable American response  to the very hint of Bush sopping to the religion right the British campaign was distinctly underwhelming. The reason the bill failed to become an act is quite simply that there were more Lib-Labs than there were Tories, something which is far from certain to be true come the aftermath of the next election.

For that reason I wish to engage in a deconstruction of the pro-life, so as to prepare for the coming onslaught. 

Amongst the hoariest straw-men in existence is the “They’re after your rights!” view of the pro-life. As feminists consider the issue to be one of individual autonomy and bodily sovereignty they see those who oppose the legality of abortion as opponents of liberty and personal integrity. As they are empowering and liberating women those who wish to outlaw the practice that forms the centrepiece of their ideology must therefore be attempting to subjugate and enslave them, or at least have some desire to dominate them and enforce their view upon the unwilling.

This is making an easy but irksome error: to imagine that since you are making an argument from one stance those opposing you must be coming from directly opposite. In fact one of the most interesting things about this issue (as with so many others) is how it can be and is approached from entirely different directions. As someone who attended a Catholic School I can attest to the fact that discomfort towards abortion truly can stem from another source to the “Those women are doing as they please, I can’t stand it!” boilerplate. There seems to be minimal understanding of this amongst the pro-choice, and even less empathy. This is peculiar as the mainstream pro-life position is based around a pair of simple principles, one which is controversial and shouldn’t be, one which shouldn’t be controversial but isn’t.

Firsty, a foetus constitutes life.

It really is quite curious that this matter is so heavily contested. As High Priest Gilmore of the Church of Satan puts it:

Life is there, whether it is conscious and valuable is debatable.

Yet the debate seems to be based around pursuing the futile pursuit of dimissing the former, instead of debating the latter two qualities. Which is pure folly: a foetus is clearly life, it possesses its own heartbeat and distinguishable identity from the carrier. It could not exist outside of this host and it is not capable of sentience. But a plant can not think, a virus can not live beyond the confines of its host for all but the briefest of periods. These are still considered instances of life.

The counter to this is obvious: we regularly kill millions of plants in the act of agriculture, via penicillin and antibiotics we are dedicated to the attempted obliteration of numerous virus lifeforms. But this leads us to the second part of the pro-life argument, which is rarely challenged but by far their weaker point.

Namely, that human life is of greater worth than all other forms. Or, to be precise, that it is of intrinsically and inherently greater worth.

The Pro-Life as species bigots

This is where I think criticism has been most heavily, but understandably, absent. As far as the pro-life are concerned humanity are the pinnacle of living beings because…Well, just because. The traits which a foetal/zygote body lacks (sentience, sapience, capacity to experience pain) are, accordingly, an irrelevance. No other form of life is distinguished in the same way as humanity, be it as a consequence of human life being a gift from God (with animal life being, presumably, an edible sort of gift) or just some general, vague & hollow claim to human exceptionalism based upon prejudice alone. The latter is becoming increasingly popular, with even George Galloway an espouser.

Now this is an incorrect position, but it is hardly an extremist one. Indeed, the entirety of the meat industry would collapse in a day if the principle that human life exceeds animal in value were not widely accepted. Failing that, we would not squirm at the notion of cannibalism, just so long as the victims were suitably mentally incapacitated.

Not that I’d propose the ascent of vegetarianism as a central tactic for the pro-choice (I’d still like to see it, though). It’s simply that without understanding where they are originating from and taking their arguments in good faith it will prove impossible for the pro-choice to produce a conclusively devastating response to the pro-life. Through an understanding and appreciation of what amounts to a highly simple position the pro-choice can quite easily pick it to pieces. Thus far, however, they have largely relied upon a positively Sartrean level of assumption of bad faith. The consequence has been the pro-choice not even engaging with the pro-life on any meaningful level (i.e. above semantical squabbling), and with much the same being reciprocated. This is the reason that debate has previously generated nothing but noise and is banned entirely from more than a few forums: largely both sets of participants have been talking over each others heads.

I have little doubt that much of the pro-life will give up on this. Much of that movement in the US seems insistent upon arguing that Planned Parenthood (the American reproductive issues stand-in for the NHS) are a pack of eugenist racist snobs. Similar tactics being adopted upon this side of the pond is easily conceivable. But if the pro-choice side is aware and makes evident that the pro-life position is entirely dependent upon a non-falsifiable, quasi-mystical claim of self-justifying value then it will be at a distinct advantage.

I’ve spent the night perusing various radical feminist websites, ranging from the ulta-misandrist ravings of I Blame The Patriarchy to the friend-of-twisty look-a-like to the aptly named Rage Against the Manchine.

My conclusion runs that radical feminism is actually a far more binary obedient movement and ideology than it likes to imagine. This became clear fairly quickly, indeed grew immediately apparent simply from the wariness shown towards male contributions. This was both upon an structural level (comments policies making men feel clearly unwelcome) and upon an ideological one (the endless reference to “male privilege” make it fairly clear that the accounts of men are going to be treated with a scepticism women will not be subjected to).

To their credit the radfems are at least believers in the binary. Indeed Andrew Dworkin described biological essentialism as “the most pernicious ideology on the face of the earth” and it is pleasing to know that the absolute anti-assimilationist elements she recalls encountering in that accounts have mostly faded into historical characters. This does nothing save reinforce the absurdity of the present approach towards gender reconstruction by Dworkin’s ideological inheritors, who seem to have taken her urging to “Fuck up” the Patriarchy by gathering in small, thoroughly sealed groups of like minded ranters, who remind themselves constantly, incessantly, of the divisions within society that they can outline with immense eloquence but seem to wish to identify and emphasise more than they do to move beyond, transcend or obliterate.

In short, embittered cliques are established, then fiercely sustained.

The radical credentials for this are highly limited: the notion that the best fashion in which to attack the binary is assembling into websites which are written by women and commented upon by women is surely both utterly disingenuous and entirely self-defeating. To attempt to destroy a set of prejudices (indeed, a set of concepts, or even identities) that by their very nature apply to all of humanity using a single half of it is a bizarre approach, doomed to failure.

Perhaps this leads us to my core difficulty with feminism in the contemporary Anglosphere: it has become virtually impossible to further women’s rights, as is the aim of feminism, without attacking the gender binary. But feminists are largely hesitant to do exactly that, distracted by focusing upon what the successes of their movement have left unaltered instead of noting the vast amount that has changed.

This realisation of progress made since death of the 1950s is at the heart of post-feminism, and brings us onto my next point:

C.G. Brown, in his magnum opus ‘The Death of Christian Britain’, posits that the cause of the demise of the titular religion within this nation was the collapse of the concept of “Pious Women” during the 1960s. Prior to then women were seen as the sole source of active religiosity: men could be saved, but only once sufficiently strong-armed by the earnest females filling their lives (be it wives or mothers). Christianity could not recover as there was only a conception of female piety, as “Boys would be boys” and men would inevitably run awry unless carefully instructed and trained. Men were depraved creatures incapable of controlling themselves and it was only through the positive influence of femininity that salvation could be brought to the coarser sex.

Now this concept had a shadow side: men as corruptive, women as pure beings that men could degrade. A large amount of the concepts of seduction, deflowerment and general robbery of innocence seem to be tied tightly to this.

It is here that the rhetoric of radical feminism strikes the most noticable harmony: women are beings which the creation of pornography tears down from some imagined state of purity and defiles, argue the radical feminists. There are deeds that can not be done without besmirching the actor, and pornography insists upon their performance, by women. However, is it possible to miss the assonances with the other side of this ideal? Think of the attitude feminism takes towards the supply side of pornographic matter. Through feminism the otherwise helpless, base men may be rescued from their own masculinity. Rescued, that is, by pious women.

Men alone are incapable of recognising their foulness. They must be shown. Men involved in the production are demonised, in the acting conspicuously disregarded.

The women engaged in pornography are flecks of foam upon the ocean, pure and borne aloft, swept along by grand cultural forces, then thoroughly befouled.

Had they not kept their movement so purged of penises (men are at best “allies” that could well be fradulent and merely adopting the mantle of “feminist” falsely, to gain advantage and unearned trust, to avoid confrontation) or had they not engaged with the women who choose to participate in the sex industry in a fashion so starkly devoid of any acceptable of female autonomy (and I speak here as a determinist) in a way that makes it clear that they simply wish to avoid thinking of women opting to participate in the process at all except as a facet of the Patriarchy’s endlessly insiduous influence, had they not held an equally damaged and lacking view of the men involved that sees them as otherwise helpless masturbators that only feminism can save, or their utter indifference to the implications for the men involved within the process then perhaps the similarity not be so striking.

As it is, one has to wonder whether the fixation radical feminism holds for pornography (note that RATManchine has made no less than nine essays on the matter, each of considerable length, and shows no sign of ceasing to churn) is truly based upon their wrath at women performing sex acts while observed by cameras on an entirely upon their disdain for the Patriarchy or whether it is more closely tied to long standing expectations of appropriate womanly conduct.

Not that this argument is anything new, this one has been raging for a very long time. But, as far as I am concerned, the irony lacing the prospect of women imagining themselves to be the fiercest critics of Patriarchal structures while in fact behaving as inadvertant, unaware throw-backs to the time when the Patriarchy still existed remains quite delightful.

(In which Grieves decides that he likes this post-feminism stuff.)

I noted at the time of writing it that this article that there was something of a weak flank exposed. A good deal of my reasoning behind the relative weakness of feminism here to across the Atlantic is that women are simply in a better state. To demonstrate this I used the epitome of female success: Thatcher. There is an obvious response to this argument: that she is not a fair case to reference as she is remarkable. This is certainly something which few would argue against: even her harshest critics were aware of her power as a political operator. This is not true of the average woman and simply because she was able to overwhelm prejudice does not mean that all women would be capable of such a feat.

Now let us give this argument its fair dues: there have been three Prime Ministers since Thatcher {as easy as it is to forget Major, and perhaps even Brown} and of them none have been women. This demonstrates a clear bias towards men. But it must be remembered that this position is filled only through members of cabinet who have managed to elbow their way forwards into pole position. Thatcher filled her cabinet with men {besides notable exceptions such as Edwina Currie, who single-handedly crippled the British egg industry and resulted in the deaths of four million chickens} and Blair was easily the superior of Margaret Beckett. Brown’s pursuit of him in power was assured by their dealings. Accordingly there were no real opportunities for women to reach the pinnacle, as a consequence of the one who did and the nous of the two that followed her.

Therefore perhaps a better area to consider would be that of cabinet. It is here where the evidence for post-feminism outstrips that of feminism. Because what the best piece of advice to be offered to any woman seeking political power (besides, of course, as painful as I find this to type, that they join the Conservatives) would surely be not to worry. For such strides have been taking over equality that not only will competent, aptly skilled women be allowed roles in government, but that even those who are only as able as the most incompetent male cabinet ministers can gain them.

Take the notorious case of Ruth Kelly: a Catholic cultist was permitted to be Minister for Women and Equality. The theological hard-liners of Opus Dei were heeded fully, and she ultimately appealed against the reforms of gay adoption laws being applied even and equally. Only the threat of a full-on cabinet rebellion in the tail-end of Blair’s reign led to the policy which was her brief as Minister being arranged against her will.

Could this have been anticipated? Well, her refusal to attend any vote where she would have been whipped into supporting gay rights probably could have provided a hint. As could her membership of a Catholic sect aforementioned, who certainly refrain from taking the soft line upon matters of carnal morality.

Furthermore she is largely responsible for the present policy on bio-fuels, responsible for the exacerbation of widespread starvation in developing nations.

Or perhaps we could touch upon Tessa Jowell, who’s valuable contributions to government (the introduction of OFCOM is notable) are dwarfed by the carnage resulting by her relationship with money. Her husband’s dealings with the avowedly neo-Falangist Silvio Berlusconi generated considerable controversy which she barely escaped unscathed from and it is upon her watch that the Olympics has (predictably) ran over budget to the tune of several billion pounds.

The likelihood is that it shall continue to overrun by several billion more.

But the most notable example could never be any other save Estelle Morris. Despite only serving as Secretary for Education and Skills from June 2001 to October 2002 she managed to make a mess of the education so thorough that her successors have yet to undo much of the damage. The amount of lasting harm she did in a position she spent so little time in is actually quite impressive. She resigned declaring that she felt inadequate for the task, but this was hardly news to many.

Although she had a modest history in education it seems likely that her connections and heritage (her father and an uncle were Labour MPs) influenced her ascent into a role she was entirely inept in. Certainly her present position of Baroness was not warranted by her career. Her unpopularity amongst the NUT was immense and led to her being heavily heckled during a conference due to her desire to implement neo-liberal policy tying pupil results to teacher wages.

However it is her treatment of students that was most dire: displaying a total absence of common sense and empathy she pronounced that children would be too stressed by the AS level in its present form, and instead of spreading out the examinations over the course of a few weeks they ought to be packaged together on a single day. This, as any imbecile could have informed her, resulted in increased stress for students as their exams were staged in quick succession and without opportunities for rest. It also resulted in carnage for revision schedules, that were forced to cover all material relevant to an entire subject at once. The consequences for history were students having to hop mentally from era to era, in a fashion almost begging for errors to ensue through understandable slips of a century or two. Candidates with extra time witnessed their time extended into vast and wearying stretches. This policy has yet to be over-turned, a grim legacy of an inept minister.

Morris later became Minister of Arts, despite openly admitting that she knew very little about contemporary art.

Enough, it is hoped, has been compiled here to demonstrate that women have nothing to fear from any confinement beneath glass ceilings within White Hall. They need not be indefatigable to reach their desired locations, they need not be formidable or remarkable or exceptional to be picked in the stead of men. They need not be titans. They can be as inappropriate for the role required of them or as incompetent in executing it as are many men who reach cabinet positions, yet still be given jobs. A true testament to the success of feminism if ever there were one.

As well as further evidence for the obsolete nature of its central analysis. When it comes to granting positions of power, it would seem, there is only the same meagre amount of talent expected of men anticipated of women in order for them to serve Her Majesty’s Government. If this is a Patriarchy it is a remarkably lax one.

Never mind masturbation, let’s talk maths.

Sophie Platt, writing for The F Word, has an irritating but valuable article here.

Irritating because it is filled with typical vindictive puerility:

I would love for them to turn the tables round one night and end a sexual encounter before their partners had come. A friend of mine tried this once, and reported that the incensed rage and sulking that followed could only be likened to that of a three-year-old who has been told Christmas had been cancelled.

Also due to the prejudiced, sourceless bigotry that somehow imagines that an Austen reference that was long ago faded through overuse constitutes a valid substitute for anything beyond the most meagre of anecdotal evidence:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that teenage boys on the whole are more concerned with their own satisfaction than that of their partners

Let’s see if I can give this a go: It is a truth universally acknowledged that Afro-Caribbean men care more about stealing car stereos than raising their bastard children. Does that sound in any way acceptable to everyone? No matter, I shall just generate a false consensus in lieu of an adequete proof and make pretence that my view is that of the entirity of universe denizens. Does this not make a refreshing change from the mainstream press and its ceaseless distortions?

Furthermore her phallus obsession is seemingly total, as well as less than benign:

It’s just that so many are made to look like a penis, some disturbingly realistic, that they seem rather sinister as a tool for us to become better acquainted with our own bodies.

Where to begin with this? Is she stating that she finds real phalluses realistic? Or is it the prospect of women using items which resemble the organ used for the act that they are stimulating with it that unsettles her? Is it really appropriate and wise to label the sexual predilections of others “sinister” in such an article? Or any article? Is it in pointing out her failure to mention the rise of the “Fleshlight” devices for men that are now plastered all over the internet?

More harmfully still she has made a deep error in her analysis of “Raunch Culture”. Platt attempts to stage a forced division, of sorts, between the elements she truly disapproves of (lap-dancing legality, pole-dancing lessons, girls wearing mini-skirts and so on) from those she can not help but muster begrudging respect for (the popularity of a programme revolving around the sex lives of a set of vapid egoist females, the mass marketing and cultural strength of an item designed purely to bring women vast amounts of pleasure, vibrators on sale at Boots).

Such a dichotomy quite simply does not exist.

Both sets of phenomenon are part of a cultural motion away from the moralistic confines of the past and towards a state of personal liberty to pursue physical pleasure via carnal means. They are not divisible and any efforts to consider them along some form of “Pro” and “Anti” patriarchy lines is bound for failure, as are all other strictly partisan assessments. Women pleasuring themselves and feeling no shame and men resorting to bandwidth over charm and discussing without generating horror their nights at lap-dancing clubs are not in the slightest phenomenon which can be held apart. Their origins are precisely the same: formerly residual Christian morality dominated Britain’s views of carnal union, but since this is rapidly disintegrating people are beginning to act far more as they please and are in acceptance of far less restraints or restrictive mores. To divide this tendency into two separate paragraphs and imagine that it can somehow be split apart is the height of foolishness: they are simply differing manifestations within near identical circumstances. But Platt becomes wound up in her tiresomely hackneyed depiction of Raunch Culture:

it has become about appearing to be sexual available simply to please men and not to fulfil their own desires or fantasies.

The rise of so-called ‘raunch culture’ means that for many girls, merely looking ‘pretty’ has taken a back seat for looking ‘sexy’: supermarkets stock pole dancing kits as children’s toys, glamour modelling is in the top five career choices for pre-teen girls and hundreds of girls all over the country are counting the days until they are 18 and are legally allowed breast enhancements. Girls are being sexualised at an increasingly younger age, and it seems to be more about self-esteem than sexual satisfaction. The pleasure that comes from sexual experiences at this age is often the feeling of being thought attractive and being desired by a male than actually getting off.

Has she no conception of the positive effects of banishing shame in exposing more flesh than our present 1950s hang-over hegemony permits? Is she unaware that the frequency of exibitionism has always matched voyeurism? Obviously not: it is required that all shifts be made somehow in favour of the Patriarchy. Thus pole dancing kits suddenly are related to skimpier outfits for young women and are entirely unrelated to alterations that increase women’s pleasure.

As flawed a view as this unquestionably is this article is valauble because Platt has hit the nub of this issue: it is simply not expected of girls that they will entertain themselves, while with boys only (fittingly paired) certain fundamentalist Christians and some extremist feminists would argue otherwise. This is a strange and harmful double standard, in that it denies half of the population the assumption that it is correct to pursue their personal pleasure. The consequences are young (and occasionally even elderly) women who have never experienced an orgasm, a highly unfortunate state of affairs that leaves the men in a strong lead.

It would seem that Platt, then, is excellent at identifying the problem before us but fails in terms of solution. She, for instance, disparrages the shift that has eradicated the near total silence on matters of female pleasuring that reigned previously, through her offensive against the surgingly popular sex toys, now sold by a variety of mainstream stores and chains. For how can something remain a taboo when it is upon the evening news? Having the act she fears girls are not expected to participate in directly alluded to on chemists shelves is surely going to break the culture which she outlines.

The silence is thus effectively already breached.