I love your topic idea, Leah, of exploring single-gender spaces. I'd suggest, too, intersectional feminism. And the "simple" topic of "patriarchy - what do you mean when you say 'patriarchy' or 'patriarchal?' And with what judgement(s)?" and more on "should parenting aims be different for a daughter, granddaughter, or niece -- than for a son, grandson, or nephew?" And...whatever topics you come up with will be of value!
I think it's central to ask *why* a space is single-gendered. On one hand, there is a kind of openness possible in single-gender spaces that allows people to speak more freely about certain kinds of problems they face. On the other, single-gender spaces can become a way of controlling whichever gender (usually women) has less power--by being cordoned off, they are less of a threat to the status quo. But even in those sorts of negative situations, having a space without the other gender present can become something that people find strengthening, a place where they can exercise a form of "safe" leadership even. There's a reason that whites in the antebellum South did not like the idea of enslaved people having private prayer meetings.
Love this! I think a discussion about how to think about exclusion and threat, and especially kickstarted by how you think about this from an illiberal perspective, would be great for this space.
From a (classical) liberal perspective, there are many well defined approaches - preserve diversity of experience and thought, reduce harm, etc. A hospital choosing to train staff on how to be more welcoming to men who birth & chestfeed is not, then, viewed as a threat to traditional motherhood, but as a choice to minimize harm. Similarly, the threat posed by an exclusive gendered space would be weighed against statutes, stated policies, the value of that space historically, etc.
But from an illiberal perspective, the historical approaches that have been used are probably not what you're aiming for? Rather than a minimize harm approach, illiberal societies have generally weighed threat more heavily, with a 'where goes one we go all' attitude. And, as we see today from illiberal politicians, there is an emphasis on defining the in group *through* exclusion of an out group.
I have no idea what Qanon means by it, and have generally tried to avoid going down that rabbit hole!
What I mean is that illiberal societies have generally viewed a particular conception of the individual as the backbone of the whole society. If the individual fails to live up to that conception, the community and nation falters.
A quote: "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and
exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence
of the individual."
Mussolini, like other illiberals (Franco, Stalin), put religion or religious-like dogma at the core of the ideology. Immorality (a moving target, defined by those in power but usually with religious overtones) could be 'infectious' and had to be rooted out for the sake not only of the community and nation but for the individual's own well being.
Ah, I see where you're going with this (the fasces model of bundled twigs). It's not one I can really speak to, since it's not at all what the post-liberal/illiberal thinkers I'm interested are starting from.
I'd say one distinction is that there's a lot less concern about the State as the ordering principle for society and more worry about the idea of the autonomous individual as simply *untrue.* It's not that individuals are primarily a *rival* to the state, but that the framework of sole beings leaves out a lot. The bits you'd have most sympathy with would be topics like concern for the disabled, elderly, children—people who don't exist totally "on their own." Plus worry about environmental externalities.
You might be less sympathetic to this as fueling a critique of the liberal view, given voice by Justice Kennedy that, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." These aren't things one can define for oneself! They're truths, independent of us, that we can look for and try to discover together. But we can't make them up or define them.
And that's actually what I'm super interested in hearing more about! What illiberal thinkers are you drawing on? Do they think that the liberal state can coexist with their framework?
And how do those illiberal thinkers (and you!) approach questions of harm reduction, threat, the role of exclusion, etc?
(Also, appreciate your patience! I totally realize my quickly jotted down comments are half baked and opaque!)
Two of the books I've found fruitful are Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed and MBD's My Father Left Me Ireland. I think I've also been shaped by echoes of Tom Holland's Dominion (which I haven't actually read, just seen threaded through conversations).
One of the questions all three raise is not just whether the liberal state can coexist with their goals, but whether liberalism has (and necessarily will) dismantle its own foundation and set itself up for collapse.
Thank you! Hold placed on both of those books. I've read your essay a couple times, and we definitely start in similar (if not the same) place. Highly recommend Le Guin's The Dispossessed if you haven't read it yet!
I don't think liberalism has to collapse, but I do think it *is* collapsing, and I think that much horror will result if the collapse continues.
Congratulations on your pregnancy and your new job! I really like the idea of talking about single-gender space. I don't have a thoughtfully worded question on issues of including trans and non-binary people in women's spaces/discussions, but I also think that would be something that I'd trust (perhaps only) this group to discuss fruitfully.
I love your topic idea, Leah, of exploring single-gender spaces. I'd suggest, too, intersectional feminism. And the "simple" topic of "patriarchy - what do you mean when you say 'patriarchy' or 'patriarchal?' And with what judgement(s)?" and more on "should parenting aims be different for a daughter, granddaughter, or niece -- than for a son, grandson, or nephew?" And...whatever topics you come up with will be of value!
congratulations on the pregnancy! this must be an enormous joy for your family!
It is! We've tried to explain it to our toddler with partial success... she now thinks she also has a baby in her belly.
I think it's central to ask *why* a space is single-gendered. On one hand, there is a kind of openness possible in single-gender spaces that allows people to speak more freely about certain kinds of problems they face. On the other, single-gender spaces can become a way of controlling whichever gender (usually women) has less power--by being cordoned off, they are less of a threat to the status quo. But even in those sorts of negative situations, having a space without the other gender present can become something that people find strengthening, a place where they can exercise a form of "safe" leadership even. There's a reason that whites in the antebellum South did not like the idea of enslaved people having private prayer meetings.
Love this! I think a discussion about how to think about exclusion and threat, and especially kickstarted by how you think about this from an illiberal perspective, would be great for this space.
From a (classical) liberal perspective, there are many well defined approaches - preserve diversity of experience and thought, reduce harm, etc. A hospital choosing to train staff on how to be more welcoming to men who birth & chestfeed is not, then, viewed as a threat to traditional motherhood, but as a choice to minimize harm. Similarly, the threat posed by an exclusive gendered space would be weighed against statutes, stated policies, the value of that space historically, etc.
But from an illiberal perspective, the historical approaches that have been used are probably not what you're aiming for? Rather than a minimize harm approach, illiberal societies have generally weighed threat more heavily, with a 'where goes one we go all' attitude. And, as we see today from illiberal politicians, there is an emphasis on defining the in group *through* exclusion of an out group.
"Rather than a minimize harm approach, illiberal societies have generally weighed threat more heavily, with a 'where goes one we go all' attitude"
I don't think I know what this means outside a Qanon context? And I don't really understand it in that context either?
I have no idea what Qanon means by it, and have generally tried to avoid going down that rabbit hole!
What I mean is that illiberal societies have generally viewed a particular conception of the individual as the backbone of the whole society. If the individual fails to live up to that conception, the community and nation falters.
Highly recommend the whole of Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism (a very timely read these days!) https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
A quote: "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and
exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence
of the individual."
Mussolini, like other illiberals (Franco, Stalin), put religion or religious-like dogma at the core of the ideology. Immorality (a moving target, defined by those in power but usually with religious overtones) could be 'infectious' and had to be rooted out for the sake not only of the community and nation but for the individual's own well being.
Ah, I see where you're going with this (the fasces model of bundled twigs). It's not one I can really speak to, since it's not at all what the post-liberal/illiberal thinkers I'm interested are starting from.
I'd say one distinction is that there's a lot less concern about the State as the ordering principle for society and more worry about the idea of the autonomous individual as simply *untrue.* It's not that individuals are primarily a *rival* to the state, but that the framework of sole beings leaves out a lot. The bits you'd have most sympathy with would be topics like concern for the disabled, elderly, children—people who don't exist totally "on their own." Plus worry about environmental externalities.
You might be less sympathetic to this as fueling a critique of the liberal view, given voice by Justice Kennedy that, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." These aren't things one can define for oneself! They're truths, independent of us, that we can look for and try to discover together. But we can't make them up or define them.
And that's actually what I'm super interested in hearing more about! What illiberal thinkers are you drawing on? Do they think that the liberal state can coexist with their framework?
And how do those illiberal thinkers (and you!) approach questions of harm reduction, threat, the role of exclusion, etc?
(Also, appreciate your patience! I totally realize my quickly jotted down comments are half baked and opaque!)
I have more of my thoughts here: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/culture-of-life/dependence
Two of the books I've found fruitful are Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed and MBD's My Father Left Me Ireland. I think I've also been shaped by echoes of Tom Holland's Dominion (which I haven't actually read, just seen threaded through conversations).
One of the questions all three raise is not just whether the liberal state can coexist with their goals, but whether liberalism has (and necessarily will) dismantle its own foundation and set itself up for collapse.
Here's a quick post on the path I think we're going down: https://eand.co/why-the-world-is-going-insane-d7effe996cf2
Thank you! Hold placed on both of those books. I've read your essay a couple times, and we definitely start in similar (if not the same) place. Highly recommend Le Guin's The Dispossessed if you haven't read it yet!
I don't think liberalism has to collapse, but I do think it *is* collapsing, and I think that much horror will result if the collapse continues.
Congratulations on your pregnancy and your new job! I really like the idea of talking about single-gender space. I don't have a thoughtfully worded question on issues of including trans and non-binary people in women's spaces/discussions, but I also think that would be something that I'd trust (perhaps only) this group to discuss fruitfully.