Mick Hartley

Remember the old days, when feminists campaigned against the sexist stereotypes so perfectly encapsulated in the world of children's toys, with pink dolls for girls and blue cars for boys? Victoria Smith:

It’s strange to think of it now, not least given how many of us who spoke loudest suddenly find ourselves smeared as “terfs” and gender essentialists by people who claimed to be on our side. To those who have now moved on to embracing gender ideology, the problem isn’t the way in which some toys are needlessly coded as “feminine”, others as “masculine” — at least not any more. That sort of feminism — the feminism of the bleeding obvious — is old hat. The new, more sophisticated reading of the problem is that a child’s genitalia does not indicate which toys — the masculine or the feminine ones — that child should like. On the other hand, the toys a child likes could well be an indicator of the body they ought to have, the puberty they ought to go through, the stereotypes they ought to embrace. 

Somewhat irritatingly for those who have got on board with this new way of thinking, it looks suspiciously like the same old sexism, only flipped around. Don’t change your masculine- or feminine-coded interests to match your sexed body! Change your sexed body to match your interests! (The boring, old-style feminist line having been “you don’t need to change anything at all”.) … They are insistent that the concept of gender identity — which is wholly reliant on gender stereotypes — is completely compatible with a feminism that rejects said stereotypes. It is, to put it mildly, a bit of a headfuck (which can easily be mistaken for something very clever, on the basis that it doesn’t make any sense at all). 

Which is where Judith Butler and Queer Theory come in.

Self-styled “progressives” know what sexism is, but also know that they cannot commit to its abolition, at least not without ending up in exile alongside the terfs. A world without sexism would ruin everyone’s porn! It would tread on the toes of too many authentic, special selves! As Martha Nussbaum wrote in her 1999 take-down of Judith Butler, “the act of subversion is so riveting, so sexy, that it is a bad dream to think that the world will actually get better. What a bore equality is! No bondage, no delight”. No princess dresses marketed specifically at little girls, no glittery, Mulvaney-approved girlhood! The most “progressives” can engage in is a kind of social justice busywork: look as though you’re interested in abolishing stereotypes, but don’t actually get anything done (beyond annoying the other side). 

Ten years ago, I thought we would be in a different place by now. It turns out I was wrong to think that just because some people understand sexism — and might even want to see an end to it — they can’t be persuaded that other, shinier, higher-status causes matter more.