John Milbank: "Feminism Undermines The Family. We Need A New Feminism Which Respects Men." *Groan*

I've been keeping up with what happens at the theology department at my old university and today John Milbank the creator of Radical Orthodoxy (a form of post-modernism that says that modern life is nihilistic and the solution is to start thinking like St. Augustine) decided to contribute to the Guardian. The little subtitle for his article is: "We need a radical feminism that ends women's enslavement and allows them to be neither subordinate nor men writ large". While sometimes these subtitles can be misleading, in this particular case it is quoted word for word from the penultimate paragraph. Yes, the article is as awful as that suggests...

Today, the defence of the family is seen as a rightwing cause. Conversely, liberal feminism is seen as a leftwing cause. But these associations are questionable.

I wonder whether he intends to explain this? Probably not.

Deborah Orr cites the fact that women, like men, were once made wage-slaves as if this were a good thing.

Oh really?

So, when Fay Weldon ruffles feathers, as she did at a literary festival this week, by declaring that one of the down-sides of feminism is that it has "made wage-slaves" out of mothers, I can only shake my head. Mothers always had access to wage-slavery, and those mothers who had husbands who drank the pay-packet, or handed over risible "housekeeping", were particularly glad of their "pin money". Feminism gave women much greater access to, or at least hope of, "careers". Its rejection of marriage was bound up with the fact that a married woman was a woman who could forget about professional progress.

Only by being deliberately obtuse could John possibly have interpreted this as meaning that being wage-slaves is a good thing. The point is that women used to be wage-slaves and that feminism has enabled (and is still enabling) them the opportunity to have careers instead.

She also cites the fact that today middle class women tend to have babies late as if this were a sign of the rise of freedom.

I've noticed in a number of Christian marriage ceremonies that, as well as emphasising that "this ritual right here is for one man and one woman - see what I mean?" there is also often a strong suggestion that the newly-wedded wife is going to be having a baby quite soon after the wedding. This isn't necessarily what the bride has in mind though. The reason tends to be that they want to get settled into a career before they have children. If John Milbank doesn't think that women having careers and independence represents freedom he's got some very odd priorities.

Meanwhile she contends against David Cameron that "the days of the typical family are numbered".

Actually no. No she doesn't.

[Katherine] Rake upset the socially conservative by declaring in her first speech as head of the Family and Parenting Institute (a government-funded organisation that we don't need anyway) that "the days of the typical family are numbered".

See that John? Katherine Rake said it, not Deborah Orr.

If today the middle class have babies late, then that is more the result of competitive market pressures and the market promotion of youth culture than of any supposed liberation of "free choice".

I'll accept market pressures since getting a career tends to be better served by not starting out with a baby in tow. On the other hand, feminists also push for businesses to include creches and to give better deals to those working part-time. Nevertheless, what the "promotion of youth culture" has to do with having babies later, I have not the foggiest. Milbank doesn't bother to explain, so I guess I wil remain in the dark.

As to family decline, this occurs because an overbearing market and state deal directly with the individual, beginning at the youngest age possible. The family is being undermined for the same reason that unions, mutuals and churches have been undermined: because these are voluntary associations that combine self-help and education with a democratic sharing of resources.

Er, what? Where's the reason why it's been undermined? This basically seems to suggest that the only reason the family is "being undermined" (in ways unspecified) is because it's a Good Thing (TM). As far as I'm aware, the only way that Churches are undermined is by their lack of occupants.

Authority within the family is not necessarily patriarchal and aims self-denyingly at reciprocity. In these ways the family offers uniquely a training in mutual nurture. Of course it is the worst source of pathologies, but only because it is the strongest source of psychic health.

Sorry, let's just analyse that last sentence. (One comment on the webpage regarding this sentence says: "I'll wait for the english translation...") The family is a departure from the norm because it's the strongest source of mental health. John seems to be stating that we are all suffering from poor mental health due to lack of emphasis on family. Shouldn't this article be in the Daily Mail?

As for the idea that authority within the family is not necessarily patriarchal, well yeah not anymore. For much of history the marriage contract has been a contract of ownership whereby a father gives away their daughter to her new husband. We know this is no longer the case (thank goodness), but so what? Does this mean that we should be forcing unwed mothers into marriages post-haste? Surely once we have accepted that marriage is not a contract of ownership but rather a mutual bond of love and respect, we must also accept that women have to find a suitable partner before they enter into it?

Of course also, there can be "unconventional" families which should not be penalised. But all families aim for fidelity and stability, and this very aim favours a social and political bias towards marriage rather than cohabitation.

Translation: "By the way, I'm actually quite liberal donchaknow!"

Marriage suspends sexual competition and distributes sexual partners equally. It still today usually protects women physically and compensates for their lesser muscular strength.

Somehow I cannot image John Milbank defending his wife physically. (I've met her since she's also lectures in the same university department.) The best way I can imagine marriage compensating for lesser muscular strength is that men might need to open a jam jar every now and then. (Doesn't work for me. My gf is better at getting jam jars open than I am!) In short: What the hell?

In the case of liberal feminism, the left has shied away from the fact that its success has coincided with a regressive era that has involved an increase in economic inequality and a decline of civil liberties while covertly compensating sexual liberties. The archetypal female subject today is in one way a male capitalist subject writ large, as it is seen as autonomous in relation to biological reproduction as well as economic production. At the same time it remains a traditional "female" subject defined by private concerns now become consumeristic.

This is a mixture of the bleeding obvious and complete nonsense. Whatever may or may not have happened politically, you cannot blame feminism for a decline in civil liberties. If compensating sexual liberties has needed to be 'covert' in order to pass, I hardly see how that is feminism's fault either. Feminists have not been terribly covert about their aims, not least since they intend to change the cultural trends, not simply to pass new laws.

The idea that feminism makes women into "men writ large" is justified by telling us that women are seen as autonomous in relation to biological reproduction and economic production as if this was a bad thing. It appears that John thinks independence, career-mindedness and control over one's own body are 'male' qualities. Who knew?

The downside of this hybrid female subjectivity is the continued enslavement of women in both workplace and home and the loss of a male code of honour as to the assistance of women and children, which has had devastating consequences for the working class. All this combines with an increased state and market control of reproduction which amounts to a new general rule of men over women.

What? Ok, let's break this down:

(a) "...continued enslavement of women in both workplace and home..."

Feminism still has work to do. We know.

(b) "...the loss of a male code of honour as to the assistance of women and children..."

What code of honour? Men feel just as responsible in this regard as they ever have, but there's never been a code of honour involved.

(c) ...which has had devastating consequences for the working class."

Such as?

(d) All this combines with an increased state and market control of reproduction...

State and market control. Oh, you mean sex education and sexual health information, do you? Ah, John Milbank's sympathies for Roman Catholicism are revealed: "How dare the state push contraceptives on us? It's "controlling" I tell you!"

(e) "...which amounts to a new general rule of men over women."

Eh? It does? Would you mind explaining how?

Instead of this we need a true radical feminism more focused on the question of what constitutes good relations between women and men. This needs to include mutual equity concerning procreation and above all equal rights to the combining of work and child nurture without economic loss.

In regards to mutual equity, one comment asks: "And how exactly would one go about growing a womb as a man?" As for combining work and child nurture without economic loss, that's what couples do anyway. This sounds like it is more like the natural result of "competitive market pressures" than a new "true radical feminism". As John D. Caputo said of Radical Orthodoxy, it is very orthodox and not terribly radical.