A Feminism with Teeth
Lessons from Holly-Lawford Smith's "Gender-Critical Feminism"
This week, history professor Ann Little reviews FD Featured Author Holly Lawford-Smith’s Gender-Critical Feminism, which calls for a feminism that is unabashed in its commitment to women, as such. The book is a helpful guide for those who want to understand the vitriol of the gender wars, writes Little, and its reception on college campuses offers hope for our capacity to talk about controversial topics, even across ideological divides.
A Feminism With Teeth: Lessons from Holly Lawford-Smith’s Gender-Critical Feminism
Ann M. Little
Outsiders to this debate have probably wondered: Why do young people believe that middle-aged lesbians, or mothers, or middle-aged lesbian mothers, are “hateful” because they acknowledge biological sex? Why do so many believe that a beloved children’s author wants them to die? Why can’t we say “pregnant women” or discuss the importance of single-sex spaces, prisons, and sporting categories for women?
Lawford-Smith’s book is an excellent explainer for those who want to know. Written in a clear, straightforward style, the book is both a history and a polemic. It concludes with a call for a “feminism with teeth,” and a coda outlining “a Gender-Critical Manifesto,” which she summarizes as “a movement for women as women.”
This Week in Sex-Realist Feminism
Welcome to the weekly Fairer Disputations round-up: your one-stop shop for the best in sex-realist feminism. This week, we're highlighting Daniel Cox on involved dads and two-parent privilege, a fascinating book review about some disturbing cultural practices, and Ross Douthat on the masculinity of Tim Walz vs. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
Plus: Jen Gunter on menopause misinformation, Alexandra Davis on work and motherhood, Clara Piano on a family-focused approach to consumption, Jia Tolentino on tweens at Sephora—and more.
From the Archives
The Time to Fight Surrogacy Is Now
Miriam Cates
When it comes to considering the ethics of surrogacy, Parliament—and, indeed, the whole political and media class—has a blind spot. Surrogacy is viewed only through the lens of its potential to fulfil the desires of individual adults. A cynic might say that this is a market-based argument, where consumer choice, satisfaction, and availability of the product are the only factors of interest. But I don’t believe politicians and commentators are being cynical or callous. Instead, this blind spot reveals the inadequacy of our current philosophical and moral framework to address the ethical questions raised not only by surrogacy but also by many other issues.