Mumsnet Talk

Kate

If you accept that Julia's words are as you have just quoted, then there is absolutely no basis within those for Holly's claim that Julia saw men "as the enemy and encouraged others present to see the same."

I didn't come to the thread until after the OP had been edited and I read the OP as SGM having included or selected Holly's blog for a blog hop scheme. I also read the OP as something of an endorsement though perhaps it wasn't meant that way.

Helen, I hope your mum is OK.

X-post LRD.

" The point of highlighting a guest blog is to invite comments and encourage debate."

Then why lock last night's thread?

Honestly, I do not see how it can be within the bounds of interpretation. Baxter claims Long saw men as 'the enemy' and imposed her will on the issue; Long claims she simply asked men to consider leaving and called them 'political allies'.

I would accept Baxter might not like that Long even raised the possibility of men leaving, but it is simply a lie to claim she 'imposed' anything, or to say her words show she saw men as 'the enemy'.

It does seem a bit off to claim that the guest blog was intended to invite comments and encourage debate when those of us who did debate the issues have had the thread told and have been told it wasn't the best of MN!

I am in agreement with all the above really. It isn't on to invite debate and then shut down that debate without warning.

And the "bounds of interpretation" are very very loose there. With the way it was phrased by Julia, not only was it extremely polite (and a valid point to make) it also invited debate should the men not want to leave.

Really it is very apparent that the people she offended were not the men (who seemed to have understood) but other women. And that raises questions about why they feel the need to have a male presence and feminism sanctioned by men. Questions we can no longer debate because that was shut down.

And I still can't see the leap between a mass murderer of women and needing men in feminism. Really I can't. Admittedly I haven't got a PHD or anything but I still think that is stretching the realms of reasons why men should be allowed in feminism (or whatever Holly was trying to achieve with the comparison because I am struggling to get her point).

An ally is the opposite of an enemy.

To 'impose' something is to do it forcibly, without securing consent.

Interpretation is all very well, but you can't simply change the meaning of the English language and expect that to pass for 'interpretation', I don't think.

Cross posted.

FWIW, I found the mass murderer points in the blog massively inappropriate and unfeminist, but I wouldn't mind debating that (I might wonder why MNHQ thought it was a good idea to link to such a blog, given their usual stance on violence against women, but that's within the bounds of debate IMO).

I think that's different (not better or worse) from the issue of Long being misquoted and MNHQ insisiting that the misrepresentation is simply 'interpretation' when it's rather obvious it isn't.

Yes I agree it is different and a separate issue. That post was just in response to Kate's "Re the Montreal massacre: to our reading, Holly raises the massacre, and male Canadians' revulsion at it, to support her argument that feminism is strengthened, not undermined, by the presence of male feminists in the activist space."

Given the fact (in isolation) that a man mass murdered 14 women just because they were women where is the logical leap to men strengthen feminism. Because the evidence is not there in that particular case.

Yep, I agree. It doesn't make sense.

And a few men revolted at the act and starting the White Ribbon Campaign is not men strengthening feminism it is men supporting feminism and they can do that without being party to every bloody discussion including those about female separatism!

<and breathe>

There's less contradiction than you're assuming, LRD; I was at the screening and Julia first invited the men to leave using the phraseology quoted above. The later comments which Holly references (and rather overinterprets in my view) were made in the course of the ensuing discussion.

Ah, ok, thanks for that mooncup.

I'm utterly confused, to be honest.

But I don't think it is on to misrepresent someone as that blog does. Unless Long turned round and said 'screw that, actually, I do think men are the enemy and I insist they all leave, right now!' (ie., the total opposite of her quoted comment), then really, it isn't on to make out what that blog does. IMO.

I don't actually mind what Holly Baxter says about Julia - the worst thing is 'By imposing her [Julia's] own segregation in this context, she ran the danger of making us all lose half the battle' which I disagree with but think she is entitled to argue.

But I do object to her suggesting that calling for women-only spaces undermines the campaign against male-on-female violence. Particularly given that at the discussion Julia spoke movingly about her own work with victims of violence against women.

I reckon any comment I (or anyone else who wasn't there) is of pretty limited value now ... but FWIW I'd totally agree with you there.

And I do object to the way MNHQ has handled this.

Yes, I think MNHQ were a bit slapdash - but people who aren't actively involved in the feminist movement probably don't get the nuances of the arguments and the strong feelings involved.

There is a wider argument here about lib fem v rad fem positions, of course, and I hate seeing perfectly decent people on both sides hurling insults and making unpleasant insinuations about those on the other side. It is just so counter-productive.

It hadn't occurred to me it was a lib fem/rad fem debate, though I guess it is since Long is a rad fem.

I think the issue of representation/misrepresentation could have happened in any debate - they didn't really deal with that well.

I don't think there was really much 'hurling insults' and 'making unpleasant insinuations' on this thread, except from the blog itself!

Ah, I didn't mean this thread at all; I was speaking about the blog piece and about feminist infighting (particularly online) more generally.

Oh, whew!

Sorry.

I'd not seen much online about this other than the blog piece and the Guardian one, so I'd got a pretty one-sided view of it and it did make me angry.

I've got to say, that blog piece does get me properly livid. But probably that means I should stop discussing it!

"SGM, I'm so sorry that you feel that the inclusion of the link to your blog-hop was insulting; I wasn't, I'm afraid, aware of the specifics of your politics and so didn't realise that you would object so strongly to Holly's position. It certainly wasn't intended to imply that you endorsed Holly's views - simply to alert readers to the existence of lots of other interesting posts connected to #16days."

I'm not actually sure how to answer this since I actually find this also offensive. This has nothing to do with "my politics", and whatever you think those are. It's about running a blog which deliberately uses the mass murder of 14 women to make a point about including men in the feminist movement. 14 women were murdered by a man who hated feminists. And, the response of some men in Canada was to start the White Ribbon Campaign to raise awareness of male violence against women. If anything, the example Holly uses actually proves the opposite of her point.

I think it is fairly obvious you haven't scrolled through the contributors of my blog hop since I think you will find they run from radical feminists to socialist feminists to liberal feminists. They are survivors of domestic violence, rape, and prostitution. There are women who are anti-porn and women who think porn is an expression of women's sexuality. My "politics", such as they are in reference to the blog hop, were solely about the celebration of women's voices; of all women's voices. Holly wasn't arguing a political point. She was making a personal attack. That is the difference and that is why I am upset.

This is Dr. Julia Long's response in the Guardian.

I am really saddened that SGM's wonderful bloghop has been tarnished by this, and especially upset by the response from MNHQ.

If an open and honest discussion was the aim of posting Holly's blog, why was the thread locked?

I don't expect MN Bloggers Network to agree with every guest blogger, but I would expect them to read the blog critically and decide if it was likely to cause great offence to MNetters.

And when the 'OMG, what were you thinking MNHQ' resounded, why was the thread locked, and no further statement or explanation made? I get the impression that the new strategy when a thread gets heated is to lock it in the hope that the protagonists will forget by the morning.

It would have been polite to at least email Stewie and explain why you locked the thread, and why you accepted the blog post.

I find the blog post quite confusing. I cannot understand the connection between the mass murder of women and the criticism of women only spaces.

Surely anyone, regardless of gender, race or political viewpoint, would be appalled at a man walking into a university and killing 14 innocents. The response of the Canadian men, to organise a White Ribbon Campaign, was simply menschlich.

SGM wrote a blog post about women only spaces a few days ago, that really made a lot of sense to me. She wrote

The most important thing men can do to help the feminist movement is to challenge sexism every time they witness it. They have to challenge every rape joke. They have to challenge every man who minimises domestic violence. They have to step up every time; not just once in a while but every time they witness sexism. Sometimes this means they have to challenge themselves and recognise that their own behaviour is sexist. Sometimes it means accepting that they won't be allowed into every feminist space.

That sums it up. While it is great when men march with us, or organise protests, or wear ribbons on their lapels - what good does it do us if when they are back home, they revert to not standing for us when it matters?

Thank you for the link to Dr Long's response, SGM.