Violence Against Women

(515 Posts)
EatsBrainsAndLeaves Sun 30-Sep-12 12:27:42

Just been reading this blog post which talks about women who Transition as violence against women. I agree with her.

[Warning from MNHQ - this contains graphic images]

http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/transition-violence-against-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheDirtFromDirt+(The+dirt+from+Dirt)

AnyFucker Mon 01-Oct-12 10:25:29

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 12:49:58

Just interested in a couple of assertions that you think i dont understand radical feminism. Could you explain where I dont show an understanding and what is the correct understanding of radical feminism?

I've explained on several threads, and I've answered your questions as carefully as I knew how.

Your thread on patriarchy, where it became apparent you don't know that the standard usage of the term and the use of the term in the context of feminism are different, is an example.

I have no problem with people wanting to ask questions and share knowledge. Loads of lovely posters have done the same for me. There's no need to feel as if you've got to put on a front.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:02:47

LRD you said not all men are part of the patriarchy - am I right? Perhaps you could link me to some radical feminist sources that define patriarchy in this way. Because this is certainly a very different definition of radical feminism from one that I have ever read of

No, you're wrong.

I'm not going to debate this again on a separate thread.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:05:33

A link to a radical feminist source then? You did say you wanted to educate me

If you are still unclear about whether or not men are part of the patriarchy, I think you are still not understanding how the term is defined in a feminist context.

If you just google 'feminism patriarchy definitions', or similar, you'll come up with loads of different versions and you'll get to see what the state of the debate is.

I linked you to wikipedia before. I think you're probably still needing to read and understand that.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:08:47

LRD I didnt ask you for a feminist definition, but a radical feminist definition. You said I didnt understand radical feminism? And everything I have read supports my definition. So I was genuinely interested in a source that contradicted the definitions I have seen and agree with.

You need to understand basic feminism before you can understand specialized applications.

As has been explained to you many times - patriarchy refers to a system of social oppression, wherein men as a class oppress women as a class.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:11:19

The explanation you post above is the same one I have discussed. So yes all men are part of the patriarchy and all women are oppressed by it. Glad we agree on this after all LRD

You are not reading words, or you are not understanding them.

Please stop pretending we 'agree'.

If we 'agreed', you would understand that no-one - men, women, small annoying children - lives outside the patriarchy. We are all part of the patriarchy. That is what 'social system' means.

Do you follow?

And, when are you going to retract your claims to be a medical expert? It is a concern that someone might read this thread and believe you, without seeing that you are not one.

It is fine to be at the stage of needing to ask exceedingly simple questions about feminism, but do you understand that when you do that, you're asking people to help you out with learning? And people will be willing to do that - but not if you twist what is said or make claims you cannot support. It's not fair and it does get people's backs up.

Forgive me for C&P from another thread, but you seem still to believe that 'we are not all part of the patriarchy. How do you think women are part of the patriarchy? I am genuinely puzzled that you think that.'

I can understand you being puzzled. I can understand you needing to ask simple questions.

But, when you do, and people suggest they think you're not following the answers, it is rude to come back and insist you know what you're talking about and agree with them. Given that you are the one who is puzzled and questioning, you are better off trying to learn.

Women are part of the patriarchy because the patriarchy is a social system.

I explained this very early on the other thread, and if you'd used the wiki link I gave you, you could have looked it up on there.

I am not going to spend more time here - I can see you may want to, but you'll be much better off stopping, thinking about what's been explained in answer to your questions, and trying to follow it.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:25:41

No women are oppressed by the patriarchy. As you say yourself in your definition LRD. And I am an expert in my field. i simply refused to share personal information when you asked me for details.

eats, go and look up what a 'social system' is.

You don't understand the term.

Women are both part of a patriarchial society, and oppressed by it. As has been explained many times.

If you disagree, you can explain why.

But you asked the question; you've been given the answers, and it's rude to simply deny them.

I am not asking you for personal information - as I have said - but I did ask you for academic references, not from blogs. The fact you couldn't provide them and the fact you linked to a blog apparently ignorant of the kind of academic text it was discussing make it quite obvious you are not a medical expert.

I don't want to know anything personal about you, but I do feel that if you are going to tell someone you are an expert in an area of discussion as fraught as gender reassignment surgery, you need to be telling the truth. I do not believe you were. I don't think it was a deliberate lie, I think you simply said something over-ambitious in the heat of the moment, because you wanted to be right.

That's understandable, but it's not ok to keep on with it.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 01-Oct-12 13:41:06

No you complained that the links on the blog were to abstracts. And that is because only the abstracts are publically available. You have said you have access to full research papers, so the abstract should give you the information you need to access these.

But being in the field you already know that the full copy of research paperrs can not usually be linked to for free on the net?

I asked you for links to the research papers.

You gave me links to the blog.

I have asked you time and again for proper links to journal articles not found on that blog.

I am sorry, but it is very clear you have not read originals, or you would be able to provide me with this information.

I'm not in the field, and I have already said that, so don't pretend I claimed to be.

However, as you would know if you were an expert, many people do have access to free online journals. I wanted a link to one. You weren't able to provide it.

MmeLindor Mon 01-Oct-12 13:46:16

Eats
LRD didn't ask you for personal details. She asked you to share your source of expert information.

If you insist that you are right, and that you are an expert, it is only fair that we get to read your 'evidence' and then present you with arguments against your thinking (if there is any).

I am not well read enough to debate the patriarchy with you, but from what LRD and others have written, you do not understand the basic principal -- the patriarchy is a social system, not an old boys club.

I am still a 'feminist with L plates' - there is no shame in admitting that there are parts of the feminist theory that I haven't yet explored. You post a lot of questions about feminism, which is why I had assumed you were in a similar position of starting out, but then you confused me now by saying you were already an expert.

Perhaps you are simply a faster learner than I.

Beachcomber Mon 01-Oct-12 16:50:06

I thought we'd put a stop to the 'you haven't read enough/know enough/been a feminist long enough to discuss these issues' type nonsense.

Radical feminism is straightforward and simple - you don't need to be well read or any kind of expert to get it.

The issue that some feminists have with FtM transgenderism is very simple. It is controversial but simple.

GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt Mon 01-Oct-12 17:01:06

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt Mon 01-Oct-12 17:02:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OTheHugeManatee Mon 01-Oct-12 17:06:59

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MiniTheMinx Mon 01-Oct-12 17:33:35

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

beach - the issue, as I'm certain you know, isn't to do with anyone thinking you have to know a certain amount to be a radical feminist. In fact, as you know from my posts on this thread, I think it is just fine to be at a learning stage.

What is not fine is to parody radical feminism.

That's fairly simple.

MmeLindor Mon 01-Oct-12 18:15:07

Beach
it isn't about not being well read enough - I will admit to not knowing enough about this topic - but about not setting oneself up as an expert when one is nothing of the sort.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now