New sub-section please?

Somehow I feel as if I have been patted on the head!?

Possibly because when they do argue their point they are subjected to ad hominem attacks, insults and "spontaneous" chat about baking.

And I wouldn't think of myself as a radical feminist at all. Or a liberal feminist for that matter.

Over the years I've had my arse handed to me on a plate on these boards; sometimes undeserved (in my opinion), sometimes very much deserved. I've changed my mind on some things, not on others, but at least I've listened and thought about it and come up with my own principles.

There are few issues I fence-sit on these days. But maybe that's just because I'm old and cynical. But MN feminists have taught me a lot.

The main thing I've learned it to look at it from a woman's point of view - not necessarily mine, but the most vulnerable woman I can think of. If an attitude/law/practice/opinion isn't ok for that woman, then I should speak up against it.

Note how EU referendum is one area.
There are not separate areas for pro/against and never the 'twain shall meet.

Plus there is no radical/separatist/green/socialist/intersectional/whatever subsection. Why do you think the type which already seems to be very popular on mn (see six million "I'm a feminist, I believe in choice, but scared of fwr" posts) should need its own area? If it's so common, yet with so many avoiding FWR, why are people not trying to get their POV across in the existing chat area?

It just reeks of safe space and no-platforming to me. If you have the courage in your libfem convictions, you can debate with the radfems and still come out with your views unchanged. If you can't, maybe you're just having your eyes opened to a new possibility?

I don't agree with "safe spaces" (aka anyone with opposing views isn't allowed to talk to me) in university and I definitely don't agree with it on a feminism discussion board. Part of feminism has always been making your voice heard and making people listen, but there's also an element of listening and learning yourself. I was a libfem through and through until reading the feminism board here; now I sit on the fence as an intersectional feminist who becomes radical when discussing trans issues and their impact on women's rights.

There are no entry requirements for the board. There's no "hate trans people or you can't sit with us". Sometimes I'll join in threads; sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't - and sometimes I'll sit one out. Argue and debate and discuss and start your own threads, try to educate people to your point of view and allow them to educate you about yours. That's what feminism is supposed to be; not a series of clubs that close their doors to anyone with slightly different views on a singular topic.

She always goes fucking shopping/back to real life when the discussion gets to the "shit or get off the pot stage". ffs, it's like arguing with a marshmallow [cynical]

Bertrand, maybe we need a "you can't be a feminist if ..." thread - I'm coming up with a heck of a lot of examples at the moment [sigh]

It's not a matter of "if you want to be a feminist you have to follow my rules", it's more "if you want to be a feminist you have to at least believe that women are human beings, and have a right to respect, choices and support". Pretty basic, really.

BeyondWitchbitchterf, Liberal Feminists are not welcome on the FWR boards, in fact the term Lib Feminist is an insult there.

Which of Maryz's points do you disagree with?

See you there Rat

That's not to say that proper libfems are not feminist. As they are still pro woman. And as such, perfectly welcome in FWR.

I agree with Maryz and Bertrand's examples.

They are all examples of not being pro-woman, so no shit Sherlock they are examples of "you can't be feminist if"

Oh and I don't think echo chambers are a good idea. Did no one learn anything from Brexit?!

Seriously, though, which of my statements do you not agree with. And which of the things I've listed do you not believe? It would be nice to get specific answers from you on something - you are doing a heck of a lot of fence sitting across multiple threads

If you support self-id you are supporting men winning at women's sport, men entering women's spaces, women being forced to accept intimate care from men and the erosion of all women's spaces.

You say you don't want to make this about trans issues, but it's obvious from your posts that where women's rights and trans demands meet you are on the side of trans.

I want to trial something..but I have no idea what to ask as I don't know whats clased as liberal feminism and whats not.

I am thinking, put [Libfems] in the title or something. And see what happens. But it has to be something thats apparently liberal feminism. Any ideas?

I think a liberal feminist sub section would be great. It's sad that it should have to be requested online a site with an already existing feminist section, but anything that makes it easier for women to engage with feminism is a good thing.

Thanks OP.

and for a very few folk it means 'anyone who identifies as a woman'

It's not 'very few folk'. The if the GRA proposals go through 'anyone who identifies as a woman' will be the legal definition of woman won't it? And once that happens, campaigning against 'male' violence, equal pay etc will get a hell of a lot harder.

Anyway, really don't want to derail so am going to leave that now, sorry!

If you are for women and women's rights you are a feminist.

Conversely:

*If you If you are not for women and women's rights you are not a feminist."

If you support the erosion of women's rights to increase rights for a small number of men, how can you say you are supporting women's rights?

'But that is the problem with self id isn't it? You cannot be in favour of both self id
and women's rights. They are not compatible are they? Or if they are I would love to know how.'
For me, the way it works is when I say 'women' I mean 'adult human females' and when other folk say 'women' they often mean 'adult human females but also I will be polite and pretend it also means men with ladyfeels' and for a very few folk it means 'anyone who identifies as a woman'

But we all can still fight against abortion or for equal pay or for childcare or against male sex offenders (as long as we all agree they're male, or can come to some agreement about how to proceed) so there's still a lot of common ground.

'Self-identifying women' or 'femmes' would exclude me, so I avoid groups with those terms.

Yes I know, I was just thinking about the concept of 'Liberal Feminism'.

I stand by all those - which of my statements do you disagree with?

If you look at my examples (or Bertrand's) and think they are incorrect; if you believe any of those statements, no-one could possibly think you were a feminist.

Apart possibly from you - but I'm not entirely sure about that. I don't think you think you are a feminist, liberal or not.

If you are for women and women's rights you are a feminist.

But that is the problem with self id isn't it? You cannot be in favour of both self id
and women's rights. They are not compatible are they? Or if they are I would love to know how.