Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Perhaps women don't need your permission to meet and discuss what they want where they want. Free country and all.

Then these speakers should discuss their issues in public, not hiding away in 'women only' areas.

If there concerns are so valid and can be justified than there should be no problem.

As I said at the very beginning. That men, or transgenders or any other person is barred from entering this event shows how truly false the setting is, and perhaps how some of the more demented points of view are allowed to run unchecked.

I also fail to see how private, little meetings are supposed to help the whole equality thing. Book sales probably soar though in a tidal wave of estrogen, post the 'all men are rapists lecture'. As the first few women buy the book, all of those behind feel they too must purchase 'why I hate men, and so should you' to show solidarity (even if it will sit on their bookshelf unread).

Perhaps RadFem should think long and hard and get some panelists together for a good discussion, to thrash out the blips? Perhaps come together with mens groups, BGLT and other groups striving for equality and fairness in order to bring this ideal about.

I would agree with your first paragraph sausage.

However these speakers do want to discuss trans issues in public, not just online, but are being shouted down very aggressively at every turn.

One problem is that some transactivists characterise any discussion of trans issues that does not fully accept their viewpoint as hatred towards trans people individually. There is an important distinction there.

Flora think a lot of people speak from behind the screens of computers on the blog o sphere without fear that they ever need to face the people they berate and belittle. It is why I can challenge people on their beliefs here as face to face I would probably just whisper and walk away.

The person I am talking about was a man but now is a woman with a vagina rather than a penis. I knew her when she was still male and I have no idea why anyone would go through the medical issues along with the personal attacks they face. As to a threat of violence, no it is a case of want to see if the hatred stays when speaking face to face. Although the name calling by one speaker has caused a lot of hatred. Words are one thing but actually violence would repulse my friend.

LL sausage did not say if her friend was a man or a woman.

If you read my post you will see that I asked if that was a threat of violence from the friend. It's undeniable that there have been actual threats of violence against these speakers, though not necessarily from sausage's friend.

You can put whatever tortured construction you want on the words to arrive at your desired conclusion, as you have.

Or do you think a TG is still a man, and thus wants confrontation?

Flora, YOU are the one who has decided that 'challenge' means threats of violence and silencing...

It could mean 'why am I not classed as a woman when that is how I would like to be classed'.

A challenge doesn't mean a physcial challenge... you must have been violently masculinsed to perceive everything as a physical threat.

I am paraphrasing and toning it down. "So long as that B*tch is speaking then we will try to get to her to challenge her to say what she writes to our faces".

How ironic when in fact the speakers would love the opportunity to speak their views in public and are faced with threats of violence and silencing.

'FloraFox Fri 03-May-13 17:15:59

sausage your friend sounds very hateful and aggressive. Was he or she threatening violence against this woman?'

How do you figure that?

Somebody is obviously in their comfort zone, chucking out 'radical' sound bites in their safe (and false) environment and another person would like that original somebody to put their money where their mouth is.

Who said anything about violence?

sausage your friend sounds very hateful and aggressive. Was he or she threatening violence against this woman?

'Sausageeggbacon Fri 03-May-13 09:24:47

When you look at the "leaders" in feminism it is the ones who gain most column inches that get the speaking gigs and make money.'

And to be fair when one looks at some of the comments above, and the comments of such 'leaders' you can see where the concern comes from.

To gain column inches one has to be 'attractive to the reader', hence bus lanes not being feminine compatible and a refusal to accept that men may have seen as property just as much as women.

Then there is 'Violent masculinity' a 'trigger word' if ever there was one to court controversy. 'Genderisation' would also work in lieu of 'violent masculinty' (with r without the violence), or perhaps 'imprinting gender characteristics', but we'll stick masculinity in because it winds people up and sells books.

As I've mentioned above, the cynic in me tells me 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas', so why would those who are earning a crust from defeating teh scourge of male oppression of females really want such oppression to cease?

Maybe it would say more about socialism not to ask how many socialists have ever been voted into office, but how many have let themselves be voted out.

There were claims about fraud for Chavez, Allende committed suicide after only 3 years in power (okay troops at the front door).

Plenty of blood thirsty dictators from the communist side. Big communities will always end up with leaders who are distant from the grass roots. When you look at the "leaders" in feminism it is the ones who gain most column inches that get the speaking gigs and make money.

Jill Filipovic piece in the guardian here says it all.

Going back to this thread comments from a transgendered friend was the backlash was more about the speakers especially one well known anti TG proponent that seems to be in the leadership of the radical feminism movement. I am paraphrasing and toning it down. "So long as that B*tch is speaking then we will try to get to her to challenge her to say what she writes to our faces". If this is true across the board or just one opinion no idea but there is a lot of hate there.

I know Kim Jong wasn't elected, but socialist leaders have been elected. Chavez, Salvador Allende, Evo Morales. I shouldn't short cut, I am assuming too much notice I said "all over the world"

MooncupGoddess, Neo-liberalism is a curse but Keynesian economics is doomed to failure just as capitalism itself is. It can't sustain itself for ever, it is impossible.

I would really recommend listening to Resnick, Wolfe or Harvey, they all have online courses you can follow. I can explain in detail many of the contradictions which point to its demise but far better to either read or follow a course. Why would anyone take my word for it far better to just read Marx I promise if you read Capital, you won't ever be the same again !

So any news on this conference? the last update seems positive, the problem seems to be logistics and size of the hall. Looks like the MRAs are going to be disappointed.

I suppose when EVERYONE is as poor as churchmice, on a three day week (or on unofficial strike) then inequality is decreased...

I actually like the idea of smaller states, rather than super-states, maybe winding the clock back a few years so we could return to 'village states' trading with other 'village states' with physical commodities rather than 1s and 0s.

But would we then be able to maintain such institutions as GOSH or other specialist hospitals and/research facilities?

'MiniTheMinx Thu 02-May-13 20:58:57

The news this week is that North Korea have arrested an "American business man" really?????? not CIA????? why does America send in the CIA and mount coos against democratically elected socialist leaders all over the world?'

Er, remind me again how many North Koreans voted for Kim Jong Un?

Not sure Kim Jung Un election to power by his father is a good thing. Didn't son number 2 try to defect? And wasn't there rumours than son 3 had gender identity issues.

Animal farm always sticks in my mind when talking communism.

Three cheers indeed. I am in favour of anarcho-communism. Of course there are ways in which people can operate outside of capitalism by setting up workers co-operatives. This undermines the system and it is a way of building an alternative.

Communists believe that there is no easy way to a stateless society Holding the means of production in common and setting up a government of the working class which is fully democratic is the only way to avoid complete chaos.

I am not in favour of large states. Marx said that the intention should be that the state melt away. Trotsky is famous for his theory of permanent revolution but Marx had already put forward his own theory on this. There will for a long time be counter-revolutionary activity on the part of the capitalist class, even if you have full democratic socialism.

You can not have socialism and capitalism co-exist. Capitalism will not allow this.

The news this week is that North Korea have arrested an "American business man" really?????? not CIA????? why does America send in the CIA and mount coos against democratically elected socialist leaders all over the world? is it because they are bored and have time on their hands or it is because they are acting as a large and powerful state, in the interests of corporations. Why do they do this? because they are greedy? NO because capitalist surplus MUST be reinvested into new markets, MUST exploit inequalities, MUST achieve 3% compound growth and it can not therefore tolerate anything that gets in the way, be it national borders or people.

Another thing to ask yourself about the size of the state is this........how big was the state before capitalism? It's grown in direct response to:

Increasing inequality, increasing welfare need, rising unemployment, the complexity of laws needed because of complex property rights, need for specialist skills and eduction, extended childhood, the need for huge spending on the national war machine to further capitalist expansion, banking regulations etc,...

I've got to be honest, with all this rabid feminism and of course the Leninism theorising it is beginning to sound like a boring day in the student union bar...

All we need now is bunch of philosophy types debating whether or not the chairs they are sitting on are actually physically present, or an illusion of the mind.

No government? I recall extensive quoting from Lenin a while ago, but maybe that was to illustrate what we should all be avoiding.

Three cheers for anarcho-syndicalism, but this is fantasy.

Is there any successful society that operates under the 'Communist Ideal'?

Or are there always some who are more equal than others?

www.thefairtradestore.co.uk/fair-trade-bags/cat_3.html

Government you do realise that communism is about having no government...... don't you ?????????

I'd rather have advertisements telling people to buy Prada, than a government telling them they shouldn't.