Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Feminists reject gender (masculinity and femininity) because it takes qualities such as violence and associates them with fifty percent of the population, divided by sex.
They believe that women are not naturally submissive and men are not naturally violent, for example, but they are encouraged to be so by the existence of gender, which is culturally constructed and not natural.

'MooncupGoddess Sat 27-Apr-13 16:06:32

Lazarus - if you've ever been to a non-Western country you should understand Basil's point about public space being designed for men. I can appreciate that it's less immediately obvious in the 21st century UK, but even now any woman who comes to harm as a result of being out alone late at night gets deluged with an avalanche of victim-blaming.'

Forgot this. BTW LRD I haven't been googling 'history'.

I have been to a number of countries, I will mention Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Kuwait.

Oh go on then, Thailand, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Tunisia, Egypt, Morroco, USA, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Turkey, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Ukraine, Russia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Greece, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Kenya, the list is long.

Non of them have been designed specifically for men. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they were designed for people to live in them.

And yet again you state 'woman who comes to harm'. Rubbish. A man who comes to harm late at night is similarly seen as at fault. Again we have a post pushing the 'women suffering' angle, as if it is only women who suffer.

If a man is attacked out alone, late at night similar blame is heaped upon him. I'll admit the 'dressed provocatively' angle is pretty much women only.

Lazarus There is a difference between sex and gender.

You are being emotive and aren't following logically by the way.

"Violence is not masculine, because it can be committed by both male or female sexes."

1. 'Masculine gender' is different from 'male sex' as already stated.
2. 'Violence itself' is not gendered, however it can be 'intrinsic to' a gender.
3. Not all people who are of a particular sex conform to the gender role into which they were socialised.

Lazarus I don't think you are understanding some of the basic concepts here - what is meant by 'a culture', the difference between maleness and masculinity.

I would happily take the time to explain them but I don't find that you're awfully good at admitting when you don't know things, so sadly you are getting an awful lot of stuff muddled up.

tunip,

masculinity means the characteristic of being male.

Therefore to attach a characteristic to the term indicates that that is a male characteristic.

'Masculine violence' = male violence.

It's nonsense, used to perpetuate the careers of those who spout twaddle.

Violence is not masculine, because it can be committed by both male or female sexes.

Just as empathy, sensitivity or compassion are not feminine because they can be exhibited by both sexes.

If people devoted a bit of time removing such beliefs instead of using them to support their lifestyle we'd be close to achieving to a fairer and more tolerant society.

How do you ask a man for a fairer and more tolerant society, whilst at the same time accusing him of all of the worst aspects of humanity? Even to the point of turning some of his good points in to bad?

Lazarus, culture of violent masculinity neither implies that all men are violent or that no women are.

"'culture of violent masculinity'? Not just violence then, is it really a masculine thing? Women can't be violent? Have you seen the histories on various female concentration camp guards or terrorists or are we to believe that was all mans fault too?"

Gender. Violence is intrinsic to the masculine gender (not the male sex - there is a difference). Boys are socialised into the masculine gender. If you have been hanging around in feminist forums for any length of time I'm sure you'll be very familiar with the grim statistics this gender socialisation results in.

'BubblesOfBliss Sat 27-Apr-13 17:54:23

Protect or guard?'

Does it matter? They had still been subjected to genital mutilation (either the testies were severed or in somecases teh penis also), and lived under quite a weighty penalty system if they were found wanting. They were slaves as much as anyone else...

...but let's not forget women probably had it worse in the gilded cage that was the harem. eh. No one else could possibly have suffered.

I've backed out and listened (well read) some of these posts and radfem blogs and I have to ask.

Are you outraged at the oppression in itself or just that 'men' got there first?

Seriously.

'culture of violent masculinity'? Not just violence then, is it really a masculine thing? Women can't be violent? Have you seen the histories on various female concentration camp guards or terrorists or are we to believe that was all mans fault too?

Surely there should a drive to create a fair society for all.

I like Sharon Smith, she is very direct.

For the required violence to occur to establish a robust unequal and exploitative class system, you need a culture of violent masculinity at the root to achieve it. Violent masculinity as a mindset and as a culture is nurtured and bolstered by othering, controlling and violating women primarily- though the same sentiments can be nurtured by othering groups along lines of race and nationality, social class and so on

The violence involved in siezing the land or assets of others could be said to be "masculine" it was after all men who went to war. However it wasn't the men who lost their lives who benefited from this but the ruling elite.

As others have said on this thread already, historically just as now there is more equality for women of the elite. And those rights are linked to private property, the protection of the state with some two thirds of laws being set up to protect property rights.

The chances are if you have money of your own, you can leave, you can get a lawyer, you can take out a court order, you can seek to get half through a divorce settlement, you may have a good education that can be drawn upon to find decently paid work etc.......

But a poor women may lack social contacts, women's services are under threat, refuges are closing, citizens advice cutting services, she may not get legal aid because this is being cut, she might lack an education on which to draw etc.....She won't get very much in maintenance payments if anything, there will be no property that can be divided. She will be forced to take any work however poorly paid or exploitative.

As regards "othering" liberalism "others" all other groups. We are the feminists, they are the womanists, they are the working black men, they are hamsters, they are the, the, the ......and so it goes on. I really believe we should be building unifying movements of resistance not "othering" everyone else.

mini Sharon Smith is cool.
the class before sex thing isn't about the sociology of different groups and whether some people are more important than others; it's about how soicety developedhistorically so the material/economic base gave rise to the oppression ofwomen/Black people - likewise, the group with by far the most, if not only, possibiity of changing the fundamental structure of society is the working class because they can organise on line of their own oppression and have the potential power to unite & overthrow the existing power structures & forming new ones

"I shall be perfectly frank, I don't much care about the troubles of women of the ruling class. Since the formation of class structures with the discovery of surplus, ruling class women have benefited by upholding class society. If it came to a a shoot out they would take your head off! and they would stand firm with the men of their class to protect their elevated status."

I'm not so sure about that. Many early feminist activists were from the ruling elite. I believe solidarity can exist between women beyond differences in race, social class, sexuality, etc and the thought of anyone being abused concerns me. In fact you are just as likely to find an insecure, grasping, class obsessed social climber showing cruelty and distain towards a poverty-stricken, abused and exploited working class person as you are someone from the ruling elite.

For me the link between the establishment of economic inequality by violent siezure of goods and forced/exploited labour must be factored into a class analysis.

For the required violence to occur to establish a robust unequal and exploitative class system, you need a culture of violent masculinity at the root to achieve it. Violent masculinity as a mindset and as a culture is nurtured and bolstered by othering, controlling and violating women primarily- though the same sentiments can be nurtured by othering groups along lines of race and nationality, social class and so on.

Violent masculinity transcends class and so does the grooming into submissive and placating femininity.

BubblesOfBliss, Interesting questions

I shall be perfectly frank, I don't much care about the troubles of women of the ruling class. Since the formation of class structures with the discovery of surplus, ruling class women have benefited by upholding class society. If it came to a a shoot out they would take your head off! and they would stand firm with the men of their class to protect their elevated status.

This sums up perfectly what I mean

""Power feminism." Feminist author Naomi Wolf best summarized this new approach in her 1994 book, Fire with Fire. In it, she coined the term "power feminism" as an alternative to what she called "victim feminism,"

Wolf admitted that capitalism "does oppress the many for the few," but she argued, "enough money buys a woman out of a lot of sex oppression

Now you can see why Xenia makes me itch!

Sharon Smith Marxist is very interesting on the subject, Lise Vogel (earlier work confused) but Martha E Gimenez is very clear on why she thinks primacy should be given to a Marxist/class analysis.

socialistworker.org/2013/01/31/marxism-feminism-and-womens-liberation Sharon Smith, No I am not a member.

www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/

As Collins acknowledges (and this is something evident in the preceding sample of metaphors attempting to deal with this issue) "the area of race, class and gender studies struggles with the complex question of how to think about intersections of systems of oppression" (Collins, 1997: 73). One solution, based on the assumption that gender, race and class are simultaneously experienced, is to consider them as "situated accomplishments;" they are not only individual attributes but "something which is accomplished in interaction with others" who, in turn, render these accomplishments accountable within institutional settings (West and Fenstermaker, 1997: 64). From this ethnomethodological stance, people simultaneously "do" difference (i.e., gender, race and class) in the process of interacting with others and, through their "doings," contribute to the reproduction of those structures. As Collins rightly points out, this postmodern, social constructionist analysis that reduces oppressive structures to "difference," leaves out "the power relations and material inequalities that constitute oppression" Gimenez

In other words one perceives sex, class, gender, race difference as comparisons. So I could be gender blind, race blind,sex blind....... in fact I could be totally blind........but I could still be starving, exploited for my labour and lacking social power. The reason for this of course is because there is a net beneficiary to this exploitation. All social power under capitalism is "money power" it is what material advantage will buy you. So I could fit every definition of privilege over the other groups and still be exploited simply because of class. There is the question of racial and gendered poverty but underlying this is still the surplus value of labour theory, which essentially is blind in terms of gender/race. The only benefit to be had by sexism, racism and division of the working class is to divide and obscure social relations, create a class of super exploited people, to use women's reproductive labour, women's unpaid labour and the super exploited.......women and people of colour to undervalue labour and increase capital accumulation.

I would argue that to create a slave class(historically) or as now a class of super exploited (female/people of colour) creates the conditions under which these people have a unifying cause, that of class. If people lack the means of production, the material conditions that lead to social power then none of them have the means of overcoming their oppression. This is why under capitalism we have "liberalism" with its competing but equal oppressions" this is used to the advantage of those who benefit from this system by obscuring the primacy of class struggle in achieving equality for all.

Whilst you could argue that I have privilege over the super exploited, I would draw you to: Alexandra Kollontai who like other Bolshevik women called on men to support the equal wages for women. Having a class of super exploited workers places pressure on wages but also means that primacy is given to hiring the cheaper labour. This is why racism and sexism is of no benefit what so ever to other working class people......only capitalist can benefit from it.

"only if class is given ascendency over sex can this be achieved"

Mini I wonder how the oppression of upper classed women by upper classed men would end by this process? (since it is not just the working or middle classed men who perpetrate domestic violence, incest, marital rape, psychological, emotional or financial abuse and so on)

Good blog.
Stavvers is an enormous shit-stirrer. I followed her for a bit on Twitter but she was just going around 'calling people out' as an excuse to bully them; it wasn't very edifying to watch.

sisterhoodispowerful.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/the-dangerous-tale-of-the-mres-and-their-allies/

Some further clarification from Radfem.

Mini why does class have to be given ascendency over sex? I've heard this a lot from left wing (mainly) men but it usually seems to me that it is just because they don't actually really care about women's sex oppression. Is there some theory around that? (I've been very interested in your theory discussions, although I have nothing of value to contribute.)

Mini I also want to address this: "Feminism has been accused of not addressing the very specific oppression of racism."

I disagree with this since a lot of black feminists came up through the civil rights movement and there are feminists all over the world of all races addressing the intersection of sexism & racism. The problem is more to do with black feminists not getting the recognition or centrality they deserve for their contribution to the feminist or civil rights movements within the dominant 'white' and 'male' discourses.

"Also, if all oppression is caused by this dialectical process then it is possible to build solidarities on the left that would tackle the root cause of ALL oppression, but only if class is given ascendency over sex can this be achieved."

That sounds good in theory mini but it doesn't seem very practical to me. The odd thing about women's oppression as a sex class is that it is so close to home - in the home - everywhere. This makes their oppression invisible by being so divided from their 'comrades' where they can share and understand the unique commonalities of their sex oppression.

Servants can't organise for their freedom with their 'masters' in the same room if you see what I mean...

Just seen Kim's post, wanted to just say, I really hope things get better at some point in the future both for you and in general terms.

the ideology that women were sub-humans, was not the cause of women's oppression, it was the result of it. And then of course fed back into it and became a cause of it. Ideology and practice feed into each other

Yes, that is materialist conception of history and oppression.

There is a dialectic btw the base (material) and the super structure (ideologies)

Feminism has been accused of not addressing the very specific oppression of racism. I don't know enough about Radfem analysis to say either way.

What I do believe though is that all oppression comes from the same dialectic btw base and superstructure. If this is correct (IMO it is????) then we really need to be addressing some of the antagonism coming out of these blogs because a lot of it isn't based on sound analysis.

Also, if all oppression is caused by this dialectical process then it is possible to build solidarities on the left that would tackle the root cause of ALL oppression, but only if class is given ascendency over sex can this be achieved. (IMO)

"Ideology and practice feed into each other"

completely agree with you too Basil

It is the only thing that makes sense - practicality feeding ideology and so on. It pisses me off that radfem haters often suggest we imagine something more conspiratorial- a secret society designing patriarchy on the back of an envelope at some specific point in time.

I don't know Parenti's work but absolutely agree that racism has a material cause.

In the 1530's I think it was, Charles V declared slavery unlawful throughout the Spanish empire, seeing as how it was sinful and an outrage unto God to enslave men. Because at that stage, black Africans were still considered men like white Europeans.

White Europeans needed to develop an ideology which justified slavery and racism was the solution - the idea that black men were sort of men, but they were not quite as human as the default men, the white ones. The ideology always comes out of the practice IMO, not the other way round. Just as it did with sexism - the ideology that women were sub-humans, was not the cause of women's oppression, it was the result of it. And then of course fed back into it and became a cause of it. Ideology and practice feed into each other.

Mini I haven't got time to follow link - but what you say comes very close to what I believe.