Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Are the MRAs a recent phenomena in response to the proliferation of "radfem" blogs?

Mini I think trying to pin the existence of MRAs on radfems is a bit grim. Radfems aren't responsible for other people's misogyny.

MRAs do not want any form of feminism to flourish. They are using divide and rule tactics to great effect. They are using the antipathy other schools of feminism have to radfems in order to shut down a feminist space and they will do the same to any feminist group they think they can successfully attack.

Radfems want to have one conference a year to get together. There are other feminist conferences that they doubtless go to too. Why is the existence of a radfem conference so threatening to other feminists? I don't mind if other feminists want to throw a conference focusing on their shared view of theory. I don't even care if they don't invite anyone who doesn't share their theoretical viewpoint. They have the right to assemble peacefully.

Yes LRD we shut down their male space and did it when they weren't looking

The mind-boggling thing about these MRAs is that all of the changes they are so upset about were enacted by parliament with a huge majority of male MPs and government ministers. I don't know what planet they're on they think this feminist revolution took place on.

You mean to say women aren't chattels now?!

That must be an oversight. Probably happened when they forced poor downtrodden men to give up their all-male parliament and let women in.

GrtGmawasasuffragiat so when the law provided that women were chattels, they were chattels? Not sure where you're going with that.

Incidentally ... and I honestly will try to limit my repeat-posts to three! ... I do find it rather bitterly amusing that women have been celebrating the gradual right to attend mixed sex groups - men and women - as a victory for equality, when it turns out the 'men's rights' groups only see a mixed sex group as a defeat for the rights of mankind.

mini - I think you're concentrating on single events as if they were statement so of all interaction is to be carried out ever.

There is a huge difference between separatism, and occasionally meeting as a small group of like-minded people.

If radical feminists (or any other group) persistently removed themselves from association with any other group, that would be separatism. One meeting, once a year - that isn't.

Apologies, I only read to this post and stopped to reply:

Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with a men's room at a university

Yes, if it were being used for study. Women have historically been excluded from academic contexts, and men are still given more space in classrooms and lectures, so it would be wrong to exacerbate that. The exception, I think, might be on religious grounds or in a context where men are in the minority (eg., nursing). That might work.

or male only sessions at a gym?

Those sound very sensible.

It seems to me that there has been a major historic effort to shut down male spaces, yet we still promote female only space and events.

Please give me examples of 'male spaces' that have been shut down? Spaces where there is a mixed or female equivalent, but no male equivalent? I think perhaps there will be a pattern to what you find when you look.

As this thread demonstrates, female-only events are so far from being promoted, they are in fact under threat. Compare, perhaps, to the Bullingdon club.

I'm curious how this is equality?'

A major tenet of feminism is that women do not yet have equality. I am pleased you are concerned too, albeit late in the day.

Political meet ups aren't just about honing ideas though, are they, they're about solidarity and coming together with like minded people, networking and making connections and learning in a supportive environment. It's only when women do it, that it's looked at askance. No one tells socialists to not bother going to a Marxism conference because they'll only meet people who will agree with them, they should get tickets for the Tory Party conference instead.

The church had retreats, abbeys, convents, as well as missionaries - the missionaries could withdraw to them and gain spiritual sustenance to go refreshed out into the world again.

" Are they not just seeking their own emancipation at the expense of others."

Yes. Absolutely agree.

Maybe its just me, I don't particularly get off on being agreed with, I'd rather test my ideas against other people's. I can't see how you can develop as a thinking person without testing your theory, how can you know you are even on the right track.

I guess the church had missionaries because it realised that it couldn't convert anyone otherwise. People wouldn't just roll up and sign up. Which is why open dialogue is important.

Are the MRAs a recent phenomena in response to the proliferation of "radfem" blogs? although I suspect that the economic situation is key to understanding this. Many men who are signing up to MRA are probably locating the cause of their disenfranchisement to women when the real culprit is material. But then lots of women think equality can be had under capitalism, are they not deluding themselves. Are they not just seeking their own emancipation at the expense of others.

"It seems to me that there has been a major historic effort to shut down male spaces, yet we still promote female only space and events.
I'm curious how this is equality?"

Male-only spaces have traditionally been used to shut out women, to keep power and privileges for themselves.

Women-only spaces were traditionally man-made areas to keep women under male control.

Public space is not a neutral space, it is overwhelmingly a male space. It was designed in the main by male town planners with male priorities and women are there on tolerance only. That's why men shout obscenities and abuse in the street - to remind us that we have no right to be there without a male owner companion.

We could have a whole other thread about male versus female space, it's an interesting topic.

Mini - a couple of times a year people meet up with people who agree with them.

The rest of the time, it simply isn't possible to be insulated from the shit the rest of the world is throwing around.

I really don't think there's a huge danger that radical feminists will forget that the rest of the world doesn't agree with them...

Do people with disabilities get told to worry about able bodied people.

Good point but IMO doesn't prove the efficacy of only discussing something with like minded people when trying to reach a solution. People with disabilities need to have a dialogue with others in order that everyone can understand the issues they face. And other people do have some responsibility for listening.

The problem with single issue activism of all sorts is that it can become very insulated. What is the point in talking to people who agree with you unless you only want to have your opinion validated. If we all hive off into groups and never test our theories, ideologies, ideas, bias and prejudice against others, you can end up with a sort of specialised group think that is hostile to anything outside of that hegemony. At that point no two groups can overcome the differences. esp if making progress relies upon others outside the group not opposing and challenging the changes.

Any of you (I'm struggling to learn different forum layout! Used to threading replies from a number of forums I was part of a few years back)
This was in response to the assertion that MRAs sought to uphold traditional gender roles of the woman in the home and the man in the job

Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with a men's room at a university or male only sessions at a gym?
It seems to me that there has been a major historic effort to shut down male spaces, yet we still promote female only space and events.
I'm curious how this is equality?

Non-sequitur?

What are you trying to ask?

Are you talking about all MRAs? Again, are we saying extremists represent the majority view?

Are you aware that the Southern Poverty Law Centre has been discredited itself on a number of occasions?

Indeed. Don't lets imagine the horror.

It'd be almost like, imagine if you'd grown up in a world where political leaders were groomed in all-male clubs that'd existed for centuries, and then some pesky women decided to get together to have a chat. You'd be horrified and justifiably upset.

I know! It is fairly hiliarious if you don't think of it too hard.

Basically, I think the more privileged people are, the harder it is for them to see that privilege and the more they think they're being done down. It is kinda relevant here, somehow ...

Oh, I think they do, FWIW, mooncup.

My mum used to get people ringing her up when she worked on a disability helpline with people being furious that the 'stupid' child in the class got special help.

Likewise - not disbility but indicative of how people think about privilege - my mate works in a university admissions office and told me she has more than once had a call from a parent whose child goes to Eton asking why there aren't any summer schools set up to help children from Eton approach the shocking idea of going to Oxbridge, and why they always focus on the kids from disadvantaged schools.