Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Kim we know exactly why the MRAs did what they did, because they talk about it openly on their websites. They hate feminists (all feminists, not just radfems) for reasons that are nothing to do with trans and everything to do with the MRA agenda, and they are completely open about how they are using trans this time simply because it is the best card for them to play. There's stuff on their sites that is far more transphobic than anything I've ever heard a radfem I know in RL say.

I'm glad GTM has only met nice MRAs but some of the less nice once are listed at the Southern Poverty Law Center's listing of misogynist hate sites here.

Huh. And that was a genuine cross-post.

Yes, I agree, and I also feel I've gained a better understanding (though still very limited I know).

Oh, I do see that people associate rad fem with being anti-trans, kim. I am trying to say, I'm standing up against that. I do not believe transphobia is acceptable, and I do not belive that the sort of abuse and threats and disgusting language that gets thrown at transpeople is in any way acceptable. It isn't.

I think debating the issues around gender and sex probably do need a safe space, TBH. I think they're really hard to debate.

I do want to be able to debate these points without being told I must be being transphobic for (for example), saying I do not personally have such a thing as 'gender identity', or for saying I do think that there are issues to do with pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, that are important to be discussed. I am aware that many transpeople would not object to me discussing those things, too - or so I understand from you, because you have been generous with your time and explained to me. I think we should be able to talk without getting into insults and abuse.

Anyway ...

God knows why the MRAs did what they did. No sense (IMO) trying to work it out.

fair - yep, true enough, must be doing something right.

I can't help thinking that if MRAs are so angry about RadFem 2013 and so invested in shutting it down, it's a pretty good sign that the organisers must be doing something right. I'm sorry I won't be able to go.

I'd like to draw everybody's attention to the fact that you can donate on the RadFem 2013 website to enable sisters (I like that too!) who wouldn't be able to afford it to be able to attend. I will be donating in lieu of attending.

And, you know, I am so tired of being told we 'should' worry about the men.

Yes, sure. We should and I think we mostly do. Is it not ok to maybe worry about the women something like, hmm, 1% of the time? And have shared meetings the other 99%, which will tend to be dominated by men?

I do worry about those men.

So do loads of radical feminists.

I cannot glance through the FWR section without falling over threads about our husbands or sons or brothers. We do worry.

I don't understand what more we're meant to do? We have to not just 'worry', but actually put these men's needs so far ahead of our own, we can't even have a one-day conference to get together, to provide a space for those women who are too scared to talk elswhere, to talk?

I can see where you are coming from - you are just like everyone else, you know men who're decent men. This is not a singular position.

What is your solution for the women who would like to be able to talk about issues like, say, rape or prostitution or DV? Are you just saying 'well, they should really get over themselves and stop needing a safe space, because what matters most is men?'. Because I'm sure you don't mean to say that, but what else does what you're saying mean?

I do not belive that, in order to make common ground across different groups, we need never to meet up separately. Why?

I'm just thinking that the "common man" on the street, the husbands, partners, ex-husbands the men that perhaps are socialised by the media, by porn, by the process of just being disadvantaged, read the sun newspaper or whatever or feel marginalised because of the tough economic situation and the fact that low skilled male workers are surplus in the modern world. These are the men that we should worry about. Both because (we) women live with these men & because these men are the ones most likely to display casual sexism and even hostility towards women. The men that benefit most by upholding patriarchal/class relations within society encourage this because it benefits them in terms of profit but also it obscures the real social relations under this oppressive socio/economic system.

Nothing would signal an end to patriarchal/class relations better than men coming on board and fighting it too

True, you're right, I should clarify, I don't think they're the same thing.

My comparison is the basic one we're all aware of: it is possible to be racist to anyone, of any race. But it is not currently possible to be a 'black supremacist' in the way someone can be a 'white supremacist', because the structure of society gives white people so much racial privilege. In the same way, it is possible to be sexist towards men or women or both, but it is not possible to be a misandrist in the way someone can be a misogynistic, because the structure of society gives men so much sex privilege.

Surely MRAs are being compared to white supremacists rather than conflated? 'Conflated' suggests people believe they are actually the same thing, which I don't think anyone thinks.

Absolutely, mini. I couldn't agree more.

Some men are oppressed irrespective of their sex though, somehow we need to be talking to these men because these are the men that pose the greatest threat to equality.

grt - thanks for agreeing with my earlier post.

It's nice of you to repeat it, and I appreciate it - I'd be almost more appreciative if you'd, you know, acknowledged I had already explained that, under law, you can change gender, but, you know ...

What did you think about the fact that the London Irish Centre isn't risking breaking this legislation for the reasons already suggested? Did you have a view on that?

MRAs are conflated with white supremacists because they are very similar. It is very simple, unfortunately. Comparing feminists and men's rights 'extremes' is rather odd, isn't it, given that we live in a world where women are oppressed as a result of their sex and men are not?

Ok, lets talk Equality Act 2010 here:
There are 7 protected characteristics, gender is one of them. There is another bit of legislation that permits people living as their gender of choice for 2 years (no need for medical or surgical intervention) they can apply to be legally recognised as being of that gender. This includes a change of birth certificate.
It doesn't matter what your opinions are, the law allows change of gender identity.
Second, the Equality Act states explicitly that unless there is a specific reason to exclude which already exists in an organisations policy and is covered by another protected characteristic, an organisation must comply with equality legislation - hence the RNIB can say their director MUST be blind or partially sighted in a job advert, and they do not run contrary to the Equality Act because their charter is about promoting the welfare if people with sight-loss, so asking for actual experience of blindness as an essential criteria is no more discriminator than asking a doctor to have a recognised medical qualification.
To hazard a guess the London Irish Centre realised that they risked their charity status if there was even a hint of a risk of breaking Equality Legislation. I suspect the MRA protest was only part of it (and have there been any arrests because of that protest? - none I have seen, so I doubt it was viewed as harasment). From what I read in the centre's own press statement they received complaints from trans-activists. So it was not just because of the MRA protest.

I know a few MRAs - you can't spend time dealing with family court issues without coming across them. The mainstream are very clear on their anti-violence stance. Most I've met are egalitarian and seek equal treatment under the law - so changes such as presumed shared parenting after divorce. Most are worried about issues such as male suicide, male rape in prisons, male genital mutilation, effective male contraception to ensure both men and women have reproductive choices. Many are fathers of daughters and want society to be safe and equal for their girls, and they don't see that advocating for men's issues diminishes their concern and care for their daughters.
I don't get this zero-sum approach to men's rights here - identifying and acting to address men's issues does not detract from women's rights or the efforts to get gender equality. Conflating the MRA with white supremacist movements gave me a bemused moment considering the black and Asian and female MRAs I've met.
There are haters in all movements - both in the feminist extreme and the men's rights extreme, but the moderates of both sides have their place in society and in gender narrative.

I've read it again it doesn't say 'intimidation' it says 'safety'

'Our cancellation of the booking was a very difficult decision, but one that we have made to protect the safety of our venue staff. It is also due to the increased operational demands of the conference, which we are not now equipped to deal with as a very small organisation and venue, used mainly for weddings, community events and training.

We have made this difficult decision based entirely on our available infrastructure and the wellbeing of our staff, without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference and we are making recommendations to the organisers about other possible venues with the operational capacity to accommodate the event. We wish Radfem a successful conference.'

I think people are putting 2+2 together and getting 5.

I suppose they're lying when they say this.

'without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference'

Oh, no, sorry, flora, that wasn't in the least me getting at you!

mumordad - the conference organizers said it was intimidation of the venue staff, yes.

Is there evidence that MRAs stopped the conference through intimidation?

Or is it paranoia?

A good article here.

www.lesbilicious.co.uk/radfem-2013-cancelled-should-we-care/

LazarussLozenge wrote - "The author appears to think 9,000,000 women were burned at the stake... No mention that that figure would have left Europe with no women nor wood for fuel."

9 million women burned at the stake may not be accurate, but your claim that it is an overestimate because it would have left Europe with no women is incorrect.

There were about 9 million women and girls living in France alone at any given time during the witch hunt period (1480 to 1750). Historians have calculated that this population implies that more than 50 million French women lived during the witch hunts. Obviously when the other countries in Europe are also included, the total number of women is even larger.

Yes LRD we've probably beat that one to death

Only if by 'pretty reasonable' you mean 'we'll just jump to a conclusion that fits our outlook'.

pretty low harassing the venues staff

Exactly, infamous.

Can I say? I don't really follow why we are discussing the venue's policy and transphobia again.

The venue's staff got harrassed, they're worried about the safety of their staff. The conference is inviting transwomen to attend.

It seems pretty reasonable to conclude that the reason the conference might not go ahead is because some people decided to try to intimidate the venue into backing down by threatening the people who work there. I think we can probably draw our own conclusions about what that says about the people involved in said harrassment.

LRD,

I said 'secreted' not secret.

As in concealing the proceedings within the meeting, rather than the meeting itself. And certainly nothing to do with discharge!

On the subject of what various parties would 'like to see'. We assume that various feminist groups want sexual equality, we assume other groups want equality on grounds of race, etc.

Do they though?

Call me a cynic, but wouldn't sexual equality (for example) mean the professional equalisers are out of job? Is it in their best interest to reach their goal early, or drag it out for as long as possible?

No one wants to end up like Arthur Scargill.