Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

kim the venue dictates the policy, not the other way around. Using the equality policy as the reason suggests that the rights of transgendered people not to be offended by people who question gender identity should be given greater standing that the rights of women to meet to discuss feminism.

Thats because it is LRD. A group of people wish to meet. There's a criteria. If you dont fit it, dont go. Why would you want too?
Last week I went to a meeting just for disabled people. We didnt have non disabled people campaigning outside miffed they couldnt come and talk about the issues surrounding disability. Cos d'uh.
It seems to me like common sense not just flew out the window but got shot and et.

I did know some late-medievalists who got extremely fed up that they weren't really able to participate in the Norse reading group meetings, but I believe this was largely because the Norse group had managed to convince everyone that the theory and practice of mead-drinking was integral to academic study.

But I digress.

When you put it like that, you're right, it does seem ridiculous.

I'm puzzled why it bothers some people that a group of women want a conference all of their own. Do those same people insist on being at any other exclusive event? Wicans only? Star trek nerds only? Viking appreciation society? Or is it just women who cant have a women only event?

I've read some of the transactivist blogs - I try not to, TBH - and some of them are pretty horrible to read. I know perfectly well that their views don't represent yours or many other people.

But there is a perception, which I've seen echoed in the death threats to radical feminists, the people saying they should be raped, the MRAs who harasssed the ordinary people working at the Irish centre, that some transactivists use that name in order to act as misogynists. It doesn't taint anyone else's views - but it's there.

I'm not going to compare MRAs to the Westboro Church as I'm not sure of the comparison, but I will say - no, not everyone has the right to express their views. Hate speech and death threads are not part of 'free speech'.

Allowing women the right to meet and discuss 'really important issues' has to include allowing women the right to meet and discuss what a woman is. It is a mockery to pretend otherwise. It is also, btw, quite possible to have that discussion without either side getting into petty name-calling.

I don't believe a woman can change into a man or a man can change into a woman. It is possible to assume a male or a female identity based on our social constructs of gender but that's not the same thing.

notfluffy name calling and simple repetition of your opinion is not very persuasive.

Not saying you are not happy. Just that as a man can change in to a woman, a woman may change in to a man.

I know girls are stereotyped pink and boys blue.

I have no problem with stereotyping stopping, I'm quite chuffed my own daughter is growing in to her own person rather than any stereotype one could imagine.

Not sure where you are going with the rest.

I've known one or two trans-genders, I wouldn't say that any 'process' was incomplete in their cases. We're quite complex things, both biologically and psychologically.

LazarussLozenge, I'm mini because I am well......not very tall, I look like a woman, jeez I even act like one (most of the time). I am perfectly happy as I am thank you.

Have you not noticed that girls wear pink and that socialisation creates "gender" well I like pink but would I have grown up to like pink if it were not for the fact that everything in my life supports and perpetuates my gender. What happens when the messages are mixed or the process only partially complete? Confusion reigns I guess. Maybe it would be better to just do away with gender stereotyping full stop? Which is what feminists would very much like to see happen.

Basil, I will change it then...

del 'secreting' ins 'having meetings, that exclude all but a select group'.

Re the slavery and holocaust arguments, LRD, that is a strawman argument. Worthy doesn't mean eloquent, I would say that everyone's opinion of 'worthy' would differ.

I don't doubt you have studies, chuck a few links up if you wish, all I would ask is that the studies offer a proven link and are unbiased.

Ref your groups, all on your own you also prove mine... if they are friendly and you derive confidence from it, great... are you willing to engage in your group to the same degree if I was in the circle? How else will equality be found? I promise I wont bite!

If you want to find 'manhate' google 'radfem'. That's all I did, and the term was on the first page of hits.

When under attack people exhibit a bunker mentality.

There are two options, open up the conference, men need to hear the truth however uncomfortable. Trans women could also be made welcome and perhaps even invited to field speakers on gender as well. Or don't. In which case expect more MRA and Trans activity because their perception of RadFem is based on a few (not representative) rabid blogs.

Only dialogue with the opposition has the capacity to create change.

Truefacts.

And on that note, I'm off to starch my long black robes and get in a quick few Hail Maries before DH gets home.

(I'm actually going to write about the Pater Noster, but close, I feel.)

It's because of the wimple thing.

I can see why the confusion arises.

basil - I think there's a confusion between nuns and radical feminists, perhaps? It often happens.

For a 'secret' meeting it's amazing how many people know about it, innit.

Mini,

A man can change in to a woman, but a woman can also change into a man if they so wish.

There is nothing that says you can't act as you wish to act. If you want to act (for want of a better term) 'manly' there is nothing stopping you.

"By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones. "

Er "secreting themselves" away in that safe house, the Camden Centre?

And last year, secreting themselves away in that unknown underground venue, Conway Hall?

Isn't rad fems "secreting themselves away" what trans-activists and MRA's want?

It wont help equality one jot.

I respect your opinion, but you are stating opinion as fact here, and I disagree with your opinion.

a. it creates a partition, the Radfems are essentially creating a ghetto for themselves. People actually listen to people who are worthy of listening to, regardless of their person.

This is not true. As I have said, there is quite a lot of research to show that people do not just listen to people worthy of being listened to, they are conditioned to listen more to men, and to give men more space to speak.

Ask yourself honestly: if people 'actualy listen to people who are worthy of listening to', does that mean there were no eloquent voices for the entire history of slavery in North America, right up until it ended? No. Does it mean there were no eloquent voices speaking out against the murder of jews, gypsies, and disabled people during the Holocaust? No.

Think about what you are saying for a minute here.

By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones.

Which problems are 'perceived'? You are dismissing an agenda without engaging with it - why?

Their views are likely to be dismissed due to the method of their formation, not necessarily for any other reason.

More fool the people dismissing their views. This conference is for the people attending. Maybe those people care about the views being expressed, huh?

b. It wont help them take themselves seriously, because they are doing all of this thinking and talking in an artificial environment. If the group aren't comfortable discussing the ideas with others are the ideas worthy of discussion? Or do they think these ideas will never cross the 'Radfem'/Rest of world interface? In which case are they worhty of discussion?

Incorrect. I participate in a couple of (very small, very un-activisty, very safe) woman-only groups and I gain hugely from it on a personal level. The opportunity to be in a woman-only group and talk helps me hugely to take myself and other women seriously. Therefore, all on my own, I disprove your statement.

By not having other parties involved, even in watered down and tethered form, their ideas will not be correctly formed and thus may attract derision.

Incorrect. You provide no evidence.

If the groups are 'vulnerable' how will them ever gain the confidence to shed this vulnerability? You don't just run 100m to get fit. The very fact discussions take place to teh exclusion of all other points of view means the discussion is essentially pointless.

They will gain the confidence through these groups. See above.

c. Closed groups such as these are devisive by their very nature. If they are not open to the whole community they invite suspicion.

Incorrect. Why do you belive so?

For example, a quick check of my google shows a radfem speech troting out nonsense about the burning of witches being evidence of men hating women...

And it's so convincing you provided a link. I see.

You cannot expect anyone to take that seriously, can you?

*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. There was no mention of the large amount of men that were killed for witchcraft.*

Maybe you should check out this discussion on FWR, right here. You will find several people, all feminists, arguing both sides of this one. Once again, your argument fails because you assume all rad fems are the same.

Nor even the fact that the burning of witches had very little to do with their sex, but more their religion... hence the number of men also killed.

This is incorrect.

And if such conventions spark terms such as 'menhate' one should question their validity. I could question the term 'radical feminist' also, especially when connected with such terms as 'menhate'.

I've not seen anyone use the term 'menhate' except you. Your argument is therefore groundless.

A force with no resistance is not a good thing, just as a force with too much resistance

... is what? Is this a joke without a punchline?

If the audience of such conventions are truely vulnerable, how do we ensure they are not abused by those they perceive as their leaders?

'We' don't. And the leaders ensure it by, erm, not being oppressive. It's very simple.

Interesting you defend the equality compatibility angle almost immediately.

I'm so pleased you think so.

Now ... any points that

1. Make sense
2. Are relevant
3. Don't make me wonder if you're simply incapable of engaging with an argument.

notflulffy women being silenced and told what to believe and care about and to always speak naicely and care for everyone except themselves is like the treatment of women for, oh, ever. Let's hope the situation for women changes in less time than 30 years.

have two* not too

It wont help equality one jot.

a. it creates a partition, the Radfems are essentially creating a ghetto for themselves. People actually listen to people who are worthy of listening to, regardless of their person.

By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones. Their views are likely to be dismissed due to the method of their formation, not necessarily for any other reason.

b. It wont help them take themselves seriously, because they are doing all of this thinking and talking in an artificial environment. If the group aren't comfortable discussing the ideas with others are the ideas worthy of discussion? Or do they think these ideas will never cross the 'Radfem'/Rest of world interface? In which case are they worhty of discussion?

By not having other parties involved, even in watered down and tethered form, their ideas will not be correctly formed and thus may attract derision. If the groups are 'vulnerable' how will them ever gain the confidence to shed this vulnerability? You don't just run 100m to get fit. The very fact discussions take place to teh exclusion of all other points of view means the discussion is essentially pointless.

c. Closed groups such as these are devisive by their very nature. If they are not open to the whole community they invite suspicion.

For example, a quick check of my google shows a radfem speech troting out nonsense about the burning of witches being evidence of men hating women...

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. There was no mention of the large amount of men that were killed for witchcraft.

Nor even the fact that the burning of witches had very little to do with their sex, but more their religion... hence the number of men also killed.

And if such conventions spark terms such as 'menhate' one should question their validity. I could question the term 'radical feminist' also, especially when connected with such terms as 'menhate'.

A force with no resistance is not a good thing, just as a force with too much resistance

If the audience of such conventions are truely vulnerable, how do we ensure they are not abused by those they perceive as their leaders?

Interesting you defend the equality compatibility angle almost immediately.

I have always agreed with RadFems on the difference between Sex (biologically determined) and gender (socially constructed) To this end I am female first. I don't think it is possible yet to change your biological sex but it is possible to construct a new social identity, ie transition from man-woman or woman-man. At the moment it seems that no one is allowed to question whether gender ID promotes inequalities because trans-people feel under attack.

I am inclined to think people can be what/who they wish but not to impose a definition and even worse a redefinition on others. For too long we have been expected to exhibit gendered behaviours, personality traits and to achieve a gender specific look. Women are expected to be less aggressive, less outspoken, to act coy, to speak quietly etc. Men are expected to look, speak and behave in gender specific ways. When people don't ascribe to this narrow definition of what it is to be man/woman it's no wonder they are conflicted within themselves or/or seek transition. Its almost as though some very sensitive people have too options, conform or transition.

You're not bothering to read anyone's posts, are you, fluffy? You're just pretending we've said things you like to pretend rad fems might say, because it's easier to do that.

I am not about to get into oppression olympics with you or anyone else, let alone 'the transgender woman' (what a patronizing phrase - do you also talk about 'the black man' in that universalizing way, or do you save your faux concern for people you believe it suits your dislike of radical feminism to pretend to support?).

Hatred is a horrible thing. I doubt though, that those murdering trans people are doing it based on rad fem ideology, same with societal oppression contributing to elevated suicide rates. No one here is spouting hatred.

Are we not allowed to discuss biological, social and other perspectives of gender and sex?

I am female assigned at birth which under our present social reality means I have been defined as a"woman" I am expected to "perform" femininity and behave and look as a woman. (I do this everyday)

Men can just roll up and say, well I don't want to be a man, therefore he won't act like one, look like one or identify as one. He can then "perform" femininity and call himself a woman.

Seems to me that both he and I are probably perpetuating genderisation by doing what we do.

Maybe we shouldn't have to be gendered at all? Maybe people could just be "who they are" rather than being "what they are" when what they are is a social construct anyway.

Having already been defined (I didn't ask to be) I have no wish to be further constrained by redefinition. ie if men wear floral and long locks, is that the new face of womanhood, I sincerely hope not.