Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Do you have an answer for me at all?

And why is it you're only upset about 'those who have no voice' when they're not the radical feminists who, you seem to be saying, should not be entitled to a voice simply because they disagree with you?

That seems rather hypocritical.

You do realize that radical feminism believes that the social structures 'we' built are the patriarchy, which oppresses women? I'm not sure who this group are, who 'have no voice' in those social structures 'we' built, if it isn't oppressed women?

Less feminist wanted by whom? Me and Mini or just me?

I do not accept that analysis nor do the men and women of the occupy movement, the many green initiatives, in fact lots of groups, most fundamentalist it is not acceptable to the billions who live in abject poverty in third world countries, rape torture, trafficking oppression of belief, and freedom of movement and thought. All these things are reflections of the social structures that we built, it is up to us to knock them down not just for us but for thos who have no voice. There need is more important than politics.

That's true, flora.

I think compromise can be important - but I don't quite understand what compromises are being asked for here, and how on earth they could be made to fit with rad fem ideology.

My sense is that, truly, what is wanted is simply 'oh can't you be a bit less ... well ... feminist'.

Leith in a democracy, we don't all need to agree to compromise to make changes. What you are proposing is radically different from any system of government I am aware of and I don't believe it is workable. If you look at the last 50 years, there have been huge changes in the status quo that have not come about because groups at either end of any particular belief system have come together to compromise.

I'm not 100% certain, but I would be dubious you can come up with compromises that do not, in fact, change that ideology, such that you're no longer talking about radical feminism.

As a rule, it is rather a lot easier to get people who aren't rad fems to agree to compromises of rad fem ideology, but I can't help feeling it also misses the point ...

I think you are misunderstanding what 'solidarity' means, leith. I have already asked some questions to try to explore whether or not this term is being used in a meaningful way, or merely as a euphemism for 'compromise'. It appears it is the latter. This is not very helpful, because as flora has already explained, political ideology is not quite the same as personal feelings.

Does that make more sense now?

You will be aware that people have been trying to think about the possibilities for compromise for a very long time, but maybe you can tell me - since you think there is a way - how precisely you would expect radical feminism to compromise its ideology? And what you imagine would be achieved by those compromises?

BTW LRD if that was useful then perhaps we could try it again sometime.

Thats the point of solidarity LRD, compromise is not only understood it's the reason to meet in the first place. Things always seem difficult or impossible, that's the major barrier to starting projects, it just looks to hard. Until you try it though you never know, the main question is though is the lack of willingness to believe that things wont work going to be the hurdle to trying?

Good good, that was useful then.

I think the issue isn't just the lack of shared beliefs. It's that some things can't be compromised upon. If one side wants 50% less of x and the other side want 50% more of x, there is absolutely no point in trying to meet in the middle, is there? All you can do is hope (rather hopelessly) that one or other will completely forget the issue existed in the first place. That isn't compromise.

I think there are loads of issues on which individual feminists can work out a compromise position when they want to talk to people with other ideologies, but it's not really possible to compromise the ideology of radical feminism so that it fits in better with what MRAs want.

The question then flora is how do you square the fact that the changes in society that YOU want, will never happen as the status quo will always be maintained. That makes me really blody angry thinking about the lives, hopes, potential of women and men lost, and the continuation of human life only being valued by how much money they can make/accrue.

Dunno why your in pain did you hurt yourself? Spluttering hot drinks can cause nasty burns.

I really do not want you to give up anything LRD, you are who and what you are.

Leith I don't believe that would ever work. A coalition requires some shared ground or beliefs. I don't think that MRAs or gay men (for example) are generally in favour of banning pornography. Feminists groups don't have consensus on that point either. I would not be in favour of banning the BNP, UKIP or the EDL.

My discomfort is political, not personal.

Ooh, I dunno. What would you like me to give up? Could I balance it out against the pain of the last few threads, maybe?

What would you give up LRD?

leith, if you could advance feminism massively by enduring the discomfort of not being able to post any more on MN, would you do it?

I'm just curious, like.

Your discomfort is personal Flora, if by working with MRA's, and radicle trans, as well as black panther, radicle lesbians/gay men, you could put together the type of coalition that would start by sweeping away the type of political parties that we have now on a platform of addressing the major issues of all the groups in the coalition like banning pornography for example, or enshrining 50/50 child care, or banning the bnp/ukip/edl, would you flora live with your discomfort?

MRAs don't feel opressed by radfems. That is bollocks.

They feel "waaaaaahhh evil bitch ho thinks she's my equal but I'm better than her because I have a PENIS".

Men are opressed by our society in many ways. The solution to the problems of gender pressures on men is not to silence all the bitch ho radfems. The answer is more feminism.

I feel like that, flora.

Mini I think you are completely misunderstanding radical feminism if you think they think the patriarchy equates to male genitalia, but I have to put kids to bed/have tea now so I will come back later if I get time to explain why.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the responsibility is on women to compromise or moderate their speech. That seems like appeasing the MRAs to me. Based on what they have posted on the Cathy Brennan site, they don't seem to distinguish between the radfems and the liberal fems who were protesting the men's rights issues at U of T. It seems like the root of most MRA's concerns are the position of family laws currently, which are not exactly rad fem.

I am not Marxist, probably more socialist, or even old, old labour men and women united in struggle to bring up families in proper housing with enough food and heat with out any compromise of dignity.
So were never going to agree on some things Mini, but in that the need for the majority to work with each other to bring about the changes to society that groupings like radfems want, you and I agree.

mini - why should being a feminist stop you from being those things?

I don't think the patriarchy is located in those places.

I don't actually find it difficult to have solidarity with some men, either.

What I asked was, do you think the 'solidarity' you mention, necessitates compromise of radical feminist ideology? Do you mean, you think radical feminists shouldn't really be allowed to be radical feminists?

If so, I think you're perfectly entitled to feel that way, but I disagree. Just as you and I obviously disagree about hierarchical power structures.

My view is that it's fine to disagree, and that's why it's useful that we live in a world where - most of the time - people do accept in principle that others can peacefully express different views. But that is precisely what these attacks on Radfem 2013 are not allowing.

Excellent leith, you are so right. I don't believe in any hierarchical power structures, right through from child rearing to managing staff. We can not overcome any form discrimination whilst other forms still exist. The place to start is in finding common goals and to do that we need to locate the cause of the oppression.

LRD I am a feminist, it doesn't stop me from also being a mother, daughter, friend and Marxist. Being all of those things doesn't stop me from running a business.

I can see that if you believe that patriarchy is located between the legs and the ears of the male of the species you may actually find it fairly difficult to have any solidarity with men. If you conclude that patriarchy is a social system alongside capitalism (for which I don't blame individuals) then its entirely possible to start a dialogue that includes men and therefore men and women in other groups.

I swear to god, if you mean that to be sarcastic, you probably need to tell me the next nine posts whether you're serious or not, because I will struggle to tell.