Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Yes that's exactly what I believe LRD, the same with MRA, being way less MRA, racists being not racist at all, the rich giving up their wealth and the symbols of wealth, countries that have the power to annihilate everyone on the planet three times over GIVING UP that power. Solidarity being that no one gets to wave the privilege card or the oppressed card. So you betcha you radfems dont get to be radfems but that's because you need the rest of us to change and once we have you also change.

Ah. Right, leith at least believes 'solidarity' actually means rad fems not being quite so rad fem.

If you believe something to be absolutely wrong - which IMO the patriarchy is - you can't 'compromise' by pretending to believe it's only a little bit wrong, like you can compromise about how many conference sessions to fund.

I think I'm with tunip on sites like that.

I've got to say - I hear what you're saying about 'solidarity', but what does solidarity mean to you? Does it only mean saying it's not your DH who has male privilege?

I just wonder where that ends. We could surely all say 'yes, it's the patriarchy I mind - but not my DH, he has no part in it', but there aren't any men in the world who are no woman's husband or son or brother, are there?

I don't think my DH is a horrible patriarchial oppressor (oddly enough! ), but I do think he has male privilege, and so does he. If he didn't like the idea, I think there'd be an onus on me to talk to him about it (since we're married), but I don't think there'd be an onus on me to change my views or expect others to change theirs.

So I guess what I'm getting at is - can I still show 'solidarity' while continuing to believe what I believe as a rad fem, or does 'solidarity' actually mean 'not being a rad fem anymore'?

(I'm not being snide, btw, I mean this totally seriously because I think it is a pretty big issue here.)

I absolutey agree Mini, the only thing is that in order to have solidarity each and every group will have to compromise. That will mean everyone being willing to give up what ever power base they have. That's not a popular message for most folk, one though that we must make time and again if liberalism/patriarchy/class/capitalism are to be brought down.

LRD I linked to a site earlier in the thread. I am also basing my opinion on a few of the blogs and sites I have encountered having followed links from here.

I don't generally read blogs unless someone recommends reading something, then I tend to follow the links in the text from the blog to look for the sources.

Alex - yes, it's almost enough to make you believe in patriarchy

Mini - Here it is: The solution to MRA problems: more feminism

*through must proof read more!

Yes please, happy if you pm me. I'd like to read the blog post too.

A couple of F4J turned up a while back, I saw one off. They really get turned off when you use the least unemotive language. Which is another reason why I wonder what shouting "shut the fuck up" actually achieves.

I really do believe though that men and women throug historical process of production and reproduction have built this social system. History didn't happen to us whilst we slept, we have made history just as we are now.

With this in mind I think the best way forward is solidarity. I know plenty of men who agree that more equality is needed btw men and women. Dp is great and he's a socialist too (so much to talk about here) but he is very defensive when he has encountered some radfem analysis. He will not accept that he has privilege over all women. Actually I won't accept that he has either. And I think this is the place that many of the disaffected MRAs are coming from. Dialogue is needed and that can't be had shouting over the barricades.

It seems incredible when you think about it.

The EDL presumably hold meetings. They probably all go along the same lines and you have to take your own beer.

Fathers for Justice hold meetings

All kinds of groups who spew various kinds of hate speech have meetings.

Yet radfems are blocked from a venue.

Transphobia? Or a case of disagreement on what gender really is. I have also never heard a radfem advocate violence against trans people.

In any movement of any kind, you are always going to get a fringe element who don't represent the majority. No one believes that all Chechens are plotting bomb attacks against marathons because of the Boston suspects, but all radfems are tarred with the same anti-trans brush because of the alleged actions of a few.

And my line about how we are going to kill all the men, by the way - I would not be at all surprised if that turned up on an MRA site some time as an example of radfem hate speech. I am completely serious about them doing this. I have have seen it happen. That's why I take the 'look how nasty the radfems are' sites with an ENORMOUS pinch of salt.

Which American radfems are we talking about?

'Tunip, I agree with you, those creating the problem for radical feminism, are mainly American women who claim to identify as Radfem. As with many things coming out of America, there is often a lack of tact, sensitivity and a huge dollop of hyperbole.

Seems to me that somehow the MRAs need to work out what actually is oppressing and marginalising most men & it isn't women. We have the answer but they are loath to listen to us. They perceive us to be the enemy because some women claiming to be radfem are writing incendiary nonsense all over the web'

I'm not sure that we do agree though. I agree with you that MRAs are looking at the wrong target - there's a great blog post you might have seen about how the solution to a lot of the things MRAs complain about is more feminism.

But I don't think that everything would be fine if the American radfems would just be more polite and I most certainly don't think that these problems are caused by what radfems are saying.
They don't NEED us to say dodgy things for them to find things to twist. That's why I gave the example of when F4J attacked Mumsnet. Were you here when that happened? The only thing that would shut the MRAs up is for women to be quiet and submissive and never demand rights. We should never complain about discrimination and we should most certainly never mention male violence.

I have been quoted on an MRA hate site a few years back for saying something laughably mild. I can PM you with what it was if you're interested. Rest assured it was not manhating in the least, but they presented it as such.

I think many people are very, very ready to believe radfems are weird and evil, even if it means taking the word of a group of MRAs that has been condemned as a hate group by a leading human rights organisation. (The reason for that is partly lesbophobia IMO, but that's another issue.)

I did actually meet a bona fide 1970s political lesbian last time I went out with MN feminists. It was brilliant and she was fascinating to talk to, but also felt such a world away.

v.good! when do we get started

Oh damn, I wasn't mean to tell them that last bit, was I? [shock}

Lots of reasons I should think, Mini.

A lot of rad fems are lesbians and they want to discuss it.
Lesbian communities can provide an example of communities that aren't dominated by men and thus are interesting to those of us who are happily heterosexual.
Lesbophobia is a problem for many, and many lesbians feel marginalised within the mainstream LGBT movement, which they consider just as sexist as any other mainstream movement so they feel it doesn't represent them adequately.
Plus of course once we have killed all the men we are all going to have to be lesbians so the rest of us need to learn about it.

Tunip, I agree with you, those creating the problem for radical feminism, are mainly American women who claim to identify as Radfem. As with many things coming out of America, there is often a lack of tact, sensitivity and a huge dollop of hyperbole.

Seems to me that somehow the MRAs need to work out what actually is oppressing and marginalising most men & it isn't women. We have the answer but they are loath to listen to us. They perceive us to be the enemy because some women claiming to be radfem are writing incendiary nonsense all over the web. Some equate patriarchy not with a social system but with male genitalia. Then you have the same number of ill educated men assuming that these women represent the views of all feminists.

Which speakers have a history of hate speech against the trans community?

So the whole issue is over one or two of the speakers who have a history of hate speech against the trans community. So long as those speakers are on the agenda there will be a backlash. And looks like Birkbeck won't be hosting.

I am really interested to hear about men and the environment. It didn't seem an obvious link to me either - but the point of conferences surely isn't to go along and have everything you know already parrotted back to you. I for one am interested to see whether or not the speaker's explanation of why she thinks there is a link, is helpful.

And you know, I would really imagine that the speaker also set out in that way, trying to see if she could make a link and whether or not it'd hold up. That's what people do.

I'm also quite pleased a lot of the conference is about lesbianism - I think part of the reason is that lots of people are interested in lesbianism and separatism and various issues that intersect.

You can see that even on here - when we had threads about separatism, they were packed, even though the vast majority of us couldn't imagine being in a female-only household. And threads about sexuality always get a really strong response too. I think it's a nice step to have a conference that doesn't focus mostly on heterosexuality.

Leithlurker, are you going to answer my question posted at 16.56?

Thank you Freya, I will follow that up and have a read. The forces of production wreak havoc on the environment. Women ( & indeed children) have been a driving factor in this as consumers. Plus of course women benefit through the imperialist tendency towards appropriating the resources of poor countries, through their link to men of the capitalist class. Some women in the first world have benefited enormously because of the theft of resources from the third world. Historically I doubt men would have been driven to accumulate capital, or even to work half as hard if it were not for the links btw private property, class and progeny. But that just leads me back to a class analysis!

I have no problem with lesbians, I have several lesbian friends. What I think is strange is that so much of the conference is given over to lesbianism. Not all radicals are lesbians so why is so much time given over to promoting lesbianism.

I know why the MRAs are saying its all about trans.

It's because they realized that yelling 'evil feminists hate men' hasn't worked brilliantly, on account of plenty of feminists having their own husbands and sons and male friends.

So now they're trying 'evil feminists hate transpeople'.

I expect the amount of genuine transphobia amongst rad fems is precisely the same as the amount of genuine man-hating. But obviously accusations of transphobia have turned out to be the successful way of going after a bunch of women who want to get together and discuss things.

Sigh.

Off to work are not in charge of the facility, they do not own it, pay for the upkeep of it, or have any management responsibility for it. Their view is unimportant as it is the view of the legal constituted community organisation that does own the venue to decide what takes place, or in that case why an activity does NOT take place in their building.

As such Off work have no duty to consider equality policies, only health and safety and any other local ordinance such as noise, I doubt they as a commercial company will have been aware of any perceived issue arising out of previous conferences.