Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

"In order to achieve the emancipation of ALL people, it will require ALL people to engage with the struggle." By this you mean it will require 'all oppressed people' to engage in the struggle? Or do you think oppressors need to engage too-(not nit-picking just wanting to clarify to understand)?"

All oppressed groups.

I like your seven steps Bubbles I think I might have skipped through 1-6 at break neck speed.

It's interesting, several pages back I thought Loz showed real potential He seems to have a materialist conception of history and the formation of class/gender relations, all very good. But as soon as women start to really question him (his authority) if we speak directly and without apology, no that won't do. He sticks his heels in and reverts to the same old defensive posturing that men assume. This clearly illustrates the reactive nature of the emergence of radical men (MRAs)

"Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?"

Well what do you think Loz, seems none of us have any difficulty discussing this with you, although it would be easier if I could just understand what your motivations are in being here? As already stated if women challenge men, men become defensive, how can a discussion be had when men revert to hostility because they feel under attack? Is that how we make you feel?

So how will you reach your goal by excluding those who 'don't interest' you?

I believe I told you all that I didn't know much about feminism in depth.

My values may be different to yours but they are not wrong. And to be fair you are looking upon them with a highly critical eye.

If it thinks like an MRE, trolls like an MRE, mansplains like an MRE and outstays its welcome like and MRE....It probably is an MRE

"I would be..."
Why not make some suggestions to yourself then?

"Am I not your target demographic?"
No. I am not interested in you. What on earth makes you think you are my target demographic? Are you confusing me with Mini?

FWIW I think Mini is referring to left-wing men as the men to engage, so I don't think she would be interested in engaging you either -( I could be wrong though)..

"I'd suggest"

Also, since you have consistently shown yourself to be ignorant about feminism and revealed an inability to make sensible value judgements - it is the ultimate mansplain to start 'suggesting' how we do feminism or what to prioritise.

"Points to note. If you're intent on merging left wing politics in to the argument, will you insist on those with right wing views moving to yours too... in which case you may find your fight for female equality a little harder." Why do you give a shit about what makes the struggle easier or harder? What does 'intent on merging' mean anyway?

"Gender critical? I assume you mean men who don't regard the traditional gender types as canon?"
You assumed wrong there - I mean men who apply critical thinking to gender.

"I find it quite amusing you think I am part of some MRA. I wont bother arguing the toss. I doubt you'll change your mind."
If it thinks like an MRE, trolls like an MRE, mansplains like an MRE and outstays its welcome like and MRE....It probably is an MRE

"Why are 'younger women' to engage in the later steps? Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?"
Wrong end of the stick there .... New generations of girls are being born -they need a mansplain-free zone to explore their realities and find their voices in order to continue the work of feminism.

I would be...

Am I not your target demographic?

"I'd suggest you start with stage 6."
I'm not interested in your suggestions Lazarus

Given that you seem to have done enough chatting in stages 1 - 5, and started merging in to Left wing theory, I'd suggest you start with stage 6.

Points to note. If you're intent on merging left wing politics in to the argument, will you insist on those with right wing views moving to yours too... in which case you may find your fight for female equality a little harder.

Gender critical? I assume you mean men who don't regard the traditional gender types as canon?

Funnily, neither do I. Spout your hyperbolic vitreol all you like. My little lass is as happy doing 'boy' things as she is 'girl'. So is her Mum. That's why we get on so well. You may recall earlier I mentioned Dad and Daughter baking together and splashing the pink fondant icing around. We also camped on island in the middle of a lake and cooked marshmallows and boil in the bag. Sleeping under the tarp sail over an upturned canoe... awesome.

I find it quite amusing you think I am part of some MRA. I wont bother arguing the toss. I doubt you'll change your mind.

Why are 'younger women' to engage in the later steps? Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?

"Strikes and the like are just terrorism by another name."

You have some bizarre ideas - a strike is a form of terrorism? You are either incredibly stupid or completely bonkers. Earlier you said being falsely accused of a crime is worse than being a victim of crime....

How do you get through the day when you can't even make the most basic value judgements? You probably completely cack-handedly misfire in every social exchange you have.. Perhaps that's why you find life so frustrating and blame women for it.....

"I think you lot definitely need to talk to some more men. Find out what their thoughts are and their beliefs. You all seem rather one sided, which is why you will never get to your 7th step."

If men with absolutely nothing new to contribute could just get the fuck out of the way and stop mansplaining at us we may get more women doing steps 1-5 -essential preparation for generations of younger women who want to engage in 6-7... (But I suppose that's the point in you and your fellow MRE's efforts around radfem - you want to stop this from happening - with a range of tactics from intimidation using threats of violence to tiresome trolling & derailing)...

Yet as to step 7 ... it is already happening - there are actually some more enlightened pro-feminist men out there who are gender-critical.

I personally hope trade unions don't come back, with or without women.

They've served their purpose, they brought about great change in the workplace.

Strikes and the like are just terrorism by another name.

I think you lot definitely need to talk to some more men. Find out what their thoughts are and their beliefs. You all seem rather one sided, which is why you will never get to your 7th step.

"Not really. I only started viewing you as such when daft rape comparisons were started."

Lazarus that is a rubbish retort - even for you.....
I feel for you. I hope you are young enough to look cute while coming out with playground come-backs like that - if you are over 25 that is seriously....just....eeee

'BasilBabyEater Thu 09-May-13 22:21:54

It must be very uncomfortable to find yourself in the same company as people you regarded as pathetic.'

Not really. I only started viewing you as such when daft rape comparisons were started.

"I believe that the dominance is conditioned, it is not a biological fact."
Totally in agreement with you here Mini

"In order to achieve the emancipation of ALL people, it will require ALL people to engage with the struggle." By this you mean it will require 'all oppressed people' to engage in the struggle? Or do you think oppressors need to engage too-(not nit-picking just wanting to clarify to understand)?

"If we are going to be able to build alliances and reconcile the differences in order to end our subjugation it will require an over throw of male dominance, but to do that we need to challenge the way that men think."
I agree with this.
"this can not be done sitting in separate rooms!"
This I feel has glossed over and missed out a vital step in challenging the way men think. I would suggest that challenging how men think requires:

1. Knowing what the general commonalities are in what men think
2. Knowing the general commonalities in what women think
3. Knowing how these differ from one-another
4. Forming a coherent understanding of the first three and how they fit into a wider context of sex/class relations
5. Challenging in oneself as a woman the conditioning to not challenge the way men think
6. Breaking through the barriers that prevent women from challenging the way men think.
7. Challenging the way men think.

I strongly believe that the first 3 genuinely require 'sitting in separate rooms' for a bit. 4 & 5 are greatly helped by sitting in separate rooms for a bit longer, but for 6 & 7 you are required to actually engage and interact and cannot be done by sitting in separate rooms.

"So I think it essential that women start to take up prominent roles on the left alongside men. " Which is indeed happening - trade unions have increasingly greater numbers of women members in prominent positions.

"If capitalist relations lead to the oppression of working people, male and female, we will not find allies in the elite, only within the working class." I think this is not so clear cut. Take Tony Benn for example, a toff who got wind of his own oppressive privilege and turned left.

"By doing so, we are already beginning to lay the foundations for a classless society and the emancipation of women." I feel this is a bit more complex.

"I might opt to talk to a room full of men rather than women."
As long as they give you a platform to speak and don't talk straight over you.... Chances are - it will go in one ear, past a closed mind and out the other, since it is 'vagina talking' - your words might find more fertile ground in a woman-only, woman-led space.

The existing relations are not natural, any gains made by women are not "at the expense of men & we need men to wake up to this fact, they won't do it without prompting."

Yes

"They won't do it if they perceive that they are being denigrated."
But perhaps they perceive anything but their superiority over women as a form of denigration.....

"Imagine the furore if men actually realised that rather than them benefiting most by the subordination of their women to them, that instead OTHER men actually derived even greater benefit from her exploitation under capitalism."
I'm sure they'd rather not think about that.

I read the Ben Barker piece with interest, thank you. I agree with much of what he has to say. There is a great deal of denial from men on the left, completely overlooking Marx's earlier writings, where he set out quite clearly that the nuclear family and the class relations between men and women needed to be revolutionised.

I agree, even radical men who acknowledge their oppression are loath to give up their one remaining power, that over women. Better to deny it exists than to participate knowingly. Its something that the capitalist class knows only too well.

I believe that the dominance is conditioned, it is not a biological fact. In order to achieve the emancipation of ALL people, it will require ALL people to engage with the struggle. If we are going to be able to build alliances and reconcile the differences in order to end our subjugation it will require an over throw of male dominance, but to do that we need to challenge the way that men think. It is the way they think that must be challenged, this can not be done sitting in separate rooms! We can only do this by engaging with them. So I think it essential that women start to take up prominent roles on the left alongside men.

If capitalist relations lead to the oppression of working people, male and female, we will not find allies in the elite, only within the working class. By doing so, we are already beginning to lay the foundations for a classless society and the emancipation of women.

I might opt to talk to a room full of men rather than women. I very much believe that the social relations btw men and women are derived from the material base, that they are culturally/socially conditioned, perpetuating and solidifying the existence of that inequality and that working class men actually suffer as a result, any benefits are strictly cultural, strictly at variance with the actual facts, men wages undermined, the breakdown of families, the maintenance of children who he might not see, the fact that women are increasingly saying no thanks, for one night only, like it or lump it, yep you can rape me, shame me, watch my exploitation but you can't keep the wolf from the door and I don't respect you either.

The existing relations are not natural, any gains made by women are not at the expense of men & we need men to wake up to this fact, they won't do it without prompting. They won't do it if they perceive that they are being denigrated. Imagine the furore if men actually realised that rather than them benefiting most by the subordination of their women to them, that instead OTHER men actually derived even greater benefit from her exploitation under capitalism.

Another thing - I think they cannot bear to perceive their actual oppressor - the reality would make them feel weak and small in the face of a virtually unsurmountable task to overthrow the oppressor class- especially since this task would require perceiving themselves in the degraded position of being part of the slave class and relinquishing any sense of 'right' over women. Its would be a double whammy - not only feeling weak and degraded by seeing the elite partying on the back of their own oppression, but having to relinquish the one thing that makes them feel strong in life- dominance over women. Its a hard sell Mini

Mini out of interest, do you think that men who are attached to dominance and male entitlement can be turned around to communist thinking by perceiving themselves as oppressed by an elite class?

I'm not being critical, just wondering what process you think it could take, because I believe that dominant/entitled men prefer to picture themselves in the 'wild west' as some kind of gambler in life, hoping to strike it rich as an alpha with all the trappings but until then perceiving themselves as 'the lone wolf', supposedly living for adventure, frequenting dives, paying for 'hos' and meeting 'characters' along the way. The security and equality of a communist society would really kill their boners for dominance and being 'in it to win it'.

The 'idiots' always end up ruling the world. Look what happened to the Romans, idiotic brute force prevails and society collapses.

In a world where we don't have a free press, it doesn't surprise me that we have yet more single issue identity politics to contend with. The backlash against women is quite well timed is it not? what does it coincide with? it coincides with the unpalletable realisation that the western world is now what is termed a mature economy, ie in decline. Of course it's time for the corporate/political nexus to spew out anti-women, anti-immigrant propaganda via the corporate owned press. Its predictable. Started with baking cupcakes, ends with closing every refuge and insisting that our meagre wages must be paid to our husband, whilst George picks our pockets for CB, and IDS insists that benefits will now be paid to just one member of the family through UC. Ensure that women are the scapegoats for dealing with disenfranchised men. Its almost like women hating is the opiate that quietens down the men when they might actually get uppity with the slave owners.

No SF not really, in a world where the Fail is the biggest circulating mid-market tabloid and the Sun still the biggest circulating down-market one, I'm quite used to being surrounded by idiots.

'MRE's OTOH are mostly incredibly stupid. Seriously, I'm not saying that just to be childlishly insulting, they are really very stupid. Their arguments are incredibly easy to tear down because they are not based in evidence or fact, just in kneejerk prejudice. They are simply not a worthy opposition, there is no intellectual basis to MRE - it is simply an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and make sure the light feminism shone on stuff, gets put out and we return to darkness. To call that lot an opposition, is to dignify them with a status they absolutely haven't earned. They don't oppose feminism, they oppose common sense and humanity.'

If that is your view, then you must find their swelling numbers, and the fact that people are frequently agreeing that they have a point (including the media), and also they are starting to filter (positively) into the public arena, REALLY excruciating.

Also LL a small pedantic point of order: MRE's are not an opposition to feminism.

Feminism has been responsible for the way we see the world actually changing.

In so many fields - anthropology, archeology, history, literature, sociology, art - feminism has simply changed the terms of the dialogue and helped us open up a new way of seeing the world. The research feminists have done, the evidence they produced, the arguments they posited - it's absolutely incredible what feminism achieved in such a short period of time.

MRE's OTOH are mostly incredibly stupid. Seriously, I'm not saying that just to be childlishly insulting, they are really very stupid. Their arguments are incredibly easy to tear down because they are not based in evidence or fact, just in kneejerk prejudice. They are simply not a worthy opposition, there is no intellectual basis to MRE - it is simply an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and make sure the light feminism shone on stuff, gets put out and we return to darkness. To call that lot an opposition, is to dignify them with a status they absolutely haven't earned. They don't oppose feminism, they oppose common sense and humanity.

LL, then I can only commiserate with you that you sound so tragically like one.

It must be very uncomfortable to find yourself in the same company as people you regarded as pathetic.

It would be as if I suddenly found I had masses in common with UKIP voters.

I'd be fucking mortified.

But I'll tell you what, I'd take a good long hard look at my core values and decide which side of the fence I was on. Because there's no way I'd have any fucking self-respect at all, if I ever found myself seeing the world through a UKIP lens and I'd know I'd somehow fucked up intellectually and needed to return to basics. I personally, would stop posting and start thinking.

Mini, it was quite a generalised assumption but I do appreciate that feminists may differ in opinion. I hope you accept my apologies, as I find your posts helpful (even if you're pulling me up for my errors and assumptions!)

Basil.

Believe or don't believe. My motives for coming on are perhaps purer than you think.

Until reading about them on this thread, I wasn't even aware of MRAs... yes, I know of Fathers4 Justice, they've been int he papers. I didn't know the term. I actually thought MRA/MREs were quite sad, and pointless at first. Surely a group as noble as feminists wouldn't need such opposition.

Flora, 'Why don't you just fuck off?'

Ladies first. (being a 'card carrying misogynist' has its advantages.)

- you Flora Mini Sabrina Basil - all said what I wanted to say