Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

I didn't.

use a term that could be construed as insulting.

'violent masculinity' to be exact.

thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/violent-masculinity-as-a-cultural-ideal-both-men-and-women-are-victims/

Why use a term that insinuates a whole gender class is negatively violent?

I have just read this whole thread in one go! FWIW I think women only spaces should be accessible to all women and I think it is awful that MRAs seem so intent on disrupting feminism.

This dicussion is exactly why we need women only places. Such a useful discussion when it is not being purposely derailed! I think there should be a place to challenge people who have different points of view but it is very important that like-minded people have an opportunity to discuss and develop their ideas.

Use one what?

Flora, I am guessing I am the one making the 'not very novel' points...

I take it you've heard such a reverse on your terms for engendered genders before?

So why do you still use one that could be construed as insulting?

No I wouldn't want him kicked there:) just happily hanging out with the other gnomes,

The first five paragraphs are outdated and it was written in 1970, so when I read it I tried to put it into the context of that time. The first few paragraphs also go over much of what we have already discussed but when I got to the matriarchal communal society of sisters....I thought way to go

kick Marx into the long Grass! nooooooooo I would put that nasty Herod in the long grass.

Bubbles,

genuine question.

What sounds controlling or aggressive?

Mini "cute aren't they they look like rather naff gnomes."

I love the idea of people having Marx garden gnomes - I wonder what other figures would look great amongst the long grass.

^"Did anyone else read the link from Sausageeggbacon from that it links to the New Yorker piece on Firestone www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/15/130415fa_fact_faludi?currentPage=all"^

I did thanks - was a very interesting read.

However with this ^"I am reading this www.marxists.org/archive/reed-evelyn/1970/caste-class-sex.htm"^

I found it quite infuriating because every sentence is founded on a false premise, so I couldn't read very far in.

This thread is a very good illustration of why groups need to be able to meet in their own when they want to. This is a conference, not the be all and end all of the radical feminist movement. Just like the conference of any political party would descend into a bunfight if it was open to everyone. The RadFem conference would be reduced to discussing the very most basic concepts with self-important arseholes who would show up making their not very novel points and telling them what they should or shouldn't be discussing.

The shock kim, I imagine it would put many off their slightly questionable ideas.

I get the 'violent masculinity', I don't agree with it.

To my mind it is painting a bad picture of what a man is to describe what essentially happens to both genders.

If we take a 6 minute synopsis of Disney films in which VM is explored.

Would you accept 'simpering femininity' or 'female domestication' to cover a similar process?

Also - where is this flipping notion that radfems never engage with people other than radical feminists from? There is no reason to assume that because radical feminists have a woman only conference they never speak to anyone other than radical feminists for the rest of their lives.

You might be shocked to find a radical feminist sitting next to you!

I find lazurus's descent into increasingly controlling and aggressive language a bit disturbing..

"it does challenge you because you have to work harder to explain things" but there is a difference between someone who wants to understand and asks challenging questions and someone who is coming from a hostile place.

TBH they need to get a grip of themselves, realise that not ALL men are oppressors, and they never have been

I think most feminists realise this

Once they've given their collective head a wobble, they should make every effort to invite moderate (you could say tame) groups in to their midst and get them on side

I agree with this.

It's interesting seeing Loz's use of words and the fact that he doesn't have a shared vocabulary with "us" sitting beside Bubble's post about feminism 101. And having to constantly return to basics. It reminds me of playing tennis with newbies. Its so frustrating, not because they can't get the ball back or keep it in the court, sometimes they do and that is often more annoying. They do things which are unpredictable. It's often far more challenging to explain the basic principles than to get stuck into theory. I wonder sometimes whether it is because we forget the path we trod to get where we are. Its the same with having to explain the defining characteristics of capitalism when people think that it is defined by free markets, its a head thunk moment but it does challenge you because you have to work harder to explain things. I suspect that Sheila Jeffreys and others are used to it by now

Bubbles, enforce a 'shut up, or get out' policy.

Questions can be addressed at the end... as they should be. No one should but in with a question halfway through the speach. Wait till it is over, or the speaker says 'question?'.

TBH they need to get a grip of themselves, realise that not ALL men are oppressors, and they never have been.

Once they've given their collective head a wobble, they should make every effort to invite moderate (you could say tame) groups in to their midst and get them on side.

They see there is nothing to actually fear and the road suggested is fairly reasonable, and we step forward.

The more nutty feminists get put back in their box, as more moderate feminists realise that not every bloke is trying to rape them, chain them to the sink or indeed plan non-woman friendly towns, complete with pre-installed wolf whistlers to keep them in their secondary position

A nucleus of progressive, co-operation starts to move forward. Language becomes less aggressive and partisan.

And hey, we are on the way to Equality Street. Of course, we can't make an omelete without breaking eggs.

Book sales for 'men: they're all f*ing rapists' may drop, as will cod philosophy books like 'men are beasts'.

"It's also a shame that opposing views are either seen as hostile or that those who voice dissent can't do so without being rude and unpleasant." -

My reason for using scare quotes on the 'opposing views' was referring mainly to people who attend sessions for the sole purpose of derailing/heckling- in a similar style to antifeminist trolls on Mumsnet FWR. For example I've seen very strategic staged clapping and irrelevant questioning at conferences to try and trip up or smear a speaker. And I have to admit I sometimes wish speakers could just say to them 'go back and read' so we are not tediously stuck on the most basic principles....

It is not the Q&A format that is the problem it is the lack of diversity of views that stop conferences/meetings/activist meetings open to scrutiny of ideas, and beliefs.

Like Mini I would support self organised campaigns and political groups. At some point though within unions, or political parties these self organised groups have their ideas put before a wider and probably sceptical audience. This is how ideas are distributed and tested, if radfems only talk to radomes they will stay isolated. This might be desirable but in the end futile as unless the role is to play the victim or to tilt at windmills they will never be able to make the changes they want come in to practice.

I suspect though that as men are the oppressor class it would be difficult politically to accept that you need to work with men in a collaborative way in order to get them to stop oppressing you.

So you have rules on who can talk and when.

With enforcement (ejection or banning fro next conf) they get the idea eventually.

It isn't an 'antifeminist' world outside... why do you all seem to have this inferiority/siege mentality?

Loz, Bubbles and others have already explained the two terms. Go back and read.

That's interesting Bubbles, sounds good me approves !! Sometimes the size of a venue, the number of people and the seating arrangements/ lay out of venue probably make it very difficult to avoid that division between speakers and spoken to. It becomes a mental obstacle as well as a physical one.

It's also a shame that opposing views are either seen as hostile or that those who voice descent can't do so without being rude and unpleasant.

Mini "I don't think that some of the "expert" speakers will be challenged on their ideas"...

I suppose that's the downside of a conference format- a brief Q&A doesn't really suffice, although last year the hierarchical nature of separation between expert speaker/panel and audience was challenged in one of the sessions- then women made an impromptu reorganisation from a Q&A to a discussion.

Also it is really tiresome if you want to hear what a speaker has to say about a number of issues, then 'opposing views' from hostile participants shrink the discussion back to beginners level within a conference, in the same frustrating way the development of ideas are inhibited in the antifeminist world outside.

Just as long as they are kept away whilst you discuss such things?

And derided with terms such as 'violent masculinity' or 'manplaination'?

TeiTetua, cute aren't they they look like rather naff gnomes.

I accept that those issues will be discussed BubblesOfBliss but I don't think that some of the "expert" speakers will be challenged on their ideas.

Did anyone else read the link from Sausageeggbacon from that it links to the New Yorker piece on Firestone www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/15/130415fa_fact_faludi?currentPage=all

"So you believe ALL men are your oppressors?"

No

I am reading this www.marxists.org/archive/reed-evelyn/1970/caste-class-sex.htm

I very much see women as a class within socio/economic classes, just as I do men. There are as many differences and clashes of interests between wealthy/capitalist women and working class women as there are between men and women. I have no empathy or common cause with women who seek to maintain their socio/economic privilege over others at all costs, just as I have no common cause with men who defend their social power over others.