Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

Something for Mini here:

news.yahoo.com/photos/500-karl-marx-statues-highlight-20130505-043236-010.html?format=embed

Hi Mini Just wondering about this:

"It is reductionist in the sense that it narrows down the analysis to just one, that of sex class, biological differences which are insurmountable are given central importance and can not be overcome."

I dispute that. Rather than focusing on biological differences, of central importance is differences in socialisation, social status, freedom and opportunities which arise according to the declaration of sex at/pre birth. These are all surmountable, and finding ways to surmount them requires the time and space to properly identify their various manifestations and common patterns first. Although biological issues like birth control, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, etc are key rather than being sidelined, I don't think addressing these things in a woman-centred way can be blamed for on-going antagonism.

Also regarding "A male only 'MRA' meeting will not move forward, it will just be a bunch of people with ONE view reinforcing each others view"... I agree with this statement. Just as I think that RadFem conference will deliver up the same outcome."

There is a lot of variance in the issues prioritised by radical feminists, rather than reinforcing each others view, I would hope there would be new ideas to challenge views, voices platformed for people from doubly oppressed groups to share their particular perspective, opportunities to wrestle and refine ideas etc.

So you believe ALL men are your oppressors?

"A male only 'MRA' meeting will not move forward, it will just be a bunch of people with ONE view reinforcing each others view"

I agree with this statement. Just as I think that RadFem conference will deliver up the same outcome.

However.......because women's oppression is something that IS specific to women, women should be free to politically organise without men. As someone said up thread, how can you talk about your experiences or your gripes with your oppressor sat in the same room. Your speech and behaviour will be censored.

But organising in a way that creates and facilitates ongoing antagonism, where you have two competing groups that never come together ensures that neither side sees where there might be points of convergence. It is reductionist in the sense that it narrows down the analysis to just one, that of sex class, biological differences which are insurmountable are given central importance and can not be overcome.

I hope the conference goes ahead not just because I think RadFems should have their conference, but because there are wider implications for all groups who wish to organise. Next it might be MRAs (no bad thing perhaps) or it could be women of colour, socialists, or any parties outside the mainstream, gay people, unionists..........in fact it could even be the neighbourhood watch in the next street that are denied the right to meet.

That doesn't exclude changing opinions btw.

PS are you willing to describe the circumstances around the 'high ranking bloke' who though prostitution was essential for soldiers?

I am genuinely intrigued.

I know of a few bonkers types who are quite out of touch, in particular an old boy (retired about 20 years) who was genuinely concerned his son wouldn't be taken seriously as an officer (in the modern army) as he had a child out of wedlock. He came across as a few sandwiches short of a picnic tbh.

But i've not heard of prostitutes being seen as 'essential'.

"I still view things from my own point of view. It isn't a fault or a sign of low intellect... or male chauvinism."

Ah, a womanplaination.

In focused terms.

Men can be as oppressed as any other group.

Feminism seems to follow its own warnings and seeks to oppress men or at least sideline if t can through the use of excluding them, derision (manplaination) and provocative language 'violent masculinity'.

The quest to find sexual equality/fairness does not seem to be down this path.

Lazarus You've become unfocused. There are so many presumptions and generalisations underpinning your last post which suggest you haven't taken in anything discussed so far. I must admit that it is not worth my time refuting it in the necessary point by point way it requires, and just get on with other things.

Yet this genderisation of boys in to these stereotypes is as likely to be carried out by females as males... rember the video of the little boy told to 'man up' or what everit was by hs aunti and mum? When a girl punched him?

Who/wht oppresses you as a man? see above, and again we have the assumption that as a man I am free from any oppresion, and implying I am thus the oppresor.

I understand the mansipintion and the violent masculinty definition. I object to the term.

What would you say if I used terms such as 'womanplaination' as term to describe feminist explainations in a derogatory tense?

Above we have sseen all manner of lenisist comments about how we divide and conquer other groups or classes.

Yet it would appear your average feminist can't see her own side doing exactly the same!

"Feminism isn't necessarily logical or empirical."
I agree - it is radical feminism that holds closest to this.

"Not sure if you said anything about arranged marriages, but when I pointed out the lack of control by the man in the deal (n some cases) it was regarded as irrelevant. Groom is a man, so he isn't oppressed. seemed to be the PoV. Even a genitally mutilated man was seen as a 'fellow of the oppressor' rather than a fellow of the oppressed."

There has been a huge amount of discussion here on this thread about whether social class oppression or sex class oppression is more key to women's oppression. There's been far more overlap that disagreement between these two views. If social class (and indeed racial oppression, etc) is in anyway accepted as key to women's oppressions, then of course you will have male comrades in each of those struggles. However when focusing on sex-class oppression, men will be viewed to belong to the oppressor class. Also, in all this discussion of cultural violent masculinity, it is understood that being groomed into emotional numbness and competitive dominance isn't actually a nice way to treat little boys- even though the female victims are really the ones who bear the brunt.

"My oppression I put forward doesn't need to be affected by any particular label. I am a man, but I don't dominate anything." I don't get what oppression you are referring to. Who/what oppresses you as a man?

"Mansplainations? I at least offer up 'little lady' tongue in cheek." Basically mansplaining is where men who have less understanding/expertise on a subject than the women they are speaking to believe their opinion is of more than equal worth than the women's. It is very common ( here is a blog I haven't read but looks the thing )

"Mansplainations, violent masculinity... yep, I can just see the logical and empircal reasoning dripping out of RadFem." I just had to pull a smile here - of course you won't have empirical experiences of mansplaining - since you are male, of course you won't empirically experience the brunt of a culture of violent masculinity - you are male. Now do you understand why it is important to not have men around when we are discussing our own lived experiences empirically? Having mansplainers and refutations of 'well that's not my experience as a man' are somewhat derailing and unnecessary.

"And you wonder why I have concerns with sites that label themselves 'manhater' sites with poems about how all men are Violent rapists." I never claimed to know anything about the sites you have concerns with. In fact I have no idea what you are talking about.

"If similar language was used to describe women, the user would be up to his armpits in drama." I again have no idea what you are talking about.

Feminism isn't necessarily logical or empirical. It is as open to diverstion as male views.

Not sure if you said anything about arranged marriages, but when I pointed out the lack of control by the man in the deal (n some cases) it was regarded as irrelevant. Groom is a man, so he isn't oppresesd. seemed to be the PoV. Even a genitally mutilated man was seen as a 'fellow of the oppressor' rather than a fellow of the oppressed.

My oppression I put forward doesn't need to be affected by any particular label. I am a man, but I don't dominate anything.

Mansplainations? I at least offer up 'little lady' tongue in cheek.

Mansplainations, violent masculinity... yep, I can just see the logical and empircal reasoning dripping out of RadFem. And you wonder why I have concerns wth sites that label themselves 'manhater' sites with poems about how all men are Violent rapists.

If similar language was used to describe women, the user would be up to hs armpits in drama.

"You haven't learned from the 'male dominated' world. You have lived in this world."

Okay if you want to be a stickler I have lived in and learned in a male-dominated world... It still holds I have learned from it - or do you dispute the fact that men dominate pretty much all the positions of power, authority and influence in the world?

"Same as I. My 'class and creed' certainly don't dominate the world, but I don't make an 'ism' out of it." Now you've lost me... Are you speaking about social class oppression or racial oppression?

"You have then painted over the world a feminist reasoning."
I disagree with this. The 'reasoning' is logic and empiricism. When logic and empiricism is applied to women's lives it is called feminism.

"Just as you think I have painted a male reasoning over my own experience."
I also disagree with this. I believe you have been prejudiced by the male-dominated narrative and discourse as I have. It is harder for you as a male to refute this discourse empirically, than it is for me as a female- because you don't (or are very unlikely to) have the jarring experiences which would lead you to do so.

"ie You think arranged marriages only affected the women, and were for reasons of keeping the 'little lady' in her place."
Did I ever say this? "I offer other alternatives." - some might call them mansplainations...

"I know I am not in the 'big boys secret club of keeping women in their place'" This straw man of the 'secret club' is no basis on which to refute any of the arguments presented so far in this thread.

"so I believe that natural imperatives has led to the arrangement as we see it." Perhaps that's because you haven't consistently applied logic or empirical evidence from women (or other oppressed/marginalised groups), to have a more considered and realistic view that counters that of the mainstream male-dominated narrative and discourse.

You haven't learned from the 'male dominated' world. You have lived in this world.

Same as I. My 'class and creed' certainly don't dominate the world, but I don't make an 'ism' out of it.

You have then painted over the world a feminist reasoning. Just as you think I have painted a male reasoning over my own experience.

ie You think arranged marriages only affected the women, and were for reasons of keeping the 'little lady' in her place. I offer other alternatives.

I know I am not in the 'big boys secret club of keeping women in their place' so I believe that natural imperatives has led to the arrangement as we see it.

"I could say about you. You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a female dominated narrative and discourse."

No you couldn't actually - I have actually learned about the world through the same male-dominated narrative and discourse as you have. The difference being I have the jarring experience of how this 'accepted view' sharply conflicts with much of my actual lived experience as someone who was born female. Unlike you, who was not born female, this leads me to confidently declare much of it a load of utter bollocks, and seek out the tiny part of the discourse that helps me to make sense of my reality - which is feminism.

Of course I am Bubbles, it isn't a fault. I could say about you.

'You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a female dominated narrative and discourse.

Women like you meet with other women to reinforce such beliefs and find new disadvantages to complain about (masculine road layouts anyone?).'

I am aware of my blinkers, I was hoping discussion on this subject would widen my field of view. And to an extent it actually has. I have found that many who have contributed on here, though, are very deep into the feminism thing and how they have been wronged, to the point they can't see or appreciate anything else. Even valid points.

Which I feel reinforces my original point. RadFem doesn't help. Nor does any other single source chit chat session.

A male only 'MRA' meeting will not move forward, it will just be a bunch of people with ONE view reinforcing each others view.

I am not a MRA (just incase there was any doubt but I may look them up in a minute), I feel I am pretty moderate on this sort of thing, and open to change as necessary.

But I still view things from my own point of view. It isn't a fault or a sign of low intellect... or male chauvinism.

"I am aware of most of the disadvantages"

You know what Lazarus you really aren't. You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a male-dominated narrative and discourse.

Women like to meet with other women to find out from the common patterns in the reality of our lives to give a name to the disadvantages even hidden from us.

"My only comment on methods of subordinating women was that if the methods are so similar to taming animals for farming... what are they?"

My reasons for not answering this is because it would require finding different sources to link to on a Sunday morning - which tbh- I can't be arsed to do, however you are welcome to research methods of animal training/taming and patterns in behaviour of abusive men and see the connections for yourself.

I am aware of most of the disadvantages... I am also aware of how many times disadvantages to males have been played down or ignored (just on this thread) due to the perception they were part of what ever 'system' disadvantaged girls, rather than being victims of the same.

My only comment on methods of subordinating women was that if the methods are so similar to taming animals for farming... what are they?

A mating dance, is a mating dance. A chance for two potential partners to size each other up. Obviously in arranged marriages that descision is taken by the family(ies).

Re 'mating dance' I meant - I don't know how the methods of taming/controlling/training an animal being similar to subordinating women could be viewed as a mating dance.

"There is a little too much 'oh the poor, woman'. The son wasn't asked if he liked her or f he would like to marry her. That was irrelevant, just told to marry her for whatever reason."

Not being allowed to choose who to marry is just one tiny part of 'oh the poor woman' you refer to. The whole patriarchal set up disadvantages women in a host of other ways.

'BubblesOfBliss Sun 05-May-13 09:19:00

"in order to get ahead on the gene race" This anthropomorphication purports to rationalise a behaviour in an animal we have no idea how to explain, but it nods to the male chauvinist bias that has bogged down biology and anthropology over the years.'

Certainly 100 years ago or so such fields were male dominated, so that is a possibly answer... I'd imagine if such fields were female dominated we could have a rabfem bias could we not?

If the gene race, and the desire to form a line of descendants, is false, what is the reason for behaviour that pushes one to the front of the queue?

'mating dance'.

In the wild animals display certain attributes in order to prove their worth. This can go both ways.

In human world, we can show off a car, show off our clothes or how many cows we have.

Marriages in the past weren't necessarily for love as now (even that's debatable given the number of devorces we have), but were often to cement an alliance or what not. If not to cement alliance the family would look for a 'higher' family to marry their daughter in to.

Social advancement would come though her. Thus you would select her male partner on things such as 'how many cows'.

It works both ways, if she is deformed it is unlikely that a higher family would take her. genetics. Youwant strong kids to carry on the blood line.

If she is of good stock (yes, we are brushing on the livestock thing here) then she is of value. Chuck in the dowry (some families saved hard to achieve this) and a son is found to marry her.

That is the important bit at this point. There is a little too much 'oh the poor, woman'. The son wasn't asked if he liked her or f he would like to marry her. That was irrelevant, just told to marry her for whatever reason. Hence we have lots of 'secret love' type arrangements where the husband or wife's 'true love' often cropped up.

And occasionally were killed f they were silly enough to get caught.

The line was important because of the link to the progeny. If the child inherited, but was then found to be from another father they could take any goods/property to another family.

In a way you can see that perhaps, like the Bobonos, the females WERE important, and power flowed via them. But for some reason they suddenly had to be protecte - lack of resources? Why else would Europe start to explore and conquer the gloe?

"in order to get ahead on the gene race" This anthropomorphication purports to rationalise a behaviour in an animal we have no idea how to explain, but it nods to the male chauvinist bias that has bogged down biology and anthropology over the years.

Ah, wikipedia. Not great but we'll work with it.

In the article it actually states...
'In most cases, however, the men who resort to capturing a wife are often of lower social status, because of poverty, disease, poor character or criminality. They are sometimes deterred from legitimately seeking a wife because of the payment the woman's family expects, the bride price (not to be confused with a dowry, paid by the woman's family)'

Seems to be a biological imperative to reproduce, so the 'groom' does it by whatever means are open to him. Isn't there a stoat or similar rodent that 'rapes' new born females whilst in the nest in order to get ahead on the gene race?

Oddly, the 'bride kidnapping' seems to be from areas that practiced polygyny. Not enough women, as 'alphas' are taking them all.

"You don't think any of this could just be a 'mating dance' where the woman"

Please explain what you mean - I'm not sure I get the mating dance bit.

by abduction and rape' I ignore. Unless you can back it up with evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

Methods used for taming animals are similar to methods used by violent men? Really? Examples?

You don't think any of this could just be a 'mating dance' where the woman, or hte family of the woman try to get her 'mated' with the best possible male they can find? Lot of cows = successful. In some areas a obese man = succesful, modern UK it is on cars and clothes in certain circles.

Polygyny, the alpha male, with his wives to produce as many good strong children as possible...

A purely biological reason, find the best man you can with the best genes (and trust me, in some areas of the world you can still see all manner of genetic weaknesses, but ALL teh women mate with him (despite some of them not being alphas) in order to provide as many children as possible.

A numbers game, where it is hoped the kids gt the best chance they can, in a world where most will be dead by their 10th birthday.

Try not to use 'probably'.

'Probably in a lot of cases by abduction and rape' I ignore. Unless you can back it up with evidence. It is as sentence to attract indignation in the reader, and cultivate emotionally based support for your PoV.