Lessons from Canada: Meghan Murphy speaking in Glasgow 24th May

It was a great event and I'm glad I managed to make it through from Edinburgh. I was quite pleased to see such a diverse age range and women from all sorts of political, civil service and professional backgrounds.

It felt good to see a packed auditorium. A lot of times I feel very alone and isolated because I'm not part of any activist group and the only people who know I'm gender critical is my partner and a friend. So it was very encouraging to know there's quite a few of us out there. :)

Yes! I think we're at the nub of something here. The current iteration of the gender discussion has managed to blunt the very sharp edge of the second wave arguments, and that may well have been purposeful by some.

So, how to challenge, push back, turn defensive into creative change? That's where I'm trying to channel my energy now. I don't have the answers, but I am determined to be part of a woman's movement that unshackles us from a dominance that, frankly, threatens not only the well being of women, but the future of our species in many ways (I'm thinking too of the way male dominance in the environment has created a situation where the livability of our globe has been compromised for so many people on earth)

I simply refuse to roll over and play dead on this one. As far as I can see, it's the crux of the answer. The AWAs have wreaked the havoc they have because they control the narrative and the language. It's not theirs to take, and I'm having it back.

Floral I think it is very difficult as the institutions which make up government, by which I mean professional and legal institutions, are historically male. For all that women have gained a foothold, the language and practice has not changed. And historically speaking, women have only gained a foothold relatively recently and they have done so by adapting to traditionally male institutions and language and not by challenging it and changing it (how could they really change it from a position of relative weakness?).

I am not saying that to be defeatist, but to agree with you, really. The best way to challenge it I think is to understand and name the hierarchies which underpin it.

Paradoxically- or maybe intentionally - the language feminists used to challenge sexual hierarchies was gender. Now that challenge is silenced by gender identity and transgender ideology, so gender has lost any political force if it ever had any, it is simply a descriptor which conflates biological sex with social norms.

Well, yes, I would say that Patriarchy is very much a cultural, societal phenomenon that has roots in the superior physical strength capacities of men. But, and this is where feminist ideas are misrepresented by the wokesters, recognizing a physical reality doesn't mean accepting that it is right and should be endorsed.

So yes, men rape women because they can, because they have the equipment and the physical strength to do so. Acknowledging this reality in no way carries the corollary that we should do nothing to change or mitigate it. And, in fact, if our entire culture is set up to facilitate this behaviour - be it in doing nothing to prevent actual rape, or in couching everything in the language of male dominance so that we are consistently having to negotiate against aggressive power grabs against us, then I think it's imperative to push back against that culture if we have any hope of creating something better.

I'm aware that I might be waffling and obscuring my own point here.

It was great to be there and hear Bec and Meghan speak, also to listen to other women. I thought it was heartening that the demographic was broader than I thought it might be - like the message is getting through to different groups of people.

Floral I remember studying Latin poetry at school and the teacher talking about swords and stabbing or something and pointing out it was sexual imagery and that it was the nature of the male to injure and the female to be injured. I didn't have the language for it as a naive 16 year old but I remember thinking, what? wait, err. Later on I got to thinking that it is only because we view sex through patriarchy, and, like you say, we could see it as enclosure.

But is it not just through patriarchy but through their greater strength that we see men as the aggressor? This was where The Power was clever, because females' ability to electric-shock immediately took away the physical advantage men have. (I know I'm waffling a bit - and maybe my argument is circular as patriarchy is enabled partly through men's greater strength). I don't want to be negative but I'm not sure how women overcome this bit.

And look at that - my post has a good example in it; I did not capitalize 'male', the autocorrect did. It's done it before so I have to go back and adjust. It never does it with 'female' so I never have to think about putting it right.

The points about defensive language have been rolling around in my head since I spoke to Julia Long about it a few weeks ago.

What's come to mind is the dynamics of rape, actually. I remember reading a book many years ago that talked about sexual language, even if not describing rape, is very Male oriented. We talk about being penetrated. We don't talk about enclosure.

Being put on the back foot by 'No' is the social manifestation of our defences against men's push to dominate. I'm noticing it everywhere now, and I really have my thinking cap on about how to challenge and change this pervasive narrative of Male conquest and female defence.

Horsewithnobakecookies

Drowned in red wine.

...and demanded 20 books be removed...

And then burned?

The comment about women being obstructive when they say no reminded me of the language used in family courts when victims of DV try to safeguard their DC by restricting or limiting contact. They have to adopt the negative position of saying no and the burden of evidencing why it should be no, when in many cases DV is hard to corroborate unless it is life-threateningly physical (and even then contact could be ordered). But it is the woman who will be called obstructive.

Rightly or wrongly, I think there are parallels and women in this situation will tell you all about fire-fighting.

In terms of creating a more positive discourse, that is very hard when the pressure is push, push, push eroding boundaries, whilst being told you are obstructive. Because being more positive whilst holding a boundary is only possible if the other side respect the boundary. Otherwise being more positive means coming to a consensus to erode the boundary in some way.

Just in the door. Fantastic night everyone was so friendly and approachable. Bec was lovely, best of luck to her in her PHD.

Ah - not known for enhancing one's critical faculties (well, certainly not mine, anyway). Sounds like your Friday night has been more relaxing than mine - I've been shifting furniture.

Jacky it was a great meeting. There was such a breadth of experience in the room. It was both sobering and rage-inducing to hear women from so many sectors talking about how this is affecting them: unions, teaching, academia, forensic pathology etc.

Apologies for not critically assessing the source - scrolling through twitter in hand.

In fact this looks a bit more accurate:
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/service-canada-gender-neutral-1.4585629

I would imagine it was probably meant along the lines of "don't write school guidance saying 'contact the mother if little Jonny bangs his head on school premises', use 'parent' instead." I don't pick up any suggestion at all that they're banning "mother" and "father" Brave New World style.

Do you have any more sane looking sources for that claim, Fanny? Because the site looks a bit like a batshit crazy blogger making unsubstantiated allegations to me.

Meanwhile in Canada Trudeau has banned the use of the words mother and father within government organisations!

capforcanada.com/justin-trudeau-bans-use-of-mother-and-father-within-govt-organizations/

twitter.com/kaeleyt/status/1131932379088429056?s=21

@trinalbcnotanonman waves that was me! Think we met just after - that was such an amazing event. So much admiration for both speakers putting their safety and livelihoods on the line, and great to see such a big group of all ages.

"Woman asks a question on language. "We are continually reacting, on back foot. The power dynamics of this are such that we are easily framed as negative, because we are telling people they can't have what they want to have." Need to use our own words, she says. #FWSGlasgow"

"Woman saying we're on the back foot. The power dynamic here frames us as the baddies, as they are demanding "rights" and we're saying no. We need new words. We need to push something positive. Stop firefighting/responding "

Worth watching Dr Julia Long's speech at the recent London Lesbians on Chairs event. Julia Long spoke about the importance for women, specifically lesbians to be able to create , not solely react.

I found it thought provoking.

Can't post anymore screen grabs but I think this is a really good point.

"Woman asks a question on language. "We are continually reacting, on back foot. The power dynamics of this are such that we are easily framed as negative, because we are telling people they can't have what they want to have." Need to use our own words, she says. #FWSGlasgow"

"Woman saying we're on the back foot. The power dynamic here frames us as the baddies, as they are demanding "rights" and we're saying no. We need new words. We need to push something positive. Stop firefighting/responding "

There is often talk about women's boundaries and how we need to stand firm and say No, and how much of this is about men reacting when women say No. None of which I dispute. But it is dispiriting being the negative person, constantly saying No which basically sets up a challenge.

I don't have any good suggestions for pushing the positive just now though.

Wow! That Glasgow meeting sounds wonderful from reading the Live Tweets. Can't wait for the video transmissions!

From the later tweets I get the impression that women need to form their own union perhaps? The existing unions were created by men, for men, according to men's rules. Women working within them as officials or members are governed by that patriarchal control. [Ditto for political parties.]

Women need non-patriarchal structures if they are to thrive in any meaningful way?

A couple more if I'm not up to my limit.

Reading through the twitter #FWSGlasgow
Some great questions and comments, from a wide range of experiences.

It sounds like a great evening.

Anyone heading to the pub?

Need a tissue after that last audience member. Politically homeless and hope the war had been won.