To leave MumsNet because it's becoming RadFeministNet?

[SigmundaFraudina]

Had enough of their agenda being forced down my throat whether I want it or not. Major recruitment drive going on lately, and serious opression of other posters views. Just gets worse and worse. This was not what I believed MN was supposed to be about.

I'm off.

AlwaysWild, what is your point? I'm sorry if I speak too indirectly for you, if I say "say" when I mean "said something very similar", if I used the word "strange" instead of "weird" or "little happyclappy feminists" instead of "prosex sex bunnies" or whatever.

If you have a point, could you come to it?

Of course you need to be able to politically analyse to be a feminist, at least to some degree, and you would strive to improve that ability to become a more effective feminist. Political analysis means being aware of, exposing, and seeking to further understand power structures. How could somebody who was completely unaware of power structures ever be a feminist? Why would they want to be?

You know I was only talking about Caitlin Moran. If you don't know anything about her why did you interject there YRC. I said I've never seen her produce anything decent in the way of feminist analysis. I haven't. It means she isn't in a position to decide whether or not someone is a feminist or not because she hasn't got a clue about it herself.

What does that have to do with demanding everybody else is able to undertake analysis to be a feminist. You extrapolated something that I didn't actually say.

Yellowraincoat - my point is that you are accusing people of saying things, with quotes and the statement that this was what was said, that have not in fact been said. HTH

bemybebe ah hang on.....I think I do remember an awful thread where the starting post and even the title suggested women were 'pathetic'. If I recall it correctly, nearly everyone rounded on the OP.....who is proud of her work in the sex industry and consistently defends the right to use porn. Not a RadFem then?

IIRC, the person who made the comment "women are pathetic if they are too frightened to go out alone at night" made it at the beginning of the thread, before lots of women came on to share their experiences of why they felt that way

so, no, not the best comment with hindsight, but was meant in a general way of being frustrated that women may be going along with the victim-blaming stance so prevalent in many sections of society, and not directed at individual posters

I am sure the person that made it would be mortified that they had personally upset someone, and perhaps as they do post in a "hit and run" style sometimes, they may not even know that they had

That's the one I remember Sternface

and yes, I forgot to say the person that made the comment got a well-deserved pasting

Lease will someone highlight a radical feminist view for me?

Worldgonecrazy- I thought Caitlin Moran would babe been able to s
Gin up to my definition? It is a pretty mild one! Which bits don't fit her?

Right AlwaysWild, so do you always quote people directly then? The idea was what I was talking about, not the exact words. I'm sorry if that bothers you but as I said I didn't want to pick on a specific poster. I gave a representation. It was an accurate representation if not the accurate words.

AnyFucker, that person did not feel mortified that they had personally upset anyone, they were told several hundred times that they were being a dick and they stood by their statement.

I totally disagree that you need to be able to analyse to be a feminist. You only need to want equality for women. Part of that may be analysing, part of it may be fighting for women's rights, part of it could be doing things in a very practical way. Not everyone is in an ivory tower and not everyone wants to be.

This is the one

Sorry, I really lashed out in the beginning (not proud) and hid the thread, so it did evolve after with comments i did not see. But reading it with a cool head does give me a wider view.

I still DO love fem board and frequent is as and when I can. I do love some regulars there (and hide from some other ones)

yellow - is the post you're referring to the one that compared 'funfemproporn feminists with real radfems'?

That's the one.

Well that thread was a case in point of most people, incl a lot of feminists giving the OP a pretty good telling off by and large bemybebe.

I just can't bear unpleasantness

Am I making too many allowances, yellow ?

It's possible. I didn't agree with her that night (and there was self-confessed drink involved on her part), definitely don't on some issues and do on others. I think she does know she upset people.

it takes minimal analysis to recognise that women's rights is not 'job done'. Minimal, but analysis none the less. So it seems to me to be a bit of a foundation stone

LeBof: I always thought I was a feminist, among many other things. I have no idea whether I have any ability to spot, never mind analyse, power structures.

I just happen to have always have been annoyed by stupid, inane, useless, pointless prattery about "all [members of group] innately do/are [characteristic that has no innate relevance to being member of group].

As it happens, the groups that I most encounter this with are "men are/aren't" and "women are/aren't".

Bit of post cut off.

Thus, I conclude sexism is alive and kicking, therefore I need to speak over up against the prattery.

seeker I have a vagina and believe I am in charge of it. Therefore according to Caitlin Moran, I am a feminist. Caitlin Moran obviously believes she is a feminist too.

From experience I know (not believe) that some women do become prostitutes for the reasons you disbelieve. I am not for one minute going to pretend that this applies to all prostitutes but yes, for a minority it does hold true. Therefore according to you I (particularly) cannot be a feminist.

I don't self-identify as a feminist and I'm too old in the tooth to care either way. I just thought it slightly amusing that one self-identified feminist thinks I must be feminist and another self-identified feminist thinks I can't possibly be.

I think where it gets tricky is when you have a vagina, want to be in charge of it but don't necessarily buy unquestioningly into the full 'patriarchy is a transhistorical and totalising ideology oriented towards the oppression of women, that manifest in every area of our lives and needs to be abolished' thing.

I realise this is a pretty reductive summary but while the former (wanting to be in charge of your vagina) is a no-brainer, the latter is in my opinion up for discussion.

Anyway, she ain't here and is perfectly capable of sticking up for herself. And those views she stated there were fairly universally shouted down, bemybebe.

Did anyone see the thread started by Dittany, an old regular Feminist poster about "small sexual assaults" (may have that title slightly wrong, please correct me anyone, if you remember it better) where lots of women got a huge amount of support and validation about the shit, ("large" and "small") that we put up with every day of our lives, from the moment we start to come under the "sex object radar" of some kinds of men

it was a masterpiece of women supporting women

Yellowraincoat - no I don't put things that people haven't said in quotation marks followed by "And yes people have said those things." in order to make a point. It's not how I like to do things, no.

OK, AlwaysWild. Feel free to keep doing that and I'll feel free to keep wilfully misrepresenting people for sick kicks.

I am interested in the language that has been used on this thread to describe how these 'RadFems' have been acting:

That they are bullies.

That they have "silenced" debate by "shouting down" other posters.

That they are the "MN feminists" or even "MN RadFeminists".

The implication in this choice of language is that women who post from a feminist perspective on MN are part of a cohesive or organised group, rather than a collection of individual women who happen to hold similar views. When I post, I don't do so as 'a feminist', I do so as a reflection of my own opinions and beliefs. Referring to such posters in collective terms such as "MN feminists" has the effect of denying the individuality of each poster: they become a 'thing' rather than an individual human being who happens to hold certain political and social views. It gives a sense of there being a collective conspiracy, which in reality does not exist.

The reference to "silencing" or "shouting down" debate is also curious. This choice of language implies that the arguments used by people positing from a feminist perspective have the effect of overcoming the arguments of those who are seeking to take an opposing view. What is the reason for this? If the views espoused by feminist women are so incorrect and irrelevant, surely the complaint would be "Why do all these feminists keep persisting with such nonsensical views when their opinions are so irrelevant and illogical"? If the feminist view is so lacking in merit, why do people get angry when they encounter it, rather than dismiss it as being not worthy of responding to? I would suggest that it is because people do actually see the force of the argument, but it goes against the grain of their beliefs, and they feel very uncomfortable with being challenged to change their minds.

The same applies to the accusation of bullying. Someone can only bully you if they are able to have some power over you. Otherwise, their behaviour is just a tiresome annoyance. As we are all words on a screen here, the only possible expression of bullying behaviour is that people feel they are being forced to change their opinions. However, each of us is able to read a post we don't agree with and to dismiss it without another thought if it does not chime with us in some way. I sometimes enjoy reading posts on the Spirituality board, but don't ever feel under any pressure to change my beliefs, no matter how cogently somebody argues in support of their belief in a God. Again, it seems that what is being complained of is that the "victim" of the bullying is being "made" consider and maybe take on views that change their own beliefs, and they feel uncomfortable with that.

Finally, I agree with what others have said about holding rigid views. What is wrong with that? It is called consistency. Provided that you are able to back up your view with logic and reason, and it is something you genuinely feel strongly about, you should be prepared to defend your opinions as rigorously as you are able.