Why are there so few posts on the feminism board? (Part 2)

[Jackieharris]

Since the last one filled up I though I'd start a new one as the conversation seemed to be mid flow.

do you see no mechanism by which the sort of choices that mean people get jobs...

Indeed I do. How is it possible to choose a black woman as the next prime minister, if there are no black women in a party's front rank? Was it a conspiracy that there was none, or did it just happen to be the case that there wasn't one (ever)? Or, would there have needed to be a conspiracy of positive discrimination or single sex short lists in order to get one there, given the odds of arriving there naturally are so short? The same being said for football (and so on). The chief woman/executive perhaps being less I can't speculate about. The term peer would need to be used carefully, especially in technology companies, where the chief executive is likely to be a founder or co founder. It's not reasonable to expect an employee, however senior, to have the same pay as a co founder.

Hakluyt, trans women are not men though.

This is something I really don't understand about a lot of the posts by radical feminists I see online. People seem to think that trans women are just men in drag who want to infiltrate all the women's services and spaces when that really isn't the case.

I see that there is some argument for "you want a safe space, you create one", but at the same time, that doesn't mean that existing services can't be inclusive of trans women.

When I worked for a local rape crisis organisation, I checked with the steering board whether we offered support to trans women. It took so long for me to get a response that I can only imagine they'd honestly never considered it. I was pleased when they came back and said that we did though (although I don't imagine that certain members of the board were too happy about it).

I'm sure the Fawcett soc are able to make nuanced distinctions. You aren't suggesting that if women at the top of their organisations are being paid less than men in their positions, which they are, it must reflect the fact that women aren't really the peers of men?

Yes, I know, avocado. As I thought I'd made clear, , I was saying what my knee jerk reaction was and that I do have to adjust my ideas.............

"that doesn't mean that existing services can't be inclusive of trans women."

Yes. But there is a debate to be had. It's no use pretending there isn't. But maybe this is for another thread.

Trans women are definitely not men, agreed. Trans women need support amd rape crisis centred, agreed. It's not fair to require trans people to be supported solely through trans labour, agreed. I'm totally against having the 'diverting funds' arguments, too, this is a way of dividing people vulnerable in this case to male sexual violence, against each other. So women's groups with experience of helping survivors of male sexual violence might be really good organisations to organise or think through provision for this. But I am never going to insist that a woman who has been raped or just escaped an abusive relationship share shelter with trans women who still have penises, I don't think that is the right moment to insist that she addresses her trans phobia.

No, I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that the top of some organisations isn't the same as the top of others. If you invented the company then your remuneration will be reflective of that.

Sure - but I doubt that accounts for the pay differential that does exist, according to the most recent research by the Fawcett soc, who no doubt appreciate the nuance you cite.

I find it very diminishing to dismiss this as internet feminism. It has just been announced that MichFest, a woman only event that has been running for 40 years, will not continue due to pressure from transactivists. This issue is having real impacts on women, particularly lesbians.

I expect there will be a number of responses repeating the article of faith that "transwomen are women" and this could lead to filling the thread with the subsequent familiar back and forth. There is currently no satisfactory determining argument for those already engaged in the issue so I've no interest in detailing this thread on the issue. However it's clear that real life transactivists will permit no room for women to determine their boundaries and, having failed to persuade, will resort to bullying and threats.

Trans people will not have to rely only on the labour of trans people for support services. There are lots of women who happily provide their labour to transwomen just as there are lots who happily provide their labour to men. That's what women do, right?

I wasn't happy with "internet feminism" either- but I do think it's a useful shorthand. For most people, frankly, the whole transactivism thing is something they read about- it doesn't actually touch their lives at all. While sexism is something they come across every day.

For what it's worth, I don't think Internet feminism is wrong, just different. I think there are things about the emergent ways that people use social media that have a qualitative impact on topics that get discussed, as well as in the choice of topics (or at least of focus). This isn't unique to feminism - an example from elsewhere might be the virulence of online 'mummy wars' that have no or barely any offline analogue.

You are of course entitled to your feelings about my choice of language. But I think it's important to think critically about the effect a combo ice of medium can have on the content, especially when it's something as important as a feminist message. Personally I find the actions of a handful of trans activists pretty obnoxious; but there is more thinking to be done around why the debate ha become so polarised, why this particular debate, and what contribution the particular properties of the Internet may have made.

That should read 'choice', not 'combo ice'

It seems a bit like you are saying internet feminism isn't relevant but then you sort of imply that it's caused all the problems between rad fems and trans activists? I came back to the thread because I realised I'd been going on about why trans discussions are pertinent to my 'real life' feminism (which I usually don't differentiate from online stuff because the internet is part of my RL stuff) but anyway I realised actually that I'd totally failed to point out that the trans debates aren't just an interesting, abstract diversion for trans people, they are painfully pertinent to their whole, real experience.

It seems a bit like you are saying internet feminism isn't relevant but then you sort of imply that it's caused all the problems between rad fems and trans activists?

I think what I'm saying (or tbh thinking out as I go) is that there are qualities of the Internet as a medium for debate that have contributed to the polarisation of the whole trans/radfem thing.

but mumsnet has cliques everywhere..not just fwr..

What's a clique?

Here

Sorry massively late response to the women of colour comment I made way back in the thread (this is partly why I rarely comment because I can't commit to coming back and replying in a timely fashion)

Please read the WoC thread in fwr. It explains my comments and there are experiences of other women.

If we wear revealing clothes we perpetuate the overly sexualised image portrayed in the media (particularly black women I find) and the minefield of issues that comes with that.
If we cover ourselves e.g headscarf we are 'oppressed' or treated as lesser intelligent beings.

We have to be twice as nice to get half as far. Just look at stats on pay for ethnic groups vs. white people. We cannot voice our opinions loudly and clearly as we are labelled troublemakers/aggressive/terrorists.

Your "well fed" friends will have found a lot of discrimination along the way but won't necessarily share their experiences with you because quite frankly you just wouldn't understand. It's like that and that's The Way It Is. I'd really love to go into more detail/explanation but I have to go. Please read the thread

Thanks for responding snug - I will take a look at the thread.

I have a friend who is a journalist who has been told to 'check her privilege' many times. She is a WoC, privately educated and has an Oxbridge degree and we have talked about some of the discrimination she and our other friends who are WoC have faced, but it's had a different angle obviously.