To dislike "Radical Feminism"

[InternetPerson]

I've got nothing against feminists that fight for womens rights and genuinely want the best the best for everyone and don't hate anyone, but "RadFems" tend to be full of bitterness and hatred. And I'm not just talking about kids, these are high profile, intelligent women with power and influence. Do you think it's unreasonable to dislike something where most people think men are inherantly evil and to be feared? Or do you think their hatred is fair and we should respect them for their good work in trying to make humans hate eath other even more?

Like, I said, I have nothing against Feminism, it's done a lot of great work down the years and still does, but "Rad Fem" and "Feminism" are too completly different things in my opinion. Is this a wrong conclusion?

AIBU?

I consider myself radical in many aspects, not just wrt feminism.
However, I don't have the radicalism / ovaries to oppose a religion in its entirety: radfems vs islam or even radfems vs evangelical christianity wouldn't end well for us.

We have to choose specific topics on which to campaign and particular occasions where we have a protest demonstration. Avoiding a beating / flogging would be high on my planning list.

I agree women have suffered greatly as a result of religious teachings: some concepts in the koran or the bible can be a very handy justification for a violent misogynist. However, many men have not needed religious teachings to behave violently.

Actually Lass, I haven't appointed myself as anything ... I see you're still playing the man and not the ball then?

It was a view raised by a lot of women, want to have a snidey little dig at them as well? Or are you content to continue your little hate thing with me on all threads?

Cathy Brennan has done more for trans rights than the vast majority of people who attack her.

Ego Some trans folk threaten more than harsh words against radfems: knives, bombings, rapes, murders.

These are the sort of threats we receive from men, so it's difficult to regard such groups as being like us.
I'm not aware of any radfems that threaten trans with similar violence.

Sometimes the trans claim of being excluded is crazy, e.g. a lesbian is entitled not to want to sleep with someone who has a penis, or even had one in the past. And to say no without an angry response or threats.
The rest of us are entitled to discuss menopause or period pain without accusations.

We don't say we dislike trans groups because of all that, because it would be unfair.

We all tend to remain in groups where we feel safe
The main emotional, visceral response on Mumsnet is to the idea of letting trans into spaces where women are especially vulnerable:

. toilets and communal changing rooms, because of mixed nudity in enclosed spaces
. womens hospital wards, because women would be ill / injured
. prisons, because of being locked up with much physically stronger convicted rapists and murders
. refuges, because women are fleeing from violence committed by biological males

I think all of us would join in campaigns for separate safe spaces for trans folk. Then we could all feel safer.

Given that trans activists have done such a number on mainstream feminism that saying 'women have vaginas' is now a controversial and phobic statement, I'm not sure gendertrender is exactly a huge threat.

BigChoc your reasonning is crap, I'm sorry.

If I follow your lines
'they' are threaning RadFem with knifes and boms so we can't see them being part of 'us'
then
can I also say 'muslims are threatening us with bombs so I can't see them being part of our society'?
Or 'we want changing room that non muslims so we can feel safe'?

Of course not.

And I'm not talking about exclsuion etc... but I would have though that you would know from experience that labelling a group because of the behaviour of a minority isn't the right way to go about things.

I'm not arguing that there isn't an issue with trans people though. Just that aproaching that way is not right.

Plays you were the poster who posted

Did you really mean to continue that derail, Lass? Sounds a lot like you telling me what I may or may not mention. The topic of the thread is "radical feminism and why one might dislike it" During the course of the thread a poster whom you all disagree with brought religion in to it. You may not like her motives or the way she did it but to say that then precludes any discussion of where radical feminism stands on religion is very high handed.

If "radical feminism " is about the radical dismembering of the established order presumably organised patriarchal religions need to be addressed?

Or is it just "gender constructs" which need to be addressed?

Doesn't sound terribly radical if patriarchal established religion gets a pass.

"Cathy Brennan has done more for trans rights than the vast majority of people who attack her."

What?! That is an utterly nonsensical statement

She is absolutely vile to trans people, always misgenders them and outs and mocks people who have never previously interacted with her in any way. She's also advocated against a UN policy that aims to protect trans people from discrimination.

How is that in anyway helpful to trans people?

Alass, radical feminism is pretty well known for its critique of religion.

Mary Daly, for example.

Depends what you mean by okay with. As a libertarian I support free speech and if people get upset with cartoons over their prophet let them get therapy and grow a tougher skin. However I accept that many people would rather have a lot more censorship particularly on line. It is a huge issue for women - being silenced by many many men who respond on twitter and the like when women speak out. If we censor on the whole we do more harm than good but not everyone shares that view.

*Alass, radical feminism is pretty well known for its critique of religion.

Mary Daly, for example*

Thank you. I had not heard of her. I will look her up.

So far as the problem Ego has with radical feminism I know very little about it but I've heard of Cathy Brennan. I suppose on the other side there is that awful Stavvers person but I don't think she's as well known as Brennan.

IPity Cathy Brennan was involved in LGB and T activism for years and was involved in activism to extend anti-discrimination laws to trans people.

She's also advocated against a UN policy that aims to protect trans people from discrimination.

That is not true. She co-wrote a letter proposing that the policy should be adopted but with some criteria around who is considered a trans person rather than simply self-declared. Many people on this board, including Ego agree with that but that position led to threats against CB and her children.

Ego Outing is VERY wrong and cruel.
btw, I think the same when gay groups out prominent gay people who choose to keep their private lives private.
"Chicks with dicks" and any variations is also wrong.
I'd always rate threats of violence as being much worse than nasty insults.

Kevin The reason why we have BME groups is because some of us have been threatened and feel safer amongst our own, as well as having some very specific issues that don't apply to whites.
Sorry, that is exclusionary, but it is real.

Personally, although I rarely participate in such meetings, I would resent like hell if anyone said we just MUST let in whites every time. And I'd probably go every time to protest.

The native population have nearly all the power, which is why whites-only meetings might not even be legal: they already have enough privilege.