FWR split continued

[RebeccaMumsnet]

We have decided to start a new thread about this as the other thread was near capacity and taking a while to load.

Here is Justine's post from earlier on

We can give a Radical Feminism topic a go if that's what people want and see if it works. Obviously we need to be crystal clear that no one is obliged to post in one particular place and no one should feel excluded from any topic but we could test it out, and see if it helps resolve tensions. We'll do that in the next few days.

There are a couple of other things to think about as well.

First, those who come onto FWR to derail and inflame. We acknowledge that we have been too slow in the past to spot these posters for what they were. We're sorry about that and hope we're a lot quicker at dealing with them now. We're all for opinions but we do draw the line at posters whose only obvious intent is to goad.

And secondly, this idea that FWR can be an unwelcoming place to those who aren't following the 'party line'. Judging by posts on recent threads and by our inbox this is a view of a significant number of Mumsnetters and obviously that's not a healthy situation. Mumsnet is a place for discussion and for diverse opinion and it's the exchange of ideas and tolerance of differing opinions that makes it the board it is.

We do hope threads like this help to clear the air a bit and remind everyone that, whatever the differences of opinion, the FWR board will only ever be the stimulating, thought-provoking, enriching place we'd all like it to be if people feel that they can express themselves without being jumped on.

Please do continue to let us know your thoughts.

But yellow, I haven't said that anyone is anti-woman. I have said that restricting women's access to abortion is anti-woman. For the simple reason that it is.

I mean, it just is. I can't get my head around pretending that it's not. It would be like pretending gravity doesn't apply.

I'd rather they asked me why I think it's anti-woman, but if someone holds the view that abortion should be restricted, and they take my views as a criticism of themselves, well, perhaps that's not the worst thing in the world.

Well, it all comes down to semantics then, doesn't it?

Well, actually I disagree with that yellow. Feminism is political analysis, which is broad and based on groups and not personal. That's why threads always collapse when posters come along saying 'Well I do xxx and I LOVE it and therefore you should shush' (that's an appalling paraphrase but you know the sort of thing that happens).

It's also why threads collapse when someone (usually me at the minute) says 'PIV is damaging to women' and individuals take it as a personal insult.

So saying 'restricting abortion is anti-woman' is not the same thing as slagging an individual poster.

Saying 'PIV is damaging' is not the same as saying 'you are damaging yourself engaging in PIV' or 'you are damaging other women by engaging in PIV'.

I could go on but I make that lunch!

a Human rights topic would be interesting I'd participate in that.

Can I follow up on that Victor? I've had this question for a while and would be really grateful if anyone could share some thoughts.

I agree a lot of threads fall apart over statements like 'PIV is damaging' or 'all men oppress women' (that latter was in the padding pool thread, although I don't think it kicked off anything).

People will object to such statements because they are so absolutist. And I guess I'm not clear why they have to be. What's wrong with saying 'PIV can be damaging' for example?

I don't understand your explanation that 'it's political analysis'. I'm in political science (more or less) and I would not say, for example, 'All dictatorships are damaging', because it's not that simple. Some people do very well under dictatorships, there is often less crime and terrorism, etc and so on.

I think making absolutist statements is just asking people to disagree with you and I'm wondering why you think your arguments would be weakened if you made them more contextual or conditional.

I agree with dreaming and she's put it better than I have.

It's the absolutism of statements that bother me.

Well, most immediately, it's because PIV is damaging.

There's a lot of things I take as axiomatic to get to that, but the big three are...

1. I'm not comparing some women to some other women.
2. I'm comparing them to men.
3. I'm thinking in groups, big groups - two groups, men and women (well, male and female, actually, as they're the correct biological terms)

If you compare effects of PIV in men and effects of PIV in women, it's hugely different.

Women have a higher risk of contracting STIs; the bulk of contraceptive responsibility lies with women; chemical contraception, which is looking less and less great for women, is ONLY taken by women; women are the ones that get pregnant.

Pregnancy can kill you, pregnancy can disable you, risk of abortion, etc, etc.

Men don't have any of that. Only women do.

Plus, y'know, they orgasm and we don't. But all the risks are on the women's side!

= PIV is damaging.

Does that make sense? I typed that quite quickly so apologies if it sounds a bit didactic.

I rarely post in FWR, because I have, in the past, felt very unwelcome there. For example, I have posted on a couple of threads about getting rid of the titles Mrs and Miss, and having only Ms as the title for all women. Because I like the title Mrs, I have been told that I must have no identity other than that as my husband's wife, and it has been implied that I clearly can't have thought intelligently about why I want to use this title, can't have made a positive, thoughtful choice, and must be some sort of Stepford Wife. Basically, I felt bullied out of the debate.

I can understand the deep concerns about having a RadFem section - I can see that that is asking for attacks and trolling, and it is clearly causing a lot of upset amongst regular posters in FWR.

I would concur with the suggestion of three sections -

• Feminism cafe
• Feminist support
• Feminist theory and activism

• these seem clear and sensible to me, and hopefully should give everyone the space that they need.

'Plus, y'know, they orgasm and we don't.'

You're with the wrong man. Multiple orgasms?

Bollocks, I always forget something.

In the context of comparing women to men, a single female poster pointing out that PIV has never had any adverse effects and she achieves orgasm through it is only one tiny speck in a great big group analysis.

I'm very pleased to hear of women's positive sex lives. But it doesn't change the fact that as a group, women bear almost all of the risks and get none of the fun of PIV.

'PIV is damaging' about as close to an absolutist statement as you can make, I think.

If a double-blind scientific experiment found that fish oil capsules did nothing for children's IQ, the single poster pointing out that her children really benefit from them, actually, is very nice for her but means nothing on the grand scale.

Same principle operates in feminist analysis.

Just to be clear and PARDy, I'm not saying people shouldn't make absolutist or universalist statements if that's their opinion, I'm just curious why people feel their arguments are stronger by doing so.

One day I'll write a full and complete post (and then pass out from shock):

It's not nice to realise that sometimes what you do ain't great for women. It's hard. You don't always want to be reminded of it (I definitely don't - I'm not always mentally up for it).

I remember reading Adrienne Rich, who explains at length that heterosexuality is at the root of all female oppression, i.e. me having a male partner who I adore is contributing to a world in which women are thrown on bonfires in some parts of the world.

Ouch. That hurt. Particularly as what I was reading added up to me - I couldn't (and still can't) find a hole in Rich's analysis. 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence' (the essay in question) is a fine, fine piece of work. But it rankles with me. I was very angry with it for a while. I don't like not being able to reconcile my beloved male partner with my burning desire for women's equality.

I've reconciled it, up to a point, in that I just don't really think about it (FWR had a classic thread on cognitive dissonance - do a search for it). We all make our way through the patriarchal world as best we can...

But to say "PIV is damaging" completely erases all the experiences of women who haven't been damaged by PIV. "PIV is damaging" suggests that all PIV every time for every woman causes damage.

It is simply not true.

It's like saying "London is dangerous" or "books are amazing".

PIV is MORE likely to be dangerous for women than men. Much more likely. Not disagree with that at all.

dreamingbohemian, I don't think my argument is stronger, for the simple reason that I'm not often trying to make an argument.

I believe that PIV is damaging to women. That's my view. Whether people agree with me, or not, is really up to them. I'm not here to convert. Women will make their own decisions and take their own journey.

I don't think it does erase, yellow. Almost all Western discourse about sex works on the principle that PIV doesn't damage women. Me chatting with my friends about our sex lives assumes that PIV doesn't damage women. So to do magazines, newspapers, the TV, films, and on and on and on.

Almost everything in the world assumes that PIV doesn't damage women and that it's a gender neutral act.

I don't think that by going to the other extreme and saying it is always damaging is a good thing either.

I don't say that it is always damaging. I think I explained that really quite clearly.

'PIV is damaging' does not mean it is ALWAYS damaging to EVERY woman. It means that if damage is going to happen, it will happen to a woman and not a man.

The comparison here is between men and women.

The statement "PIV is damaging" suggests it is always damaging.

Just to butt in..

Books ARE amazing!

Even 50 Shades of Grey?

Victor, thanks for writing all that!

It does make a bit more sense knowing you're just comparing women to men. I guess using that large-group analysis would also explain 'all men oppress women', because you're going on balance.

To me personally, that's a very limited perspective though. There are huge subsets of women for whom PIV is not a problem (and I am also confused about the 'women don't orgasm' bit, sorry).

To use an analogy to double-blind studies doesn't work -- it's not like feminist analysis is based on double-blind studies either.

It's more that you have an inductive theory that PIV is damaging, and people are coming along using small-group analysis to show all the exceptions to your theory.

So I guess I'm wondering why not say, for example, PIV is more damaging for women (than men), rather than just 'damaging'.

Haha haven't read it Yellow but you win that one! what I should have said was:

Reading is amazing!

Reading 50 Shades of Grey is amazing?

x 2

;)