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.

The comments about lazy language and lazy thinking would be upsetting for many and are not really necessary.

That is a fair point, Hester.

It's my usual term for this kind of error but I could have tried harder to avoid pissing Victor off. Could have said 'incorrect' maybe?

WHat Hester said.

"Add message | Report | Message poster PlentyOfPubeGardens Sat 30-Jun-12 15:46:35
No, some smokers don't die of smoking related diseases. About half, I believe."

Well, some people die of something else first :).

Anyway fag packet strap lines are trying to be emotive and influence your opinion. So saying PIV is damaging is using the same tactic, by your reasoning.

If we add up:

• damage from sexual violence
• damage from pregnancy and childbirth
• damage from contraception
• damage from STI's
• damage to career prospects

(there's probably a couple I missed)

'PIV is harmful to women' is at least as true as 'smoking kills'

If I shrug any more my ears will fall off.

I'm not pissed off. I think we can debate these things without terms like lazy and illogical. I think that garlic, you could have done me a solid favour and assumed that actually, I do understand logic and am a perfectly intelligent woman. I like to think that I am both of those things and I still think that PIV is harmful.

If you think my position is bollocks, then fair enough, lets have it out with some nice pointing and an attempt on all sides to understand one another - even if that understanding is a mutual agreement that the other is talking bollocks. We'll probably agree on something else...

Every fag you have damages your health. Every time you engage in PIV, you do not necessarily encounter any of the things you listed.

It depends where you're coming from, Garlic. I don't think that robust criticism is a problem or heated debate something to be avoided. However that stance seems to put me in the minority.

On the other hand, if one group is going to be singled out and then hived off because others feel differently about the issue it would be a great hypocricy for it to go unmarked and unnoticed when non-rad-fem posters engage in its use.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a bit of a farce and that it's being used to smother debate but, as I said at the beginning, I've been told I'm in the minority there.

Actually I would disagree.

PIV does not have to lead to pregnancy and frankly, I would have taken whatever steps I needed to to have a baby if necessary, artificial means or otherwise.

Any harm that came to me, as a result of having my children - I put down to my fundamental, biological urge to have them.

Even if DH could carry them through medical technology - I wouldn't want him too - I love being pregnant, carrying them, nurturing them and ultimately giving birth to them.

I know it's not a popular view on the boards - but DH and I - and he is very hands on, have fundamentally different feelings.

I miss the DCs so much when I am away from them it can be a physical ache. He can work all day - and put us out of his mind, I think about them every 5 minutes.

Yes I have harmed my career - but I wanted to. I wanted to stay at home. I have friends who are very career driven and are highly paid and doing extremely well grade wise, they have not been harmed career wise as a result of pregnancy/child rearing.

This is where "PIV is damaging" is too blunt to get the point across - I have read all the points around it and understand it, but it is also necessary - which is whyany can't identify with it.

Y, Hester. My post was intended as a plea for our radfem posters to be careful of using inaccurate generalisations because I think it alienates people needlessly. I'd rather people felt less alienated by feminism, and this looks to me like an obvious and avoidable thing.

When I tell folks I'm a feminist, some still say "So you think all men are rapists, do you?" That glaring falsehood originated from similar logical errors, and haunts us to this day.

As ES says above, the tobacco warning is designed to be triggering but, even so, had to be supported with evidence that it kills more than half of smokers. I don't know whether there's evidence that PIV damages more than half of women - even if there is, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to promote a message that sex seriously damages your health.

It would just be so much easier to say 'risky' or 'can often be damaging' or, well, anything that reflects the truth.

it's not necessary is it, most of us do it because we like it not because it's necessary to further the population explosion (done my bit for that anyway)

it is obviously cheaper and easier than going to a clinic and more successful for some but PIV not even an option for others who want babies so not sure anyone could ever say it was necessary

It would just be so much easier more straightforward to say 'risky' or 'can often be damaging'

Not necessarily easier.

I disagree it's not necessary - most people haven't got the money to avoid PIV if they want to reproduce. Unless the govt is going to start funding fertility treatment for everyone simply so they don't have to indulge in penetrating sex.

Yes most people do it for enjoyment - but we still "need" to have sex - if all couples stopped - then there would be no population at all eventually.

Yes, both phrases are deliberately emotive. When something is causing an epidemic of harm, sometimes it needs naming in strong terms for people to take notice.

I can't quite believe we're discussing PIV on site stuff!

I do think this discussion is a good example of one problem I see again and again on FWR. I like PIV and I'm not about to give it up. I'm not telling anybody to give it up or feel bad for enjoying it. But there's a wider context. Feminism is political - it's not all about you (generic you). It's the same thing that happens with analyses of beauty practices, people take arguments against practices as personal criticisms when that's not how it's meant at all. I wonder if a section called feminist theory/analysis would make this less of a problem.

For those who are interested, there's a good blog post here on PIV [WARNING: contains Radical Feminism]

lots of people have sex without a penis going anywhere near a vagina or for reproductive purposes just for fun

obviously don't tell my mum that

Well, I disagree Pubes. I don't think things DO need to be said emotively. I think it leaves us open to having to backtrack.

But what do I know? I come from Aberdeen, we don't do "emotive".

I love that we're discussing PIV and semantics on Site Stuff too.

That's really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Alameda - yes I suffer from pregnancy bleeding so intercourse is banned - doesn't stop sexual activity.

It isn't necessary for sex - but PIV is pretty essential to the survival of the human race.

I'm not convinced it's essential for that, now we have alternatives and are horribly overpopulating the planet but even if you accept that it is helpful for reproduction (usually when having any sort of sex am also desperately trying not to reproduce though, which is probably true of loads of people) does this mean we can't discuss ways in which it is harmful too?

We have to eat, but a lot of eating behaviours are harmful. Nobody is saying never eat anything again when they express anxiety about the obesity epidemic.

Garlic the negative assumptions about feminism come from all kinds of places. The conversation on these boards could be as muted as possible, even cease to exist all together, and you would still run into that same thing. In the meantime, posters like me and all the other lurkers (ex-lurker now in my case) who wondered on to the FWR board, found it interesting, stayed and learned and thought would be lost to you. You can't please or engage everybody, so however things are conducted here you will win some posters and lose others. Given this board is not a PR outfit working on behalf of feminism inc. I'd much rather the challenging, fiery, uncomfortable stuff remained, others feel differently.

One thing I think has been overlooked in these threads is that it's not the tone of debate that angers some people but the very ideas expressed and explored. That's unfortunate because no matter how carefully those ideas are expressed, their very articulation will upset some.

Wandered on to the boards, though apparently its a wonder I stayed given they're apparently so hostile an environment.

There is nothing wrong in discussing ways it is harmful, but there does need to be acknowledgement that at least some PIV is necessary, without extraordinary cost.

I read the link "you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition. and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe?if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust."

It lost me there - I enjoy PIV - I dOnt feel quite - fulfilled / satisfied physically - without it (and I have plenty of experience of alternative methods).

I want babies - and lots of them, if DH hadn't shared that view - id have found someone who did.

While these are specific to myself - demonising all men who participate in PIV - makes absolutely no sense to me at all. After first pregnancy bleed - dh wa scared of sex - treated me like a china doll - I discussed it with them and normal service resumed (til second one).

I reinitiated it, not dh, im not a shrinking violet who has to be protected from dH by DH.I

It's obviously true that lots of people will find any reason to dislike feminism, Hester. It's still perfectly possible to avoid logic traps like the above, though. I would have thought it desirable to avoid them when, as you say, issues are being closely analysed.

I'll just have to carry on avoiding threads based on such fallacies.

• so I may never get to ask my question, "why are we talking about PIV and not PIA as well?"

... just slid that in there [eek] in case you feel like answering

Clearly a man demanding PIV is not acceptable however!