New sub-section please?

[RatRolyPoly]

Hello MNHQ, may I gently put forward the idea of a new Libfem sub-section please? I don't know if the idea has been floated before so I'm not sure what appetite there would be for it, if any at all, but in the interests of feminism being accessible to all women and for the benefit of all women I'd like to raise my hand in favour.

By "all women" I primarily mean women such as myself, who would appreciate a section on Mumsnet to discuss feminist and women's issues without what is serving to all intents and purposes as "entry criteria" on the existing board; that being the obligation to deny the legally recognised genders of a group of individuals - contrary to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

This situation, I believe, has become the case due to prevalence of a certain brand of feminism having become overrepresented on this board, but serves the purpose of excluding and silencing the valid views of many women and feminists.

I'm not attempting in any way to discredit or silence the position of this current majority, merely to suggest that a specific board is needed to enable the voices of liberal feminists to be heard; not least by each other, in order to discuss the ongoing struggles faced by women in today's society.

Cheers.

Threads here and here Ereshkigal.

The basic problem (I think - the whole thing turned into an incredibly complicated bunfight) was that the people who wanted a radfem topic didn't want it for themselves, they wanted it as somewhere to put the more radfem flavoured discussions so they didn't have to see them - a bit like when people propose a trans topic.

OP is proposing a libfem topic because they themselves want to use it though so this is somewhat different.

I wonder though rat whether you mean a libfem topic or simply a topic where trans issues are not discussed? What issues do you see being discussed there that you don't feel you could have a thread on the main chat topic about?

“No, not at all, just somewhere to ask questions in the context of liberal feminism. I'll use the vegan example again if I may”

I must be being very thick, but I still don’t get it. Why not use an actual feminist example?

I don’t think you did answer my question. I asked what you felt the entry criteria are to the current feminism board and you gave a farming analogy.

I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant what would such criteria be for the subsection I'm proposing. Of course there aren't explicit entry criteria in the current forum, however if I was in a room for all Tories I would be unlikely start a discussion about how to bring about public ownership of the railways. In this scenario the prevailing political views in the room would serve the function of "entry criteria" to participating in discussion. To me, MN is a community where you can find a space to discuss anything, and I don't think that is being achieved with the current set-up.

Feminist chat used to be called feminism and Woman’s rights. If you started posting in say feminist support and it it started getting filled with liberal feminism then a name change would be good.

I would feel sad if a support subsection were co-opted though

I would understand liberal feminism to be a form of feminism focussed on legislative change, equality etc (access to abortion being a big focus) and radical feminism to be much more about theorising the root of women's oppression, organising women-only groups, the kinds of things Mary Daly or Sonia Jonsson would write about.

Thank you for this, that's a really interesting distinction and a perspective I hadn't considered.

I'm interested to know what the entry criteria the OP thinks we need for the proposed LibFem area. If you are asking for the section I think you need to define it.

If I go by my experience on Facebook libfem groups it means a lot of 'sit down and listen' unless you espouse:

1. sex work as a valid term and lifestyle choice (you get kicked out if you dare to say Nordic model or say that the sex trade harms women as a group),
2. transwomen are literally women, absolutely no difference at all (don't you dare use TIM or TIF or talk about biology, ever)
3. feminism means equality for everyone, fighting for everyone, it is wrong to focus feminism on girls and women
4. make sure you centre the minority in your feminism ever single time, there is a hierarchy of oppression that you must acknowledge and if you are a white, middle class, natal woman (use cis too, just to be safe) then you are the bottom of the speaking order. Just do not express an opinion. Just nod.
5. talking about the following is forbidden: pink pussy hats, feminine hygiene products, female genital mutilation
6. DO NOT NAME THE PROBLEM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE AS YOU MAY BE IN DANGER OF BECOMING A PHOBIC
7. always checking your privilege, always

Is this your proposal, OP? I'll sit down and shut up now.

Just kidding, I will not stop expressing my opinions.

Certainly my issues with liberal feminism centre around prostitution and porn. And the word “choice”.

Sorry- that’s not really relevant to the thread.

I still don’t understand how it would work.

See, NauticalDisaster, that just makes me really sad. You're bang-on - that's typical in a lot of mainstream online feminist groups.

But it isn't liberal feminism as was traditionally understood.

It's like the neoliberal individualist trend in society has turned feminist discussions into something as performative as clean eating. And I think that in the same way clean eating youtubers are eating quarter pounders and milkshakes behind the scenes, I've seen some of these performative feminists be incredibly racist, and indeed misogynistic when not crafting a performance and editing three times before pressing 'post'.

Gail Dines is talking about neoliberalism and to my mind it's totally different to liberal feminism, but it seems to predict everything that's happened with online feminism.

Does anyone remember a fb group called 'we blame the patriarchy' btw? That was a largeish group and there was an embargo on discussions of trans issues.

I would actually be up for a sub section where I could talk to all sorts of women with all sorts of attitudes towards trans issues, without having to worry about us all falling out.
I wouldn't see it as a liberal feminist zone - more like a 'no man's land' or something.

No idea what to call it though as the above is obv v exclusionary.

I do hope a new section wouldn't be used to shut down conversation. You know, along the lines of "this is the uber-liberal supporting everyone feminism section, you can't come in here with your exclusionary/radical views".

By the way, RatRolyPoly, you never came back to the sport thread. Is that because you finally accept that if (as you agreed) sport is segregated by sex for safety and fairness, then letting any man who feels like a woman compete in the women's section is neither fair nor safe?

After such a long and interesting discussion, it would be nice to have closure

Hi Maryz, no, that wasn't why - you were a good craic, good to chat to! I got waylaid with other stuff and when I was done I thought I'd shelve that discussion for another day; although I'm still mad keen to have it! Only so many hours in the day though.

Just gotta sort some baby-stuff, BRB.

I was just interested in whether you followed the argument to the logical conclusion, or whether you got through steps:

1. Sex segregation is vital for safety and fairness
2. Letting men in wouldn't be safe or fair
3. Transwomen therefore, sadly have to be excluded.

You seemed happy with 1 and 2, but balked at 3 because it wouldn't be nice and inclusive. I thought it was a very good analogy of how many women think about trans issues. Obviously transwomen are male (but we'll be nice and call them "she"). Obviously they shouldn't be in women's safe spaces (but we'll be nice and pretend that only the nice real transpeople will go there). Obviously sport is segregated for a very good reason (but we'll be nice and let men in because to do otherwise wouldn't be nice).

I'm sick of being nice.

I wonder if "liberal feminism" is another word for "feminists who want to be nice to everyone". And that worries me a lot, because being nice doesn't generally get women very far.

What issues do you see being discussed there that you don't feel you could have a thread on the main chat topic about?

I think I'd quite like to see an answer to this question - I too am a bit confused about the purpose of this proposed new board

Interesting the proposal for a sections 'for trans folk to chat' - has anyone actually asked the regularly posting trans MNetters if this is something they'd like or which they felt would enhance their use of MN?

This does seem to me a request for a protected space where people can push TRA ideology without having to deal with anyone challenging, debating and pointing out the many, many things wrong with it wouldn't be allowed.

Whereas a protected space where there was an embargo on trans issues would allow all women to explore feminist issues without conflict on that particular issue.

It might still have conflict - whether men are feminists, whether women should fight to be allowed on the front lines in the army etc but I do think trans issues get in the way of other conversations that feminists can usually manage to have without too much conflict.

Thanks SuperLoudPoppingAction, I've watched the first 10 minutes so far and am off now to listen to the rest. Much appreciated.

Almost every feminist site on FB is all about virtue signalling and lacks any critical thinking. I am so happy for the FWR space that allows for dissent, facts, biology, debate, discussion, and support.

I used to lurk in the days of Dittany and the board then scared the fuck out of me. I was a very right on, cool girlfriend, choicy choice feminist back then but I kept on reading. Then I began joining the discussions, tentatively at first, but really jumping in around the time of a New Yorker magazine article called What Is a Woman and I've been coming more radical ever since.

This is why I enjoy the open board. I want to read all the opinions. It does change minds.

Whenthered changed my mind on porn in a few short posts, buffythereasonablefeminist opened my eyes on many subjects. It makes me sad their contributions are gone now. (As well as Stewiegriffinsmum (sp?))

Even Lass changed my way of looking at an issue!

What is it that you don't like about the main feminist chat?

Do you think libfem analysis isn't allowed? Clearly alternative views are allowed, as you can go there and read them. It's just that people are allowed to disagree - and many do, it is MN after all.

Or is it that you think you should be allowed to state your views without any disagreement? If that's the case then can I suggest a blog with the comments switched off. Or join a closed private libfem group.

It sounds to me like the OP wants a "safe space" where no dissent or discussion of trans issues is allowed.

Me too, And, while I'm aware there is a dominant voice on FWR at the moment, and that I am in agreement with that voice, how could you have a board that is open to all MNers and, at the same time, control what is allowed to be said or argued there beyond the etiquette rules the site already has?

It's just another iteration of '#nodebate. And this is precisely the attitude that has resulted in the current dominant voice on FWR.

Nobody is stopping anyone posting non-trans threads in FWR. Anybody who doesn't want to take part in those discussions should just make threads in which they talk about what they want to talk about vis a vis feminism. I'm sure plenty of the regulars have loads to say about other feminist topics. I, for example, am extremely interested in discussing austerity since 2010 and its gendered impact. Come talk about that and I, at least, will reply!

So is this about trans issues, not liberal feminism? I was giving it the benefit of the doubt......

I think in the spirit of Mumsnet people need to be able to challenge inaccuracies. A lot of trans statistics and advocacy materials are factually incorrect or misleading. If I see something that I know to be objectively false, I will challenge it with evidence. And I would hope that would be expected. Oh, and Rat, I thought you weren't all that invested in the trans issue? Interesting.

As someone said another time when dividing FWR was mentioned (thanks Pencils!) :

MN said this is the board for discussing Feminism and WR. And guess what - all MN boards are open! If someone says porn and prostitution isn't damaging to women I'll be on that thread arguing they're wrong even if it's in the fecking Camping section.

I think it's unrealistic to expect any different. If it pops up on active threads people will come to have their say.

I just searched my documents and found 5 c and p'ed threads from feminism/women's rights before me, stewie, others had our posts deleted.

It's almost worthy of putting into a book - there were some great conversations and there was a lot of difference of opinion and genuine listening.

Not threads - long documents with thread upon thread upon thread

And it was 2010 - unsure why I thought it was 2011 it started.

I wonder though rat whether you mean a libfem topic or simply a topic where trans issues are not discussed? What issues do you see being discussed there that you don't feel you could have a thread on the main chat topic about?

Hi Pencils, I do in fact mean a Libfem topic, although no doubt trans issues would come up. For me it is not that I think issues cannot be raised on the main board, it is simply that one cannot raise a topic for discussion in the context of liberal feminism. You can only raise a topic in the context of feminism as a whole - and it is the lack of contextualisation that I believe can render discussions either less in depth, less helpful or indeed less inclusive in virtue of their being raised on a broad-term feminist board. (By "less in depth" and "less helpful" I mean only that the regular users of a broad-based board are so numerous and so diverse that frequent large derailment can hinder useful discussion. Derailments are good, they're helpful and useful and nothing stops anyone posting on any single post or subforum on MN, but when a whole thread is spent attempting to return to the original premise it may have been better placed in a sub-forum for more specific attention.)

I must be being very thick, but I still don’t get it. Why not use an actual feminist example?

Well the point I'm trying to make is about feminism; I was explaining using analogy. What was the question again? What will the "entry requirements" be? There won't be any - it would be a place to discuss feminism in the context of Liberal Feminism specifically.

I was just interested in whether you followed the argument to the logical conclusion

Maryz we'll have to chat another day on another thread about logical fallacies and nonsequiturs

This does seem to me a request for a protected space where people can push TRA ideology without having to deal with anyone challenging, debating and pointing out the many, many things wrong with it wouldn't be allowed.

Whilst I feel the need for a liberal subsection perhaps would not have come about were it not for the present polarising trans debate, this is not about trans.

So is this about trans issues, not liberal feminism?

This is not about trans.

I do think trans issues get in the way of other conversations that feminists can usually manage to have without too much conflict.

I think so too. The reason I think a subsection would help solve the issue is because I think the reason trans is such as issue for many feminists and not so much for others is a question of ethos and dogma. Liberal feminism I believe is typically the ethos of practical feminism, empowerment and individual choice. Under those banners the issue of trans is less imperative than under the general banner of feminism which, in virtue of its breadth, has a greater preoccupation with oppression, the patriarchy and women's rights separate from human rights.

This is why I enjoy the open board. I want to read all the opinions. It does change minds.

That wouldn't change!

Oh, and Rat, I thought you weren't all that invested in the trans issue? Interesting.

Hey Ereshkigal, I wasn't... but I've been peak-somethinged

Anyway, do see above comments regarding this not being about trans (despite obviously not having come about in isolation of it).

Would a trans embargo area work then, rat?
It would be impossible to actually enforce but I would possibly leave threads in that topic if they turned in that direction.

'I think the reason trans is such as issue for many feminists and not so much for others is a question of ethos and dogma. Liberal feminism I believe is typically the ethos of practical feminism, empowerment and individual choice. Under those banners the issue of trans is less imperative than under the general banner of feminism'

I don't think I agree - liberal feminists know male bodies perpetrate rape against female bodies, but I would not discuss it in a trans embargo topic!