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.

I tend to think that splitting boards into smaller boards stifles discussion and does indeed lead to the echo chamber problem.

Can you explain why you thing splitting boards creates an echo chamber effect, or give examples of when or how it might?

Can you say how you think an echo-chamber might persist somewhere with no private boards, except when minority opinions are discouraged by overwhelming majorities?

Can you imagine how an overwhelming majority on a board might be more likely to create an echo-chamber than allowing a space for the joining-up and discussion of minority views?

I think it's because people who aren't invested don't notice all the subsections. They are more likely to look in general topics (like Feminism chat, for example) and then miss the specialised areas.

I do agree, though, that having an overwhelming majority agreeing with an idea you disagree with would make you less likely to engage with that topic.

I have no particular axe to grind here. I am learning; I don't know much about radical feminism or liberal feminism. I think it would be a shame if people like me didn't see both/all sides because they're split up so much.

RatRolyPoly

What about starting a specifically LibFem pub thread on Feminist Chat and explaining your hopes for the basis of the discussion in the title and the first post? That could give a focus on in without it being on a separate board (I'm well aware that Feminism Chat is the only board in the topic with much traffic and I would like to see a wider range of threads in it, having been away for a while)

Hi Helen, yes, I think that is certainly something I will do regardless of anything else, although as I've said I think it would fail to redress the massive imbalance that silences liberal voices.

Perhaps I will try it as an experiment and see how long it takes to descend into "the defense of liberalism within feminism", so not leaving much time to discuss any practical feminist issues at all.

If I suspect rightly, it won't be long.

"I think it would fail to redress the massive imbalance that silences liberal voices"

Do you genuinely think liberal feminist voices are silenced on Mumsnet?

I know very little about feminism academically and the labels attached to it. Is the suggestion that radical feminism does not believe that men who have self identified as women are women and liberal feminists would believe this? I would state I am a liberal rather than a radical person, I am really not radical at all and am rather surprised that believing the first statement makes someone radical? I may have totally misunderstood the situation as I have no background in using these terms.

Not on Mumsnet Bertrand but within the Feminism topic.

And that makes feminism less accessible to average female users of MN in my opinion too. But that's by the by.

Hi frozen, no, that is not the distinction (luckily!).

The reason it seems to be a big issue now is that some people seem to think you can't be a feminist if you hold certain views, yes, a lot around the trans debate. If you think having a penis makes you a man or that porn a universal evil or that strippers are victims that doesn't make you radical, but if you think anyone who disagrees with you can't be a feminist then... well. you're certainly not very liberal!

Here's a bit of a wiki definition of Liberal Feminism:

"Liberal feminism is an individualistic form of feminist theory, which focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their own actions and choices. Its emphasis is on making the legal and political rights of women equal to men."

This differs from broad feminism which includes many people who do not believe in choice-based feminism; individuals or groups who would not consider someone a feminist who watched porn or gladly worked in the sex industry or wore revealing clothes or whatever other restrictions they believed upheld "the patriarchy", well those people wouldn't call themselves Liberal Feminists.

I'm curious about why you think liberal feminism is more accessible?

I will post on it if you do, Rat.

At present, I would love to post on more non-trans threads because, though it's an important topic, it's not the only thing feminism should be doing!

Thanks rat

'when one is in the "dominant" category it is natural to want to "not see" the problem?'

That might be true in some cases. Definitely not true for me. I have ample opportunities to talk about feminism in my daily life. I have a job where I can talk about feminism as much as I like. I organise conferences and talks around feminism quite often. I have had a feminist book group in the past. I moderate several feminist groups, one of which has thousands of members and does not privilege one particular viewpoint.
I've generally been in a minority as a radical lesbian feminist. I have to be good at taking in different views and ensuring the views of all feminist strands are taken into account, especially those of women who have experienced other oppressions such as racist misogyny.
I'm happy to be in a minority and still work with majority views.
If I go into a room full of victim-blaming college students and when I leave, at least half of them know they could contact women's aid or rape crisis if needed, I'm happy. I don't need everyone to agree with me.

Among the MN feminist posters, there are likely to be only one or two who have exactly similar political views to me. I tend not to expound on many of my more controversial views on general threads and would view most of MN feminism as more leaning towards liberal or socialist material feminism than radical feminism.

I don't think it's useful to describe MN feminism as broadly radical. It is not. It is broadly trans-critical which is different, and understandable given most of us are older and have used our female bodies to grow and expel tiny humans.

I think MN can't really set themselves up as official arbiters of what is or is not liberal feminism, as generations of women have fallen out about the distinction.

Lib fem pub thread v good idea though.

Yes Helen I agree! Okay, give me a few days to recover from the recent trans-avalanche whilst negotiating mat-leave fug and I'll get one up and running (unless anyone beats me to it - here's hoping!).

Gladly worked in the sex industry😀😂 for a chosen few maybe - but really is that something a parent would want / be proud of if their child made this as a career 'choice'. I am not a rad fem but i really cant understand the lib fem stance on sexual exploitation

Obviously you don't have to qualify yourself to me Super, and I wasn't probing for it - I hope you didn't think that!

I don't think it's useful to describe MN feminism as broadly radical. It is not. It is broadly trans-critical which is different, and understandable given most of us are older and have used our female bodies to grow and expel tiny humans.

I don't describe it as broadly radical, I'm saying it is broad. Just that. And that in that breadth a group or a voice has been swallowed up. Not a single voice either, not my voice, but a whole arc of feminism that very rarely casts the choices of other women as not feminist. It's not a trans thing, it's not a trans debate, it is that the forum is currently a room where one is obliged to qualify one's feminism before one is "allowed" to participate, and that is exclusionary to those whose feminism does not "pass the test". Although those people still call themselves feminists. I'm offering you anecdotal evidence by way of evidencing that by the way; the experiences of myself and other posters I have seen post and spoken to. I hope that will be sufficient for you to believe that it is happening, although of course I cannot prove the degree to which that is the case.

I think MN can't really set themselves up as official arbiters of what is or is not liberal feminism, as generations of women have fallen out about the distinction

A subsection would not require them to do so. What qualifies as veganism? Am I less vegan than you because I wear leather and you think that's not okay? Will I be sent make to the conception boards because I'm not as infertile as I need to be, or will a pregnant lady wanting to ask about childbirth be sent back to the pregnancy subforum instead of childbirth by mods? No, it doesn't happen. Because the subforums just enable people to target and contextualise their questions and their discussions to a particular audience and with a particular thing in mind.

iamawoman I used to be a stripper, what can I say!

I know MN in general and the feminist section have always intimidated women who want to post. Most of us get accused of trolling (why I have my length of time on MN on my profile) and folk can be extremely touchy.
It seems you can give as good as you get and I suggest you keep contributing when you have something to contribute and don't write off MN as only inclusive of trans-critical posters (for eg).

Veganism has an external definition that is quite clear. A discussion of leather would be useful in that section. A sub-section for leather-wearing vegans, less so imo.

Was not posting to qualify myself btw but to illustrate that a lot of what motivates me is not getting my view across but rather ensuring spaces exist for all women to get their views across, and clarify/develop those views in discussion with other women.

I want to call my band Leather Wearing Vegans

Just to say-I have never seen anyone told that they can't be a feminist because of X or Y. I have seen people told that they have made un feminist choices. These are very different things.

Just to say-I have never seen anyone told that they can't be a feminist because of X or Y. I have seen people told that they have made un feminist choices. These are very different things

Yes. And indeed periodically there are threads where we talk about the un-feminist choices we have made (for eg, I have changed my name on marriage, been a SAHM etc etc). But we can still be feminists

Well I have Bertrand, a very many times, and I'm on a thread with you right now where a number of other posters are telling you the exact same thing. And you're telling all of them too that "this never happens". In one week alone I have both seen people be asked and been asked myself "why are you even on the femism board?" as a response to my views. Three times on one single thread I had to answer "what are doing on the feminist board" with "BEING A FEMINIST".

...and don't even get me started on the term "handmaiden"...

But this never happens?

So you have actually seen people being told “ You can’t be a feminist if ....”? Fair enough. I must have missed them. As you were.

Well if you'd accept a different wording someone told me to "fuck off with my faux feminism" on the very first page of this thread.