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 would love them to come onto feminist chat and argue why this is so

I'll be there, don't you worry.

This^ This is why there are so many trans threads.

It doesn't matter why there are so many trans threads; let me explain why.

This can go one of two ways; either this is the most pressing issue of our age and a Liberal Feminism section will be similarly consumed by it and full of Libfems (and others) discussing it, or it'll turn out that the people who are appealed to and pleased to have the opportunity to post any new Libfem section use it to not bother posting about trans stuff. I don't know which would happen, I'm not sure I have a preference, but it doesn't change the fact that a Libfem section would be good for Liberal Feminists, whether or not each individual one of them hopes it will be a slightly less "transy" space or not.

Does anybody posting on this thread saying yes please to a libfem forum even know what radfem actually is?

Why should they, no-ones asking for anything to be labelled "radfem"? We're not saying "we're Liberal so that must make the rest of you radical", we're saying the main board is for everyone - liberal, radical, pink/green/blue or from Mars - the main board is for us all; but can we please have a Libfem section too because we feel there's a fair and reasonable case for one, because we feel we'd benefit from one, and because not having one, frankly, is putting us off our feminism.

And I don't think that Betrand has anything to concede - since your memory of what was actually said was very dodgy, and turned what was a rude comment into a downright insulting one and you didn't see the difference - what else are you reading and entirely mis-construing!

I think I've covered everything else in previous posts (fell free to correct me) but I will take this one. Let me break it down for you:

I was told that it was not evident that people get told "they can't be a feminist because of X or Y".

I referred to a post which described mine and other people's opinions as "faux feminism".

"Faux feminism" means "not really feminism", from which you can deduce the people espousing it are "not really feminists".

Hence I believe I have proven that people ARE told they can't be feminists because of x and y, AND that it was right there on this thread to be seen.

Now I concede I embellished the level of insult in the post (I was out walking and on my phone and couldn't refer back to earlier pages as I usually would), however I really don't see how the insult of it has anything to do with the point that I made

Thanks Bogmoppit

That was me that used the term faux-feminism, not Bertrand. And I stand by it. If you don't centre women in your feminism (and if you're pro self-ID, then you're not centring women), then I don't see how you can purport to be a feminist.

I am happy to concede if I am shown to be wrong. However, my interpretation of the “faux feminism” post was that the poster was sceptical of the motives of the request for a new sub forum and suspected it might be using feminism as a cover for the #nodebate school of trans activism.

I'll be there, don't you worry.

When?!

I absolutely support your right to that opinion Capn (I know it wasn't Bertrand who used it by the way, she was just saying she hadn't seen it).

The thing is I know a lot of feminists agree with you, which means the general Feminism board isn't a very welcoming place right now for people who themselves believe they are feminists, but who know other posters believe they are not; not least because other posters will tell them this explicitly.

So can you see why the "not really feminists" might want somewhere to post that reinforces their assertion with its very existence that they are in fact feminists; and that this might be a really good thing for feminism??

hi Bertrand, see above. I'm not really sure how you can interpret "faux feminism" to mean anything other than, well, "faux feminism"

But that's by the by, let's assume it was a difference of interpretation shall we.

Fair enough. It’s just a bit odd that nobody has ever been able to come up with a c&p example of anyone saying “ You can’t be a feminist if.....” . And it comes up in discussion so often that you would think there’d be thousands of examples.

Saying “You can’t be a feminist if you think women shouldn’t be treated equally with men” is, obviously an exception!

Well I can but like I said, I don't have a problem if you want to start a new thread to discuss lib fem perspectives. What you can't do though is police who posts and what they say.

facebook and most of social media is chock full of lib fem groups so if you want an echo chamber, you might be better off joining one of those.

But also, can you answer the question that thehairthebod asked? Because apart from saying 'I'm a feminist but I don't agree with you', this does feel like #nodebate

well the thing is I and others have given you many examples, but you just keep telling us our interpretations are incorrect and that you interpret it differently.

Even when the poster not many posts above us has quite happily returned to clarify that they do in fact think that certain "feminists" aren't feminists! So I'm not what else we can do.

Well that's cool then Capn, because as I've said countless times on this thread I don't want the threads to be policed by me, Mumsnet or anybody else.

I also don't want to get off Mumsnet to discuss feminism because I'm not "Mumsnet feminist".

...which question from thehairthebod? When will I get on the feminist boards re: trans issues? I've been on several under this (my only current) username recently; I'm on a thread right now in AIBU; and I'm on mat leave til April so.... just gotta work around the dc!

I think there are views that people who call themselves feminists should be challenged on. In my view:

You can't be a feminist if you think it's ok for men to win women's sporting events.

You can't be a feminist if you think the rights of a man to a job he wants trumps the rights of vulnerable women and girls to a male free space.

You can't be a feminist if you tell an abused woman that "this male-bodied (with or without a penis) person feels like a woman so you have to swallow down your fear and allow them to do an intimate exam on you/counsel you on your rape/stay in a hospital bed beside them/share changing spaces with them/leave your daughter alone with them.

You can't be a feminist if you then call the abused woman transphobic for objecting to any of the above.

You can't be a feminist if you allow the erosion of rights of 50+% of the population (who are female) in order to push forward the rights of 1% (who are men).

You can't be a feminist if you excuse misogyny from anyone - whether it's from men, from men who think they are women or from women.

Surely the first rule of feminism is to support women; women's safety, women's rights, women's spaces. Any "feminism" that doesn't centre those is surely not worthy of the name.

"well the thing is I and others have given you many examples,"

Have you? Could you humour me and give me one more? Actually, I can think of a couple. "You can't be a feminist if you think women can be responsible for being raped" "You can't be a feminist if you think women should not have access to contraception and abortion" "You can't be a feminist if you think it's OK for women to be raped on film for the sexual gratification of others"
Happy to stand by those.

Why don't you just have a thread then? I don't understand why you think you need a whole sub? Because essentially if you do that, then you're labelling FWR as radical and I don't think it is.

I've read every single one of your (very long) posts and I'm still not clear what you want except not to talk about trans stuff.

Why don't you start a thread and see how it goes?

I would second the idea of starting your own thread for like-minded people: they exist all over the site.
If that takes off MNHQ might look favorably on a separate topic, although we are pretty much overrun with them already.
It seems to me that you want to refurbish feminism chat as some sort of 'project' or something? You clearly enjoy expressing your views and trying to control the debate, which is fine, but mumsnet is not a classroom or a village hall that you can hire out to discuss your own agenda.

^^ Here you go Bertrand, will this do? ^^

This is what I'm talking about.

Some feminists don't want to spend the whole time discussing why they think they're feminists. Sometimes? Yeah, great. Discussion in general and it comes up? Fabulous, more of that.

But liberal feminists exist.

Liberal feminists think other liberal feminists are STILL FEMINISTS.

And liberal feminists want (I hope!) somewhere to chat that validates them as feminists; where the default is you are all feminists because - you know - the place is called "Liberal FEMINISM".

So we can all get on with being fucking feminists.

Whoops, those arrows were meant to point at Maryz's post.

I know I keep coming back to this, but radical feminists, socialist feminists etc also think liberal feminists are feminists. Wish I could find that Andrea Dworkin quote.
Strangers on the internet are not the arbiter of whether someone is a feminist.
If you are for women and women's rights you are a feminist.

Appreciate your thoughts hugo, I have already agreed a thread would be something. Although I have pointed out the pitfalls.

Also re:controlling debate, in this instances YES, I did not want this to descend into a trans debate. As it almost did. But not quite I hope.

I also do this elsewhere - agreed - will rein it in.

But not on this thread.

Thanks again for your input.

If you are for women and women's rights you are a feminist.

Completely agree

If you are for women and women's rights you are a feminist.

But that is the problem with self id isn't it? You cannot be in favour of both self id
and women's rights. They are not compatible are they? Or if they are I would love to know how.

I stand by all those - which of my statements do you disagree with?

If you look at my examples (or Bertrand's) and think they are incorrect; if you believe any of those statements, no-one could possibly think you were a feminist.

Apart possibly from you - but I'm not entirely sure about that. I don't think you think you are a feminist, liberal or not.

Not a thread about self-ID I'm afraid thehairthebod

Okee doke Maryz, completely entitled to your opinion.