A chatty, questions and random comments thread

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

There used to be a lovely 'Chat' thread where we could all be silly or just comment/witter on about stuff, and I've not seen it since this place got renamed to 'Chat'. Would it be a good time to have another random chatty thread going? I think there are some newbies having a look around after the thread about calling yourself a feminist, so maybe it would be a nice thing?

So people can ask random questions or make comments without feeling they have to jump right in to an ongoing thread or write an OP, if they don't want to.

"I think some people imagine there are the 10 radical feminist commandments. "

When you quote entry requirements, it does sound like a bit like that. I'm sure some people can believe passionately in some things that would be defined as radical feminism whilst being very uncomfortable with other views rad fems have - and the way they can be expressed on here.

"When you quote entry requirements, it does sound like a bit like that."

Just to clarify- I was saying some people 'think' it has entry requirements beyond agreeing with the political theory, not that it does.

"I'm sure some people can believe passionately in some things that would be defined as radical feminism whilst being very uncomfortable with other views rad fems have - and the way they can be expressed on here."

I don't understand how this follows. I know that women with utter conviction terrify people who are uncertain - is that it? Or is there a particular rudeness that you see in radfems but not elsewhere?

Because radical feminism has a clear perspective it means that you can view everything through it. It is impossible for any woman to turn over every stone to analyse the patriachy and misogyny underneath, so different women will have examined different things at a greater depth. It means discussion and sometimes disagreement, but eventually the truth is hit upon and is understood.

Also I think one thing radical feminists could make clearer to the uncertain, is that it is normal to be conflicted and it is impossible to be the perfect feminist while having to live and breathe a lifetime of misogynist air under patriarchy since birth.

I know there are some bossy, judgemental people that are radfems, but these traits are much more common in those who are not radfems. When I dip out of FWR in MN I am quickly appalled by all the bossy, judginess that goes on. Radfems overwhelmingly understand how conflicted we all are living in patriachy and I find them reassuring and sympathetic.

Hear hear FoodUnit

Sympathetic to some people. But not others.

To whom do you find some radfems unsympathetic, and is that any more or less than you find, say, some of the chicken keepers unsympathetic as people?

Rad fems aren't particularly sympathetic to the transgendered community.

"Rad fems aren't particularly sympathetic to the transgendered community."

It is difficult to remain sympathetic to a community when some members claim to represent them all and go out of their way to hound and harass you and prevent you from meeting. And yet against the odds I've seen a lot of sympathy shown towards people with gender identity disorder by radfems, since we find our prescribed gender role an oppressive bind too.

The way I see it is that although there are a few aggressive, obsessive, self-centred, misogynistic, antifeminist,power-hungry, control-freak transactivists, who deliberately rub up against radfems it doesn't mean that all transpeople should be tarred with the same brush.

Ok, I can see where you are coming from. Do you think the transgendered community is sympathetic to radical feminists?

Interesting question - but gender identity disorder is a recognised disorder. I don't think Radical feminism is :)

But Foodunit has it right with her description of a few transactivists. But m sure many transpeople would support a lot of the views and beliefs of radical feminism.

"gender identity disorder is a recognised disorder. I don't think Radical feminism is"

I know you are cracking a joke, but its not only people with disorders who deserve sympathy. Being born female within patriarchy has its own difficulties (in fact in China being XX means you probably won't even be born). Radical feminists want a chance to think about that, but transactivists (generally) have little sympathy!

Some trans people do. But most will never support radical feminism as it says that it is impossible to change sex.

"most will never support radical feminism as it says that it is impossible to change sex."

I know. But there are some, and I must say I find it hard to get my head around to be honest. (Sorry if I'm taking the thread off course with this).

How can someone who is so committed to gender that they amputate their reproductive organs be supportive of someone who believes gender is an artificial construct? It makes my head spin

Maybe because they support and believe a lot of the stuff radical feminists believe in?

It's a bit like supporting a political party. You can believe and support a lot of stuff they say but disagree about one of their beliefs. So what do you do?

I suppose it's how fundamental that belief is - but feminism is not divided into camps, is it? I believe it's a spectrum of beliefs where you can support some stuff but not others. Being in camps merely divides people without taking into account the bigger picture.

I am very certain that the rift between radical feminism and transgender/transsexual people is one of the ways in which the patriarchy keeps us all down. They get those of us who are not straight, white, rich men fighting against each other.

I am still pretty confused by the spectrum of opinons held by transsexuals and transactivists, because it is a big complicated movement, but I think some believe that gender is an artificial construct, but that within the world as it is, the only thing that fulfills their needs is to try to change gender.

I think the fact that gender identity disorder is recognized and 'radical feminism' is not isn't the point - the point is that the definition of 'woman' that radical feminists accept is not recognized, and I feel very uncomfortable about that.

"the point is that the definition of 'woman' that radical feminists accept is not recognized, and I feel very uncomfortable about that."

Totally.

Yes. And the fact that it's not recognized doesn't suggest we're making a fuss over nothing, or that our concerns are less important than those of people with a 'recognized' disorder - I actually think it shows women are very much disempowered, because our voices have been shut down in this debate.

(Sorry, I hate the terminology of 'empowerment' but can't think of a better way to put it right now!)

"(Sorry, I hate the terminology of 'empowerment' but can't think of a better way to put it right now!)"

Don't be afraid of it, women need to claim it back from the sex industry who want to exploit and abuse us!

" I actually think it shows women are very much disempowered, because our voices have been shut down in this debate."

I also think it shows how difficult it is to remain woman-centred within patriarchy. Misogyny is so pernicious. If we want to put females first instead of males for a change, since transgenderism has risen we are told that we are not allowed to (and have vicious insults thrown at us), because people who are born male, but believe they are female' should be prioritised. And since women-centredness goes entirely against our female programming to 'put males first' and often causes a lot of inner-conflict, trepidation and even repulsion as we are confronted with our misogynist fear of other women at the very notion of woman-centredness, I think a lot of women are very relieved to have the mandate to give priority to born-males who believe they are female instead. There's a "phew! swerved that one guys- Lets go on a slutwalk"....

Mmm. I think the reason I dislike 'empowerment' is that it implies that a 'disempowered' person can 'empower' themselves, which in turn implies that the power structure is really arbitrary and flexible, rather than rigid and oppressive.

But I do see what you mean about reclaiming it. I would rather just say 'powerful' or 'oppressed', now I think about it, rather than 'empowered' and 'disempowered'.

I completely agree about the difficulties of anything being woman-centred. I do notice how many women are very vocal about how 'privileged' they are compared with all sorts of minorities, and this is lovely and empathetic of them, but also in a way sad, because it seems to have become almost unacceptable to admit that women do also have an awful lot of misogyny to deal with still.

"Mmm. I think the reason I dislike 'empowerment' is that it implies that a 'disempowered' person can 'empower' themselves, which in turn implies that the power structure is really arbitrary and flexible, rather than rigid and oppressive."

Ah I see, and agree, but I feel that by joining together we can challenge and change the system (which is empowering) - that's why divide and rule is so crucial for maintaining the status quo. So I'm with you on the 'its up to individuals to empower themselves' cruel, cold-hearted, judgemental victim-blaming bullshit. But together we are empowered! Sisterhood is powerful!

Nicely put!

Logically, the notion of what it is to be a man has also been redefined, but men don't seem to be too upset by that.

Nor do many feminists. Only the Rad Fems. I think personally there are bigger things to be worried about in this world to do with how women are treated in this world.

So what?

I think personally there are not bigger things to be worried about that defining what a woman is.

I hope I don't sound too abrupt, it's just those are such classic examples of 'shut up, radfems' .... why should we only care about what men have also deemed it important to care about? And why does someone always have to insist that 'there are bigger things to worry about', as if we're letting the side down by daring to worry about what we think is a big issue?

When people moan on threads with trivial problems 'oh, don't you have bigger things to worry about' they are rightly slated, and I do feel it is quite rude.

There are lots of things to worry about, but that doesnt mean the trans issue and the legal definition of a woman doesnt matter. This has real effects - for example women only spaces for those who have suffered sexual abuse having to let in trans who look and act like men. As usual those who arent actually affected dismiss an issue as unimportant.

"Logically, the notion of what it is to be a man has also been redefined, but men don't seem to be too upset by that"

How does it actually impact on men? Transactivists don't try to stop men only meetings do they? Transactivists haven't closed down centres and refuges for male victims of female violence through economically devastating legal battles. Female sex-offenders who target men haven't identified as male just to get closer to their victims in their public conveniences.....And why? - oh yeah - its patriarchy and the systemic violence is the other way around.

"Nor do many feminists."

Nor do many anti-feminists, many fingers-in-the-ears-its-not-happening-ists or many couldn't-give-flying-f*ck-about-anything-ists.

"Only the Rad Fems."

Along with many other issues, although its not unheard of for radfem concerns to become mainstream as time passes, consciousness is raised and issues press.

"I think personally there are bigger things to be worried about in this world to do with how women are treated in this world."

Maybe one day you too will see its importance.