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.

It sounds like you're taking out your anger and basing your opinions on the actions of a radical minority. It's a bit like judging all Muslims based on the actions of a radical faction.

But I don't want this to turn into one of those threads. This is supposed to be a friendly chat thread. I just wanted to clarify the statement that rad fems showed sympathy to people.

I don't think so, enimmead. I think you are presuming rather a lot about anger.

If you look a little further up the thread, you'll see I did post about sympathy and about how I think that we are all being pitted against each other under the patriarchy.

I'm certainly not judging, nor am I a bigot (though you are implying that, aren't you?).

If you don't want this thread to turn, I would suggest you don't try to 'clarify' my statements about sympathy by putting words in my mouth, or by presuming I am angry when I am simply trying to explain my position.

"It sounds like you're taking out your anger and basing your opinions on the actions of a radical minority."

Please clarify the steps that led you to that statement. I don't see how it logically follows or corresponds to what we've said.

"But I don't want this to turn into one of those threads."

Neither do I. But it was quite provocative to suggest that fighting for our right to meet and organise without the born male present means we don't have sympathy for people with gender identity disorder.

I think it is quite common for people to assume that women who don't put women and women's problems second to anything else, must be 'angry' or 'extreme'. It is very sad.

I was referring to Foodunit's post when she went on about transactivists and their actions. Transactivists are a small minority when compared to the transgendered community and it does come across as a lot of anger which is directed at them. They are also a vocal and radical minority. What they say does not represent the views of the wider transgendered community.

LRD - that post was more in response to what Foodunit was saying about transactivists.

So, you seem to be saying that radical feminists (a small and, I hope, vocal minority) may not engage with another small, vocal minority - why? I don't follow?

Hang on a minute. I said "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."

So how could you be led to say this?:
"I was referring to Foodunit's post when she went on about transactivists and their actions. Transactivists are a small minority when compared to the transgendered community and it does come across as a lot of anger which is directed at them. They are also a vocal and radical minority. What they say does not represent the views of the wider transgendered community."

It just doesn't make sense.

"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.
"
Because of this - and I do understand your views on transactivists and the difference to most transpeople. From what I've read on here before though, Rad fems do not seem to have much sympathy or understanding of transpeople. They do not want them to be able to function without fear or danger in the community Correct me if I'm wrong.

Who do you mean by 'rad fems'? People on this thread, or not? If not, best to ask them. If people on this thread ... why are you ignoring what we're saying then asking us to 'correct' you when we've already explained where we stand?

I think it's pretty off to suggest radfems want transpeople to function in fear and danger. I have heard some pretty harsh things about transpeople but I don't believe I've ever heard that. I'd like to know where you got the idea from.

Getting appropriate ID, using female toilets, if arrested then going to a female unit. Some Rad Fems on here don't seem to want that based on previous threads on here.

Erm, right, but you're shifting the debate a bit here, which is slightly disingenuous, no? I mean, you must know why rad fems worry about some or all of those issues, and to pretend it's because they actively 'want' transgender people to live in fear or danger is underhand, IMO.

The focus of radical feminists commenting on these issues - from what I've seen - is not on deliberately trying to make life hard for transgender people. It's on the needs of women who might perhaps feel threatened - fearful or endangered - by having a transgender person in a female unit.

In fact, not to be coy, that's what I worry about. I do not for the life of me see why on earth there cannot be units for women and units for transwomen, if there need to be. And units for gay women and straight women, for that matter, if it seems appropriate. I am not in the least bit offended by the idea that someone who, say, has been brutalized by women of my race might feel too scared to discuss their experiences with other women of my race.

This is why I am sure that 'the patriarchy', if it could laugh, would be laughing about the way we're all set against each other. It is so appallingly dismissive and oppressive to make people of different marginalized groups feel they need to have a turf war because they're all fighting over the one measley bit of ground they've been allocated. Instead of doing that, we should be arguing for more space for all of us.

I'd say 'highly' disingenuous.

Reading back there's a whole lot of squirmy insinuation, misrepresentation and posturing going on. Bold accusation followed by 'but I don't want this to be that kind of thread'.....

I haven't read back, but I think I agree.

I think women matter and their needs matter. It is quite obvious that there are good reasons at times for women only services or spaces. Trans MtoT are not women they are men. So of course they shouldnt be in those spaces.

Just wanted to point out that radical feminists are not the sympathetic people they claimed to be in one of the posts. Irrespective of women only spaces. more liberal feminists are very welcoming and accepting of trans people...and even men to help the cause but radical feminists just don't even seem to accept the notion of the transgendered because they, and only they, truly understand exactly how the brain develops and how DNA and genes work.

Some feminists are a little bit more tolerant and understanding.

What 'radical feminists' are you talking about?

You're ignoring everything that we're putting to you as radical feminist arguments, in favour of some hypothetical 'radical feminists', and it is a bit wearing.

How, exactly, does the brain develop, and how do DNA and genes work? I wasn't aware that feminists of any stripe were required to be neuroscientists as well. And I have not come across any hugely sophisticated scientific arguments on any side of this debate.

If you are going to throw around slurs like 'intolerant' (which is what you mean when you say 'some feminists are a little bit more tolerant'), you might at least engage with the people you're pretending to talk to/about.

LRD - saying men can not become women is deemed by many to be intolerant. It isnt. It is just a biological fact.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for transsexuals - it cant be easy desperately wanting to be the opposite sex. But to pretend that they can become a member of the opposite sex through hormone treatment, genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery is simply a lie. And i am not prepared to accept lies.

I'm not the one who need telling, Eats.

Enimead you cannot say that radfems are not sympathetic people. Really? There are lots in the wider world and on the FWR, Relationship, Chat etc boards helping people through rape, domestic abuse, discrimination at work, to escape prostitution etc.

enimmead "Just wanted to point out that radical feminists are not the sympathetic people they claimed to be in one of the posts."

To be fair I originally brought up the subject of radfem 'sympathy' in the context of radfems being sympathetic to the fact it is normal to feel conflicted about conceding to patriarchy to simply get by under patriarchy and that it is impossible to be the perfect feminist. Then you broadened it out of context in order to put forward your prejudiced and wrong opinions about radfems not being sympathetic as people.

Your first attempt was to argue that when radfems defend themselves from attacks by transactivists they assume these transactivists represent the whole trans community. This was proven to be wrong by reviewing our previous posts.

Your second attempt was to argue that when radfems defends themselves from attacks by transactivists it means they want the trans community to feel unsafe and live in fear. Logic alone will tell you that this does not follow so again you are wrong.

Your underlying prejudice you tried to prove with these two wrong points (along with some other sweeping statements about radfems not present) was that by defending ourselves from attacks by transactivists, radfems are not sympathetic people. And the ironic thing was, that you show no sympathy for rape victims who don't want born males in their meetings, no sympathy for any female victims of male oppression who want to peacefully meet and organise without the presence of those who were born and raised into the class that oppresses them. No sympathy for how triggering, intrusive, controlling and silencing that is.

Which makes this next statement hypocritical to the point of comedy (if it wasn't actually so depressing):

"Some feminists are a little bit more tolerant and understanding."

How sanctimonious. And I have to say it again WRONG.

FoodUnit Fri 21-Sep-12 16:38:57

I agree that yes it is a political theory and has certain absolutes: a class analysis, a belief that women are not inherently inferior, and that male dominance and the patriarchal structures that uphold it are the oppression from women must be liberated...

People who have been given unfair advantages don't tend to feel energised by class analysis - actually the opposite- they develop an inhibiting awareness and sense of responsibility, even feelings of guilt and fraudulence. They realise the best they can do is hand over whatever power they have, to assist the oppressed in liberating themselves.

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.

Really interesting, and all good evocative stuff. Analysis of class, oppression and calls for liberation and handover of power. Of course, we have heard this before - faint echoes off-stage of the "workers' control of the means of production"... In the cases of classical Marxism - or Trotskyism there was both a view of a future society, and an idea of how to get there.

In the case of the radical feminist perspective, is there a clear view of what the future society would look like - and an idea of a path towards it?

It seems trite to suggest that a path might be "women's control of the means of reproduction ", bearing in mind the cost of the soi-disant "sexual liberation" of the 60s and the role of women in that counter -cultural struggle.

The way children are raised in this society would seem to be at the root of the problems - how do you raise future generations so they don't have to breathe a lifetime of misogynist air under patriarchy.

Either break down the patriarchy [suggestions on a postcard as to how] or raise the children separately... with the divisions in the feminist movement, that seems like a slow process. Are we then to assume the raising of cadres to carry the struggle forward? Where then is the tipping point where it can be said the patriarchy is no more?

Crikey this is all rather heavy for a chat thread Interesting though.

I don't think it seems trite to suggest that women's control of reproduction is the logical way forward. You are right to draw on the similarity of the workers movement to control production. It's obvious really that what is needed is control of both. As it is, control of reproduction and production is rested in the hands of rich white men (rather simplistic over simplification but true!) has been for some time. The birth of patriarchy having happened long before last week. The sexual revolution of the 60's may have changed some social attitudes but this is conditional upon the goodwill of law makers and white male christians. It only made women's bodies more available to their male counterparts, a pay off to the huge structural and economic inequalities that exist between men. How many rich men's wives make themselves available to other men through trafficking, porn or prostitution? Not many????? would this be because for men competition is for resources and nothing else and somehow a need arises to keep the poor man on side and mollified.

"In the case of the radical feminist perspective, is there a clear view of what the future society would look like - and an idea of a path towards it?"

This question suggests a masculinist, patriarchal mindset that requires a few 'leaders' to have a 'vision' for a 'model' to which everyone else will follow/fall line with. This kind of thing requires inequality, oppressive force and violence, which goes against a spirit of liberation!

We are so steeped in misogyny and patriarchy is so entrenched that it is hard to know how the truly unoppressed woman thinks, what she wants, what her actual needs are and how she wants to live.

As patriarchy crumbles and more and more women rise from oppression a vision will become clear, universal and self-evident in my opinion.

So the path towards it is for women to meet and gather in non-oppressive environments, to create those non-oppressive environments and protect those non-oppressive environments, whilst doing whatever can be done to challenge and tear down patriarchy -blasting away all the barriers that hold women down.

The rest is for science fiction writers to envisage.

YY, I agree Food.

I find it really interesting that on a couple of threads I've seen, people have referred to a 'matriarchy' as either the natural feminist alternative to the patriarchy, or as some kind of utopia.

It's not. The alternative to a patriarchy isn't another situation where one sex is on top - it's a restructured society where no-one has institutionalized power.

And it is an ideal and not a goal we can all plan out and then implement, because we do have to change the mindset first. All of us.

This question suggests a masculinist, patriarchal mindset that requires a few 'leaders' to have a 'vision' for a 'model' to which everyone else will follow/fall line with. This kind of thing requires inequality, oppressive force and violence, which goes against a spirit of liberation!

I politely note that the ideas you have 'quoted' appear nowhere in my question. I don't assume leaders, a vision or a model, nor an idea of equality, oppressive force or violence.

I asked "What will it look like?"

We are so steeped in misogyny and patriarchy is so entrenched that it is hard to know how the truly unoppressed woman thinks, what she wants, what her actual needs are and how she wants to live.

How do we get to a state where we can know "how the truly unoppressed woman thinks, what she wants, what her actual needs are and how she wants to live"?

As patriarchy crumbles and more and more women rise from oppression a vision will become clear, universal and self-evident in my opinion.

How do we envisage the crumbling happening?
Can we have any examples of a "clear, universal and self-evident" vision?

I'm genuinely interested, as I hear echoes of the US Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - unless, of course, you were of colour, female and so on...

It's a nice idea... but that hasn't worked to well in the 236 years or so since it was signed...

Largely, this seems to be imaginary construct building by theoreticians...