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.

LRDtheFeministDragon at caffeine jitters, been there done that!

Not specifically medicine, but there was a lot of Taoist stuff back around the start of Common Era about men conserving orgasm to ensure climax for the partner - usually several times? Mahabharata and so on maybe 1500BCE?

I'd have suggested it varies between cultures, but I lay a huge amount of blame specifically on the Christian churches door... The other Abrahamic faiths seemed to have a more enlightened attitude, at least until the Wahabbi influence.

Mmmm coffee - now that's a good idea!

Ah, I see, that sounds interesting.

food - may I offer you a ?

going back a bit - FoodUnit, yes, I find class analysis untrue, and also impractical. There are patterns and systems, but is dismantling them going to remove the underlying misogyny?

vasela "I find class analysis untrue"
This I find very interesting - normally it is only those who benefit from class oppression can see no truth in it. Often firstborns and privileged private-schoolers

Can you explain how it is untrue? Because I see overwhelming evidence to suggest it is the case.

"There are patterns and systems, but is dismantling them going to remove the underlying misogyny?"

If you 1) hold to the fact that misogyny is not hard-wired, but is part of a pattern, then 2) you believe there must be something else causing this pattern, so then 3) if you don't eradicate or transform this cause, then 4) the pattern will continue to remain in spite of your efforts to remove the details, surely?

Thanks for the cuppa LRD - just the ticket

Guilty of being first-born! When I said I found class analysis untrue, though, I was referring to men as a class (I'd thought that was what you were referring to).

I don't think there is a "something else" causing the pattern. It's hatred begetting hatred. Misogyny is inculcated and validated by parents, peers etc. - so it's wired, and is part of a pattern. But it's not hard-wired, and can be got rid of. That isn't to say that the best way of getting rid of it is by tackling the pattern. It's the same with sociopathy - it ultimately has to be tackled through good parenting and good education. It has to come down to that level. It's not removing the details.

and again, that isn't to say that action has to be taken by individuals only. It needs to be concerted.

"I was referring to men as a class (I'd thought that was what you were referring to)."

I believe you can perform class-based analyses of along various axises- social class, sex, race, etc, and though yes we were talking about the male-female axis I don't see it as less 'analysable' () than any other axis.

In whatever 'classification' human beings can be identified by (which imply a particular social position) a class-based analysis helps elucidate the relationship between the definition and position of people in each class, the power dynamic between them, and some clues of the history of how this came to be.

Class-based analysis is helpful, but IMO only to a degree. That's not to say that liberal feminism is the answer, though. Far from it.

"Class-based analysis is helpful, but IMO only to a degree."

He he - only to the degree that you benefit from it . People who are greatly helped by class-based analysis (ie those who are subjected to the greatest mulitiplicity and severity of class-based oppression) would beg to differ on the degree to which it helps.

It isn't enough, though.

But no-one, surely, thinks it is 'enough' in the sense that they want to sit around, constructing theories about the world based on class and pontificating endlessly about it. I love pontificating endlessly and I would get bored of that. Of course we need to do other things to, but for me and I think for others, the class-based analysis energizes and gives a purpose to everything else.

"It isn't enough, though."

Enough for what?

I think it is enough to bring about feelings of solidarity springing from the realisation of a shared class oppression, which is very helpful to spur organising to challenge misogyny in various forms.

Also it is enough to clear the cloudy confusion of mixed messages, crap deals, dead-ends, unfair blame, depression, anxiety, pain and resentment that are the lot of the oppressed, to help them rise above it and act with authority and confidence.

and what LRD said - cross posted

I think it's good that it energises some people, but it doesn't energise others, and to that extent I don't think it's enough.

But can other people not be energized by other things?

I don't think any one way of working is ever going to be 'enough' in that sense. That is what I like about really good feminist conversations we've had on here, where people are coming up with all sorts of different, but complementary and important ways of being a feminist. Like, bringing up a boy to be a good man who is aware of women as people, is a major bit of feminist activism. Bringing up a girl to be a good, confident, happy woman is a major bit of feminist activism. So is going on a march, or getting fired up and starting a counselling service in your area or a campaign, of course.

I think it must be the same with theory. If radical feminist analysis makes something click for me, that's great, I will use that. But if someone else is more energized by something else, and we are not opposed, I've got to think that is great too. In my heart obviously I am convinced that radical feminist analysis is amazing and brilliant and does it for me, so I want to share what little I know of it with other people ... but that's because I am passionate about it, not because I'm discarding every other ideology in the book.

"I think it's good that it energises some people, but it doesn't energise others, and to that extent I don't think it's enough."

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.

I think that's so, LRD. This particular conversation started because I feel like a radical feminist, but have an issue with the concept of patriarchy. I suppose I wanted to know if there was somewhere I fitted in. But does it matter where or how I fit in? I'm not a Quaker, formally, but one thing I like about it is that you bring your own set of beliefs to the table (you don't believe in a personal god? doesn't matter. You don't believe in an afterlife? doesn't matter). It's a good approach.

What brought me here yesterday was reading a few comments (not here, elsewhere) on the new definition of domestic violence and worrying, as I often do, about the increase in online porn/hatred of women, and I was having one of those "it's getting worse and we're not keeping up with the backlast!" moments that send me here a bit sporadically. (The last time was when they introduced Lego Friends!)

I think that's absolutely true, food. And I think it is quite easy to look at any kind of analysis by a group you're not part of, and to think you're getting it while still being incredibly patronizing. I'm sure we all do that - or can imagine doing that - even when we're trying not to.

But I do believe it's still important to try, and to tell people about this kind of analysis, because why should we not talk about it to people when it is important to us? We do need to be honest that we have an ideological perspective, and that is where we come from, even we're trying hard to see other viewpoints. That's my view, anyway.

vesela - I like the religion analogy. I am C of E, but I get furious about many things within the Church. But for me, I like the identity of being C of E, and I feel that it's my business if I want to call myself that. Other people may - and occasionally do - say I'm not a traditional/proper Anglican, but when they do that, I'm in a position to discuss things and explain why it's the best fit for me.

I am completely with you on the 'not keeping up' bit. It is terrifying.

Maybe in this thread we need to get back to concrete things? I don't know, but it seems we all agree much more when there's something concrete to discuss, and I do feel really concerned about the current situation with definitions of violence. Especially the way I so often see people commenting on newspaper reports and saying 'but is it an issue?' or 'but it's not a women's issue any more!'. And this is happening while violence against women is actually a significant cause of death amongst pregnant women in some areas - ahead of natural causes.

vesela "I suppose I wanted to know if there was somewhere I fitted in. But does it matter where or how I fit in?"

Recently I was having a conversation about this (with people very much of the radical persuasion) and they were saying "Do we really need to say 'radical feminist' - can't we just say feminist"? ....Radical has certain connotations of having stricter 'entry requirements'....

Having said that, the belief that male-dominance is central to women's oppression is pretty fundemental to radical feminism so I think it probably wouldn't make sense to call yourself a radical feminist if you don't believe this to be true. And although it was radical feminists who initially recognised a pattern of male violence against women, this is now part of the liberal agenda too.

Radical feminism does have what you call stricter entry requirements. It is a political theory, Within that there are differences, but the basic tenets are set. So for example if you believe it is possible to change sex as some transgender people and others do, you cant be a radical feminist.

I agree radical feminism tends to be more prescriptive in terms of acceptable beliefs and actions than other strands of feminism (and that tends to be the case with those who adopt the label of "radical" in other social, political or faith movements.)

I think that in times of social and political uncertainty and economic austerity, there is a tendency for all movements to shift more towards what at other times might be seen as "extreme," perhaps because it feels to risky to look outwards, to be flexible and more inclusive, when there's alot to worry about in the world outside. You need to feel you can no who to trust, who is "us" and often that happens by defining more clearly who is "not us."

But, it can begin to look a bit like Monty Python's Life of Brian with people vying for the right to names and labels. I remember something fairly similar happened in the mid 80's amongst various socialist groups when the Thatcher years were taking their toll on the working classes.

I don't agree with that, eats.

Radical feminism has a meaning, it's not just a version of 'extreme feminism'.

I can't reconcile the idea of changing sex to radical feminism myself, but I think within that position, there's still room for a lot of variation and I think there is room for a lot of sympathy for people who identify as transgender. Others would not feel that sympathy, or would not express it in the same terms, and would also identify as radical feminists. I'm not well up on this area so I don't really know how best to think about it.

But on the issue of 'entry requirements', no, radical feminism doesn't have 'stricter entry requirements' than, say, liberal feminism. IMO. It is just a very different way of looking at things. I do believe it usually feels like more of a shift in beliefs, but so many people I know start off thinking radical feminism is challenging and scary, then start seeing it is just simple common sense.

It's hard to live up to, but not hard to accept and believe.

Thanks for the above thoughts in the thread about 'entry requirements'.

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 (though not exclusively- there may be other intersecting oppressions that have a bearing on her too). But any woman can use this radical feminist analysis to look at her own experiences and begin to tie them together.

And because it is logical, consistent, self-evident and has no holes, it can be derived by pure logic that you cannot 'change sex class', (but I think this is the application of radical feminist thought rather than an entry requirement as such iyswim).

But by 'entry requirement' I think I was referring to the more 'scary', 'extreme' whiff about it: Do I have to be a political lesbian separatist? Am I allowed to wear make-up? Etc.I think some people imagine there are the 10 radical feminist commandments.