Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

[MooncupGoddess]

As many of you will remember, the Radfem 2012 conference in London was explicitly open only to born women and consequently attracted lots of condemnation and anger from people who saw this as transphobic. It was kicked out of its original venue at Conway Hall and went underground (very successfully in the end).

This year Radfem 2013 has not explicitly banned transwomen... but instead it's come under attack from Men's Rights Activists, who have staged a demo at the planned venue, the London Irish Centre, while making lots of unpleasant and ridiculous claims about how radical feminists want to murder small boys and the like. As a result the venue is threatening to cancel the booking.

www.mralondon.org/

bugbrennan.com/2013/04/20/statement-from-rad-fem-2013/

I have mixed feelings about the whole trans issue but have no hesitation in declaring the MRAs utter misogynist knobbers and am disappointed the London Irish Centre has seemingly caved into them.

Basil, I will change it then...

del 'secreting' ins 'having meetings, that exclude all but a select group'.

Re the slavery and holocaust arguments, LRD, that is a strawman argument. Worthy doesn't mean eloquent, I would say that everyone's opinion of 'worthy' would differ.

I don't doubt you have studies, chuck a few links up if you wish, all I would ask is that the studies offer a proven link and are unbiased.

Ref your groups, all on your own you also prove mine... if they are friendly and you derive confidence from it, great... are you willing to engage in your group to the same degree if I was in the circle? How else will equality be found? I promise I wont bite!

If you want to find 'manhate' google 'radfem'. That's all I did, and the term was on the first page of hits.

LazarussLozenge, I'm mini because I am well......not very tall, I look like a woman, jeez I even act like one (most of the time). I am perfectly happy as I am thank you.

Have you not noticed that girls wear pink and that socialisation creates "gender" well I like pink but would I have grown up to like pink if it were not for the fact that everything in my life supports and perpetuates my gender. What happens when the messages are mixed or the process only partially complete? Confusion reigns I guess. Maybe it would be better to just do away with gender stereotyping full stop? Which is what feminists would very much like to see happen.

Not saying you are not happy. Just that as a man can change in to a woman, a woman may change in to a man.

I know girls are stereotyped pink and boys blue.

I have no problem with stereotyping stopping, I'm quite chuffed my own daughter is growing in to her own person rather than any stereotype one could imagine.

Not sure where you are going with the rest.

I've known one or two trans-genders, I wouldn't say that any 'process' was incomplete in their cases. We're quite complex things, both biologically and psychologically.

I don't believe a woman can change into a man or a man can change into a woman. It is possible to assume a male or a female identity based on our social constructs of gender but that's not the same thing.

notfluffy name calling and simple repetition of your opinion is not very persuasive.

I've read some of the transactivist blogs - I try not to, TBH - and some of them are pretty horrible to read. I know perfectly well that their views don't represent yours or many other people.

But there is a perception, which I've seen echoed in the death threats to radical feminists, the people saying they should be raped, the MRAs who harasssed the ordinary people working at the Irish centre, that some transactivists use that name in order to act as misogynists. It doesn't taint anyone else's views - but it's there.

I'm not going to compare MRAs to the Westboro Church as I'm not sure of the comparison, but I will say - no, not everyone has the right to express their views. Hate speech and death threads are not part of 'free speech'.

Allowing women the right to meet and discuss 'really important issues' has to include allowing women the right to meet and discuss what a woman is. It is a mockery to pretend otherwise. It is also, btw, quite possible to have that discussion without either side getting into petty name-calling.

I'm puzzled why it bothers some people that a group of women want a conference all of their own. Do those same people insist on being at any other exclusive event? Wicans only? Star trek nerds only? Viking appreciation society? Or is it just women who cant have a women only event?

I did know some late-medievalists who got extremely fed up that they weren't really able to participate in the Norse reading group meetings, but I believe this was largely because the Norse group had managed to convince everyone that the theory and practice of mead-drinking was integral to academic study.

But I digress.

When you put it like that, you're right, it does seem ridiculous.

Thats because it is LRD. A group of people wish to meet. There's a criteria. If you dont fit it, dont go. Why would you want too?
Last week I went to a meeting just for disabled people. We didnt have non disabled people campaigning outside miffed they couldnt come and talk about the issues surrounding disability. Cos d'uh.
It seems to me like common sense not just flew out the window but got shot and et.

kim the venue dictates the policy, not the other way around. Using the equality policy as the reason suggests that the rights of transgendered people not to be offended by people who question gender identity should be given greater standing that the rights of women to meet to discuss feminism.

LRD,

I said 'secreted' not secret.

As in concealing the proceedings within the meeting, rather than the meeting itself. And certainly nothing to do with discharge!

On the subject of what various parties would 'like to see'. We assume that various feminist groups want sexual equality, we assume other groups want equality on grounds of race, etc.

Do they though?

Call me a cynic, but wouldn't sexual equality (for example) mean the professional equalisers are out of job? Is it in their best interest to reach their goal early, or drag it out for as long as possible?

No one wants to end up like Arthur Scargill.

Exactly, infamous.

Can I say? I don't really follow why we are discussing the venue's policy and transphobia again.

The venue's staff got harrassed, they're worried about the safety of their staff. The conference is inviting transwomen to attend.

It seems pretty reasonable to conclude that the reason the conference might not go ahead is because some people decided to try to intimidate the venue into backing down by threatening the people who work there. I think we can probably draw our own conclusions about what that says about the people involved in said harrassment.

pretty low harassing the venues staff

Only if by 'pretty reasonable' you mean 'we'll just jump to a conclusion that fits our outlook'.

Yes LRD we've probably beat that one to death

LazarussLozenge wrote - "The author appears to think 9,000,000 women were burned at the stake... No mention that that figure would have left Europe with no women nor wood for fuel."

9 million women burned at the stake may not be accurate, but your claim that it is an overestimate because it would have left Europe with no women is incorrect.

There were about 9 million women and girls living in France alone at any given time during the witch hunt period (1480 to 1750). Historians have calculated that this population implies that more than 50 million French women lived during the witch hunts. Obviously when the other countries in Europe are also included, the total number of women is even larger.

Is there evidence that MRAs stopped the conference through intimidation?

Or is it paranoia?

A good article here.

www.lesbilicious.co.uk/radfem-2013-cancelled-should-we-care/

Oh, no, sorry, flora, that wasn't in the least me getting at you!

mumordad - the conference organizers said it was intimidation of the venue staff, yes.

I've read it again it doesn't say 'intimidation' it says 'safety'

'Our cancellation of the booking was a very difficult decision, but one that we have made to protect the safety of our venue staff. It is also due to the increased operational demands of the conference, which we are not now equipped to deal with as a very small organisation and venue, used mainly for weddings, community events and training.

We have made this difficult decision based entirely on our available infrastructure and the wellbeing of our staff, without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference and we are making recommendations to the organisers about other possible venues with the operational capacity to accommodate the event. We wish Radfem a successful conference.'

I think people are putting 2+2 together and getting 5.

I suppose they're lying when they say this.

'without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference'

Ok, lets talk Equality Act 2010 here:
There are 7 protected characteristics, gender is one of them. There is another bit of legislation that permits people living as their gender of choice for 2 years (no need for medical or surgical intervention) they can apply to be legally recognised as being of that gender. This includes a change of birth certificate.
It doesn't matter what your opinions are, the law allows change of gender identity.
Second, the Equality Act states explicitly that unless there is a specific reason to exclude which already exists in an organisations policy and is covered by another protected characteristic, an organisation must comply with equality legislation - hence the RNIB can say their director MUST be blind or partially sighted in a job advert, and they do not run contrary to the Equality Act because their charter is about promoting the welfare if people with sight-loss, so asking for actual experience of blindness as an essential criteria is no more discriminator than asking a doctor to have a recognised medical qualification.
To hazard a guess the London Irish Centre realised that they risked their charity status if there was even a hint of a risk of breaking Equality Legislation. I suspect the MRA protest was only part of it (and have there been any arrests because of that protest? - none I have seen, so I doubt it was viewed as harasment). From what I read in the centre's own press statement they received complaints from trans-activists. So it was not just because of the MRA protest.

I know a few MRAs - you can't spend time dealing with family court issues without coming across them. The mainstream are very clear on their anti-violence stance. Most I've met are egalitarian and seek equal treatment under the law - so changes such as presumed shared parenting after divorce. Most are worried about issues such as male suicide, male rape in prisons, male genital mutilation, effective male contraception to ensure both men and women have reproductive choices. Many are fathers of daughters and want society to be safe and equal for their girls, and they don't see that advocating for men's issues diminishes their concern and care for their daughters.
I don't get this zero-sum approach to men's rights here - identifying and acting to address men's issues does not detract from women's rights or the efforts to get gender equality. Conflating the MRA with white supremacist movements gave me a bemused moment considering the black and Asian and female MRAs I've met.
There are haters in all movements - both in the feminist extreme and the men's rights extreme, but the moderates of both sides have their place in society and in gender narrative.

grt - thanks for agreeing with my earlier post.

It's nice of you to repeat it, and I appreciate it - I'd be almost more appreciative if you'd, you know, acknowledged I had already explained that, under law, you can change gender, but, you know ...

What did you think about the fact that the London Irish Centre isn't risking breaking this legislation for the reasons already suggested? Did you have a view on that?

MRAs are conflated with white supremacists because they are very similar. It is very simple, unfortunately. Comparing feminists and men's rights 'extremes' is rather odd, isn't it, given that we live in a world where women are oppressed as a result of their sex and men are not?

Some men are oppressed irrespective of their sex though, somehow we need to be talking to these men because these are the men that pose the greatest threat to equality.

Absolutely, mini. I couldn't agree more.

Surely MRAs are being compared to white supremacists rather than conflated? 'Conflated' suggests people believe they are actually the same thing, which I don't think anyone thinks.

True, you're right, I should clarify, I don't think they're the same thing.

My comparison is the basic one we're all aware of: it is possible to be racist to anyone, of any race. But it is not currently possible to be a 'black supremacist' in the way someone can be a 'white supremacist', because the structure of society gives white people so much racial privilege. In the same way, it is possible to be sexist towards men or women or both, but it is not possible to be a misandrist in the way someone can be a misogynistic, because the structure of society gives men so much sex privilege.