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.

"It seems to me that there has been a major historic effort to shut down male spaces, yet we still promote female only space and events.
I'm curious how this is equality?"

Male-only spaces have traditionally been used to shut out women, to keep power and privileges for themselves.

Women-only spaces were traditionally man-made areas to keep women under male control.

Public space is not a neutral space, it is overwhelmingly a male space. It was designed in the main by male town planners with male priorities and women are there on tolerance only. That's why men shout obscenities and abuse in the street - to remind us that we have no right to be there without a male owner companion.

We could have a whole other thread about male versus female space, it's an interesting topic.

Maybe its just me, I don't particularly get off on being agreed with, I'd rather test my ideas against other people's. I can't see how you can develop as a thinking person without testing your theory, how can you know you are even on the right track.

I guess the church had missionaries because it realised that it couldn't convert anyone otherwise. People wouldn't just roll up and sign up. Which is why open dialogue is important.

Are the MRAs a recent phenomena in response to the proliferation of "radfem" blogs? although I suspect that the economic situation is key to understanding this. Many men who are signing up to MRA are probably locating the cause of their disenfranchisement to women when the real culprit is material. But then lots of women think equality can be had under capitalism, are they not deluding themselves. Are they not just seeking their own emancipation at the expense of others.

Political meet ups aren't just about honing ideas though, are they, they're about solidarity and coming together with like minded people, networking and making connections and learning in a supportive environment. It's only when women do it, that it's looked at askance. No one tells socialists to not bother going to a Marxism conference because they'll only meet people who will agree with them, they should get tickets for the Tory Party conference instead.

The church had retreats, abbeys, convents, as well as missionaries - the missionaries could withdraw to them and gain spiritual sustenance to go refreshed out into the world again.

" Are they not just seeking their own emancipation at the expense of others."

Yes. Absolutely agree.

Apologies, I only read to this post and stopped to reply:

Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with a men's room at a university

Yes, if it were being used for study. Women have historically been excluded from academic contexts, and men are still given more space in classrooms and lectures, so it would be wrong to exacerbate that. The exception, I think, might be on religious grounds or in a context where men are in the minority (eg., nursing). That might work.

or male only sessions at a gym?

Those sound very sensible.

It seems to me that there has been a major historic effort to shut down male spaces, yet we still promote female only space and events.

Please give me examples of 'male spaces' that have been shut down? Spaces where there is a mixed or female equivalent, but no male equivalent? I think perhaps there will be a pattern to what you find when you look.

As this thread demonstrates, female-only events are so far from being promoted, they are in fact under threat. Compare, perhaps, to the Bullingdon club.

I'm curious how this is equality?'

A major tenet of feminism is that women do not yet have equality. I am pleased you are concerned too, albeit late in the day.

mini - I think you're concentrating on single events as if they were statement so of all interaction is to be carried out ever.

There is a huge difference between separatism, and occasionally meeting as a small group of like-minded people.

If radical feminists (or any other group) persistently removed themselves from association with any other group, that would be separatism. One meeting, once a year - that isn't.

Incidentally ... and I honestly will try to limit my repeat-posts to three! ... I do find it rather bitterly amusing that women have been celebrating the gradual right to attend mixed sex groups - men and women - as a victory for equality, when it turns out the 'men's rights' groups only see a mixed sex group as a defeat for the rights of mankind.

GrtGmawasasuffragiat so when the law provided that women were chattels, they were chattels? Not sure where you're going with that.

You mean to say women aren't chattels now?!

That must be an oversight. Probably happened when they forced poor downtrodden men to give up their all-male parliament and let women in.

Yes LRD we shut down their male space and did it when they weren't looking

The mind-boggling thing about these MRAs is that all of the changes they are so upset about were enacted by parliament with a huge majority of male MPs and government ministers. I don't know what planet they're on they think this feminist revolution took place on.

Are the MRAs a recent phenomena in response to the proliferation of "radfem" blogs?

Mini I think trying to pin the existence of MRAs on radfems is a bit grim. Radfems aren't responsible for other people's misogyny.

MRAs do not want any form of feminism to flourish. They are using divide and rule tactics to great effect. They are using the antipathy other schools of feminism have to radfems in order to shut down a feminist space and they will do the same to any feminist group they think they can successfully attack.

Radfems want to have one conference a year to get together. There are other feminist conferences that they doubtless go to too. Why is the existence of a radfem conference so threatening to other feminists? I don't mind if other feminists want to throw a conference focusing on their shared view of theory. I don't even care if they don't invite anyone who doesn't share their theoretical viewpoint. They have the right to assemble peacefully.

MRAs have existed under one name and another for millenia. I can quote if anyone likes? I should imagine most of us are familiar, though.

flora - yep, true. I'm trying to think of how many spaces that were once male-dominated, that have become female-dominated, as opposed to mixed? Can anyone suggest one?

FairPhyllis I agree it shouldn't be blamed on radfems. I don't think most MRAs even know or care about the difference between different schools of feminism. There may be a correlation of internet use but it's not the cause. At the same time radfems are blogging, MRAs are finding each other in online communities where they can trade instructions on tin foil hat construction share their views that would make other men down the pub think they're loons

LRD apparently cheerleaders used to be mostly male and now are mostly female. And, ... erm... .

Oh, I know there are sports and hobbies and professions that used to be male-dominated and are now female-dominated, and vice verse. For example, before computing was lucrative, it was female-dominated. These days, poverty is gendered: it is women who mostly work in the 'three Cs' of low-paid jobs, as cashiers, clerks and carers.

But (IMO) these are neither male nor female 'spaces' - or if they were once, they've ceased to be so. What determines the percentage of men or women in these jobs is market demand and social custom, not law or self-imposed rules. There are still male-only clubs that don't let women in. They are more powerful and historically more long-lived than women's clubs that don't let men in (such as, perhaps, women's colleges at Cambridge?).

I do not know of any man's club that was set up expressly to counter the difficulties men were having in getting into such-and-such a profession that was dominated by women, but perhaps they exist.

I agree entirely LRD, I can't think of any meaningful examples.

In fact, the most powerful male spaces (IMO) are thriving - boys' private schools. Oh look, another OE in the government, what a surprise! Our institutions are dominated by men who attended boys' schools.

Funny, that, yes ....

LRD, how was computing 'female' dominated before it became lucrative?

I also take issue with beleif MRAs are 'millenia' old. They are not. That is merely the modern term being placed over any past organisation that almost fits the template of 'MRA'. And is quite frankly misleading and likely to be used purely to stir up trouble.

Why do YOU think women were pushed down the rankings in (to use one example) monarchies? Why were men seen as a better bet? Because they were sexist or could their actually have been practical reasons?

Why do you think women stayed at home, whilst men worked? Sexism in action or just a common sense response to the practicalities of life at the time?

Flora, do you know how many 'boys only' schools have now gone co-ed? Not because of some manipulation by behind the scene MRAs or space lizards... but due to market forces. Parents want siblings in one location.

They are just businesses, not some secret part of a masculine dominated military/industrial crypto faciest complex.

"BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Apr-13 22:43:56

Public space is not a neutral space, it is overwhelmingly a male space. It was designed in the main by male town planners with male priorities and women are there on tolerance only. That's why men shout obscenities and abuse in the street - to remind us that we have no right to be there without a male owner companion."

Hopefully this morning you put sugar on your cornflakes... and not crack.

LRD can we have the list of MRAs over the course of history? I'm quite interested, honestly.

But I can't promise I wont debunk them either.

We could also look at how men/boys were also used as mere chattels over the years also.

Go read up on the history, lazarus. There are loads of threads.

Men/boys have never been used as 'mere chattels' because of their gender, have they? This is the issue.

LL women didn't "stay at home while men worked"

Women have always worked, but men defined their work as not work, as only work men did was of value, because only men were of value.

As for your crack comment - what bit do you think is cracked? Are you going to tell me that our public spaces were designed by women with disabilities? Are you going to tell me that women occupy as much space and feel at home in it as men? How often do you see this seating arrangement with the woman pushing the man out of his space so that she can occupy more of it?

Also you want a few MRA types? Try Aristotle, St Augustine, St Paul, John Knox for starters. That's just off the top of my head without even thinking about it. I'm sure there are more.

I love being taught history by people who clearly know so much, this is great.

LRD, I am pretty up on history. I beleive that the 'MRA through the ages' are actually just organisations taht made descisions as they thought were neccesary at the time, due to pressures and considerations of the time, that are now seen as 'anti-women'.

Men/boys HAVE been used as chattels. Just have women have.

Second, third sons etc (ie the spares, rather than the heirs) were married off just as much as the girls in order to cement agreements or to form alliances.

Basil, The crack comment is that you seem to have put crack cocaine on your corn flakes.

Town planning is town planning, I would imagine the planners of towns have better things to worry about than how to subjugate women through the medium of road layouts. Is there a high street layout that is particulary 'woman freindly'? I haven't seen one particularly 'man friendly'.

Yes, women have often worked. The value placed upon it is a modern construct.

Women have babies, in order to have babies and look after them (esp when breast feeding was the only way to feed a baby) women would have to stop working. If they stop working they lose ther place on the pecking order, or lose vital skills. Hence they drop down the ranking. Go back a few years and due to lots of infant deaths, we needed lots of infants. Women had lots of kids. Thus there work was affected.

Blame Mother Nature for that one, it isn't some plot to hold women down. Merely the practicality of life.

The picture you show is a man with his legs apart, and woman with her legs crossed... Yes, a sure sign of sexism in action. Oh, wait. In between HIS legs appear to e two bags, which he may be protecting with his posture. Bottles from duty free perhaps? Or something he doesn't want to place up against the wall of the seat. Her cramped and angled position appears to be due to a suit case, to large to fit further across the footwell, but pulled enough in to keep the aisle clear...

Oh, I get it. they are trying to get as much baggage as possible in to their seat row rather than the man displaying his manliness and keeping his woman in check.

Can you explain how your MRA examples are MRA centric?

Oh, the photo. At best you've found a bloke who is a bit of an arse and is taking up too much room. I'd have clanked his knee with mine by now... or given him a dead leg.

Forgive me, but you are obviously not 'pretty up' on history, are you?

As basil pointed out, you didn't even know that women have always worked. That's history that has been taught at quite a basic level in schools for a very long time, isn't it? Women didn't necessarily stop work to breastfeed, either. That is an ignorant view of modern working conditions generalized to apply to the past - unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that! The idea of building up a career based on a skillset that needed constant attention is also extremely recent and inaccurately applied to history.

I notice you have no evidence for your claim that men and boys have been used as chattels on the basis of their sex. There is an excellent reason for your omission, of course - it's because there is no evidence. It has never happened.

"..actually just organisations taht made descisions as they thought were neccesary at the time, due to pressures and considerations of the time, that are now seen as 'anti-women'. They're seen as anti-women becuase they were anti women. The world was run by men who deliberately instituted structures and processes which excluded women.

"Men/boys HAVE been used as chattels. Just have women have." Not because they were men/ boys though. Women were used as chattels purely because they were women men/ boys were used as chattels not because they were men/ boys, but because they were on the losing side or because they were the wrong caste or race or tribe or whatever - not purely because of their sex, as women have. This seems an incredibly difficult distinction for some people to grasp, although it's really quite basic.

"Basil, The crack comment is that you seem to have put crack cocaine on your corn flakes." I haven't had any cornflakes and it's just a stupid personal insult isn't it? Boring.

"Town planning is town planning, I would imagine the planners of towns have better things to worry about than how to subjugate women through the medium of road layouts. Is there a high street layout that is particulary 'woman freindly'? I haven't seen one particularly 'man friendly'." Actually yes you have, but you simply haven't noticed it. I'm not so stupid as to suggest that town planning, car design, house design etc., is deliberately planned in order to persecute a certain group, I'll leave you to pretend that that's what I'm saying if it amuses you. Most planning and design historically has been done by white, able-bodied men who function very well in their society because society was designed for them. So when they designed stuff, they perpetrated that. Hence vast areas of public space inaccessible to wheelchair-users, buggies etc. This has changed in the last few years as the needs of other groups than white, able-bodied men who live in nice safe areas has been recognised as having been over-prioritised and other public space users - cyclists, disabled people, women etc., have got their needs recognised and integrated into public building projects. Which as one example, is why we've now got those colour-contrasting bobbly pavements near traffic lights, so that partially sighted and blind people can function in public space just as fully-sighted people can. No one designed the space to deliberately persecute blind people in the past - they just didn't think about it, because blind people didn't have a voice in the design and planning of public spaces and buildings. I don't know why referring to such things makes me look like a crack-whore.

"Blame Mother Nature for that one, it isn't some plot to hold women down. Merely the practicality of life." No, it's not, it's the way society has functioned to disadvantage women for having babies in the first place. A sane society wouldn't penalise women for giving birth, feeding and nurturing children, it would integrate them fully into full ownership of social, economic and political resources.

Yes, try and pretend that the man dominating the space means nothing, other people will make their own minds up.

"Can you explain how your MRA examples are MRA centric?" I have no idea what you mean by that. I named those 4 men as examples of how men have fought for a male-supremacist society, which is what LRD was referring to when linking current MRA activity with the centuries-long history of men who are determined to hold on to their illegitimate power over women.