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.

LOL, you still haven't got a clue what a culture of violent masculinity means, have you?

But since you don't realise you don't understand it, I doubt you ever will.

Tunip,

Explain it to me then.

Nope Tunip, no hesitation though in "sort of freestyling it" ie blundering around in search of a clue in the middle of an intelligent discussion whilst espousing Very Important Opinion.

Well that's it folks, discussion over, we have been told

Sorry BubblesOfBliss, not very specific in terms of time was I. I agree with you but I am still sticking to the point that in a class society men are socialised to behave in the "masculine" to carry out the violence on behalf of a ruling class. Too many men have died in wars and yet many more will sign up for this dubious privilege. I haven't read much about PTSD but a friend of mine has just escaped DV, her husband was left severely damaged and dangerous when he left the army. It's difficult to say, do we socialise men into callous people capable of rape and murder & torture to fulfil much the same need as at any other time in history, to protect the property rights of the elite. If you investigate the history of CIA involvement into Iraq, the Americans funded Sadam Hussain, they were best friends with him all the time he was using chemical weapons, the rift came when he refused to privatise the nations oil. All driven by the wealth of private individuals in the quest to appropriate the worlds resources. The biggest threat to all people is capitalism.

The one thing that can bring people together and undermine the social structures is the one thing that unites 90%. In the void we have the opportunity to shape society in a way that gives women equality. Have you read Zetkin or Lenin? very interesting, the changes to women's lives after the revolution were quick, because women's rights were already way up top on the agenda. They even had female pilots in WWII.

"There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union?s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles" wiki

Men are no more conditioned towards violence than women

YES they are. This is why we should never assume to blame ALL men for the acts of others. This isn't about saying ALL men are violent, but all men are subject to the same messages and social process, all men are expected to perform "masculinity" because if they don't ascribe to this they are ninnies, softies, gay, ridiculed, attacked even.

Flora, my opinon is no more important than yours.

Boys and girls (and men and women) are treated differently by society as a whole, and represented differently in culture. Examples of the way boys/men are encouraged to be violent might include, to give just a few examples:
-boys' clothes which are frequently decorated with images associated with violence (examples I saw while shopping today included pirates, Power Rangers and Vikings) while girls' clothes are more likely to have flowers and handbags
-carers tolerating violent behaviour from boys with comments like 'boys will be boys', while if girls behave in such a way they tend to get described as tomboys
-the preponderance of violence in the films and books aimed at men and boys
Thus the quality of masculinity to which boys are encouraged to aspire becomes associated with violence.
The losers in this situation are not just society as a whole which suffers from the violence of those men who are susceptible to this conditioning, but also those men who are uncomfortable with it and are made to feel less like real men as a result (something which happens to a varying degree in different groups of people/sections of society).

However, I note you are in a state of denial even about the fact that Saudi public space is designed for men, so I am certain you will find ways to pretend none of this happens.

If you genuinely want to learn, you could try Introducing Feminism or Feminism: A Very Short Introduction, for feminist thought in general, or for something more specific to the UK now, The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard.

'culture of violent masculinity'

Anybody fancy explaining this? I will listen (read).

Apologies tunip, your explaination didn't coe up on the refresh.

I thought you were off for the night? Why don't you start up a new thread if you have questions about really really basic things like this? Have you not noticed that there is an interesting discussion going on around you that you are derailing with your eunochz nonsense and now these questions?

Oakley studies genderisation over different cultures and concluded that four process occur in all cultures.

Manipulation - Parents encourage or discourage ways of behaving in their children.

Canalization - Parents direct their children?s interests towards appropriate games and toys

Verbal appellations ? this is the use of language to label children in a way that reinforces appropriate gender identification.

Different activities - Girls are encouraged to participate in indoor activities whilst boys are encouraged to participate in more outdoor activities.

As well as the process happening at the level of the family, it is reinforced through: media, education, peer contact and in institutions to which the individual is involved.

This process starts from birth.

This is for Loz ! if the homebrew hasn't yet taken effect.

First off, I am not in a state of denial re Saudi.

They have designed their public space around their beliefs. The female only mall is as much for the women as it is for the men.

It is odd that earlier in this discussion it was considered acceptable that RadFem was open only to women as this would provide a 'safe space' for women to discuss topics that they could feel uncomfortable discussing around males. Is that space male designed or female designed? Or at sufference?

Female only malls allow women to carry out activities that they would find uncomfortable if they had men in tow, conversely their menfolk would feel uncomfortable with women carrying out these activities around them.

I like to think my global traveling gives me a quite expansive view of the world. I use a term 'it isn't wrong, it's just different'. I would hope you do not paint your own opinions of what someone should feel over what another person feels.

I believe this is the 'feminine' trait - empathy.

I'll let you in to a secret though. My daughter (yes, I have one) is very in to dinosaurs and pirates, she has a Bosche tool toyset. I wouldn't class her as a tomboy though.

We made cakes yesterday afternoon, with pink fondant icing. Her choice.

As was the chocolate sprinkles and oodles of silver ball things that pretty much hid the pink fondant.

It's who she is, not who she should be.

'This is for Loz ! if the homebrew hasn't yet taken effect.'

Sorry Mini, my carriage awaits...

Mini "I am still sticking to the point that in a class society men are socialised to behave in the "masculine" to carry out the violence on behalf of a ruling class. Too many men have died in wars and yet many more will sign up for this dubious privilege."

I sort of agree with this, except the presence of the toffs in the armed services means there are lots of people who don't qualify as working class- in fact belong to the ruling class- yet have family traditions of joining up. Admittedly they begin at a higher rank and are less likely to be positioned to be mown down.

"I haven't read much about PTSD but a friend of mine has just escaped DV, her husband was left severely damaged and dangerous when he left the army. It's difficult to say, do we socialise men into callous people capable of rape and murder & torture to fulfil much the same need as at any other time in history, to protect the property rights of the elite."

And lets not forget trafficking and prostituting women to 'service' men in the army bases. I once had a chat about this with a pretty high-ranking bloke in the army. It was so weird the way he saw the provision of prostitutes for the 'boys' to be essential and non-negotiable- it was absolutely de facto and freaked me out. To him it was like my suggestion soldiers shouldn't prostitute women was like me saying 2+2=5.

"Have you read Zetkin or Lenin? very interesting, the changes to women's lives after the revolution were quick, because women's rights were already way up top on the agenda. "

Thank you for this suggestion - I just read this which I found so interesting I want to do a separate post on it. In it Lenin does admit that there needs to be special considerations for the complexity of having women equally present within the movement. The fact that women's specific needs are hard to address within a broader movement including men, might be the reason women's contribution is measured by 'dubious privileges' such as these:

"There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union?s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles"

I know this thread has gone from discussions of radical feminism to Marxism, but in this Clara Zetkin: Lenin on the Women?s Question there are a lot of topics covered that are entirely relevant to radical feminism, women-only organising, etc.

In it Lenin critiques I suppose what we now call 'sex pozzies':

?The changed attitude of the young people to questions of sexual life is of course based on a ?principle? and a theory. Many of them call their attitude ?revolutionary? and ?communist?. And they honestly believe that it is so. That does not impress us old people. Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ?new sexual life? of the youth ? and sometimes of the old ? often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we communists understand it." including a condemnation of the self-centred idea of sexual being a need like 'drinking water' "Drinking water is, of course, an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises, it is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community."

Sorry I want to add more to this post - but kids have needs!

More on Lenin...

It's interesting that he acknowledges there is a need for women's liberation from male dominance in all social classes:

"Our demands are practical conclusions which we have drawn from the burning needs, the shameful humiliation of women, in bourgeois society, defenceless and without rights. We demonstrate thereby that we recognise these needs, and are sensible of the humiliation of the woman, the privileges of the man. That we hate, yes, hate everything, and will abolish everything which tortures and oppresses the woman worker, the housewife, the peasant woman, the wife of the petty trader, yes, and in many cases the women of the possessing classes. The rights and social regulations which we demand for women from bourgeois society show that we understand the position and interests of women, and will have consideration for them under the proletarian dictatorship."

Men's need to pick up his own fucking socks as a form of comradeship:
"the calm acquiescence of men who see how women grow worn out In petty, monotonous household work, their strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their hearts beating slowly, their will weakened! "... "?So few men ? even among the proletariat ? realise how much effort and trouble they could save women, even quite do away with, if they were to lend a hand in ?women?s work?. But no, that is contrary to the ?rights and dignity of a man?. They want their peace and comfort. The home life of the woman is a daily sacrifice to a thousand unimportant trivialities. The old master right of the man still lives in secret."

The fact that mixed organising is not the best way to empower women:
"Why is the number of women workers organised in trade unions so small? Facts give food for thought. The rejection of the necessity for separate bodies for our work among the women masses is a conception allied to those of our highly principled and most radical friends of the Communist Labour Party. According to them there must be only one form of organisation, workers? unions. I know them. Many revolutionary but confused minds appeal to principle ?whenever ideas are lacking?. That is, when the mind is closed to the sober facts, which must be considered."....
"But don?t let us deceive ourselves. Our national sections still lack a correct understanding of this matter. They are standing idly by while there is this task of creating a mass movement of working women under communist leadership. They don?t understand that the development and management of such a mass movement is an important part of entire Party activity, indeed, a half of general Party work. Their occasional recognition of the necessity and value of a powerful, clear-headed communist women?s movement is a platonic verbal recognition, not the constant care and obligation of the Party.?

Just thought I'd share

I have read some of this before but wanted to just look at what Lenin means when he says

There we have it! You are defending counsel for your women comrades and your Party. Of course, what you say is right. But it only excuses the mistakes made in Germany; it does not justify them. They are, and remain, mistakes. Can you really seriously assure me that the questions of sex and marriage were discussed from the standpoint of a mature, living, historical materialism?

What is meant by this and what shapes Lenin's theory on achieving equality for women is historical materialism. Lenin draws us to the fact that the social conditions that arise from the base structure give rise to the ideas and the dialectic btw super structure and base. He is essentially saying that, the revolutionary change happens as a result of this dialectic not as a result of changing paradigms within the superstructure.

Clara says Marxist analysis of any important section of the ideological superstructure of society, of a predominating social phenomenon, must lead to an analysis of bourgeois society and of its property basis, must end in the realisation,?this must be destroyed

As you can see, she is not basing this on the Marx's dialectic, because she is saying that changes to relations in the superstructure depend upon the analysis that takes place within the superstructure, in a way that gives this primacy over dialectical materialism.

The thesis must clearly point out that real freedom for women is possible only through communism. The inseparable connection between the social and human position of the woman, and private property in the means of production, must be strongly brought out Lenin

Lenin again is using the materialist dialectic and he goes onto say

And what is the result of this futile, un-Marxist dealing with the question? That questions of sex and marriage are understood not as part of the large social question? No, worse! The great social question appears as an adjunct, a part, of sexual problems. The main thing becomes a subsidiary matter

He then asks about women's participation in the work force and their membership of unions and equality of wages. He draws us to look at the issue of women's equality through the process of that dialectic btw base and super structure.

When Lenin talks about the question of morality I believe he is very intuitive. What he is essentially saying is that women's emancipation can't be won by changing the personal relationships between men and women in isolation to the other questions around equality, such as pay/work access to democratic decision making.

What seems to have sprung forth since the off shoot of the women's movement is an analysis of the relationship btw men and women, with women now having greater sexual freedoms, women have greater choice, they have more sexual partners, they strive to break down the slut/stud paradigm. However, women are just as much at risk of rape and sexual assault despite making themselves more sexually available to men, there is still a double standard, women's needs are often not best met in transient relationships, women are still often the net losers of this sexual revolution, in terms of poverty, single child rearing, we essentially suffer the double wammy of sexual politics and economic hardship.

What Lenin believes, and I think he is correct is that only changes to the relations btw men and women that occur "naturally" because of the dialectic btw base and super structure, developed over time and in relation to women's higher status economically will really emancipate women.

Of course there is a lot of similarity in the analysis of pornography and prostitution btw Radical feminism and Marxists because they share a common heritage. What grieves me quite a lot is hearing someone like laurie penny campaigning for unionisation of sex workers, she claims to be left wing but much of what she says is shaped by liberalism.

Apologies to everyone for the essay!

Mini like :)

God, you lot are intelligent :)

Lazurus maybe not so much

Mini "look at what Lenin means when he says "There we have it! You are defending counsel for your women comrades and your Party. Of course, what you say is right. But it only excuses the mistakes made in Germany; it does not justify them. They are, and remain, mistakes. Can you really seriously assure me that the questions of sex and marriage were discussed from the standpoint of a mature, living, historical materialism?"

To give this context for MNers who don't want to read the whole thing- Lenin is pissed off because the German communists are getting so obsessed with exposing the sexual hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie (a fixation he believes itself stems from a bullshit bourgeois Freudian self-indulgance) they are losing the bigger picture about the frameworks needing to be challenged and are in serious danger of getting up their own arses. He uses the example of Rosa in Hamburg trying to unionise prostitutes to illustrate this muddled thinking. He wants Clara to immediately nip this in the bud or all communists could end up looking like a bunch of muppets.

"What is meant by this and what shapes Lenin's theory on achieving equality for women is historical materialism. Lenin draws us to the fact that the social conditions that arise from the base structure give rise to the ideas and the dialectic btw super structure and base. He is essentially saying that, the revolutionary change happens as a result of this dialectic not as a result of changing paradigms within the superstructure."

By this you mean the changing paradigm is from the bourgeois critiqued as an economic class to being critiqued from a moral standpoint right?

"Clara says Marxist analysis of any important section of the ideological superstructure of society, of a predominating social phenomenon, must lead to an analysis of bourgeois society and of its property basis, must end in the realisation,?this must be destroyed" "As you can see, she is not basing this on the Marx's dialectic, because she is saying that changes to relations in the superstructure depend upon the analysis that takes place within the superstructure, in a way that gives this primacy over dialectical materialism."

Do you mean Clara thinks - 'we need a moral justification beyond economics for destroying the class system'- so she is getting caught up in the sex pozzie bullshit a bit?

"What Lenin believes, and I think he is correct is that only changes to the relations btw men and women that occur "naturally" because of the dialectic btw base and super structure, developed over time and in relation to women's higher status economically will really emancipate women."

But he also admits to being flummoxed as to the right approach and is open to trying out woman-specific methods to liberate women.

"Of course there is a lot of similarity in the analysis of pornography and prostitution btw Radical feminism and Marxists because they share a common heritage. What grieves me quite a lot is hearing someone like laurie penny campaigning for unionisation of sex workers, she claims to be left wing but much of what she says is shaped by liberalism."

Yes we can see that Lenin wasn't successful in impressing upon Clara to get that Rosa in bleedin' Hamburg to sort it out!

"Apologies to everyone for the essay!"

I appreciate it -don't get out much

Goodness, the nincompoopery quotient of this thread has dramatically declined.

Any news on the conference?

sexual hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie (a fixation he believes itself stems from a bullshit bourgeois Freudian self-indulgance) they are losing the bigger picture about the frameworks needing to be challenged and are in serious danger of getting up their own arses. He uses the example of Rosa in Hamburg trying to unionise prostitutes to illustrate this muddled thinking

Well the bourgeoisie are a bunch of hypocrites, perhaps more so at the time. Marriage was a way of keeping women as the private property of men, whilst men had access to other women. Men still seem to have this double standard, do they not? Plus Freud's psycho babble would have been seen as quite ground breaking at the time.

By this you mean the changing paradigm is from the bourgeois critiqued as an economic class to being critiqued from a moral standpoint right? I don't think Lenin was making a moral stand against what he thought of as the modern sexual mores of young/progressive people. I think again, what he was essentially pointing out is that: if you don't change the base structure/modes of production/exchange then you still end up with women not have equality in every sphere. If women gain quasi equality in sexual matters but are still viewed as and they still are unequal economically, then men will still see women as subordinated to them. This translates into men thinking that it's great women are increasingly available to them, they still think women's needs are subordinated to them. "Women have sex for men" or in the case of prostitution (unionised or otherwise) for money, but never as equals.

Mini "Any news on the conference?"

All I've heard is this

"Plus Freud's psycho babble would have been seen as quite ground breaking at the time."

Sure..... but Lenin wasn't convinced by it : "Freudian theory is the modern fashion. I mistrust the sexual theories of the articles, dissertations, pamphlets, etc., in short, of that particular kind of literature which flourishes luxuriantly in the dirty soil of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always contemplating the several questions, like the Indian saint his navel."

"I don't think Lenin was making a moral stand against what he thought of as the modern sexual mores of young/progressive people. I think again, what he was essentially pointing out is that: if you don't change the base structure/modes of production/exchange then you still end up with women not have equality in every sphere."

I agree - I think he was warning Zetkin (I realise that I've been referring to the women Zetkin and Luxemburg by their first names and Vlad by his surname in this thread - smacks my own unconsciously sexist wrist) about shifting the paradigm from one of a materially-based class analysis of economic inequality/exploitation to a sideline and distraction of analysing 'class' from the standpoint of a 'moral critique' of the hypocritical bourgeoisie- which doesn't get to the heart of the matter at all. It is a departure from a materialist analysis which, followed through to its conclusion "translates into men thinking that it's great women are increasingly available to them, they still think women's needs are subordinated to them. "Women have sex for men" or in the case of prostitution (unionised or otherwise) for money, but never as equals."

Why is it threads with "MRA" in the title get 500+ replies?

Do feminists love to hate MRAs?

They love to willfully misunderstand them. And hate them, yes.