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.

Thread's moved on now Laz, the grown-ups are talking, now run along, there's a dear.

I've never claimed to be a grown up. They can continue their discussion whilst we play at the children's table.

Your claim, just to remind you, is that you talked to a high-ranking bloke in the Army, and he thought shipping in prostitutes to service the lads was ok, and that to not do it was like you saying 2+2=5....

Which Army and when. There are no issues of identifying him. Just X Army, Y years ago will suffice. If you feel like adding rank you can. Anything up to Colonel will hardly id him.

You put it out there, you back it up.

Apologies Basil, I thought you were bubbles.

Either way, as it stands.

Besides you're at my table to Basil.

Clearly Lazarus you are in/have been in the armed forces yourself, which is why it is a particular bee in your bonnet... BTW I never mentioned 'shipping in' - just his utter incredulity that I suggested that there could be an alternative to prostituting women.

Bubbles, yes I was in. I don't beleive I've hidden that fact.

'BubblesOfBliss Mon 29-Apr-13 10:05:10

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.'

Straight off that bat, if you are indeed talking about a British high-ranking bloke, you are lying.

Nobody in the last 100 years would think the 'provision of prostitutes' to be 'essential and non-negotiable'.

You haven't got a clue about anything to do with the Forces have you? I would ask yourself why you feel the need to denigrate better people than yourself.

Now then back to the discussion at hand.

(No need to answer Bubbles, just find a mirror and commence self-flagellation)

Bubbles, Lenin was very radical for his generation wasn't he.

Erm......I can see what you are saying but I have to disagree to some extent. I see women as both a separate class and a class within other classes.

Globalisation/imperialism as set out in the classical marxist lit of lenin and Rosa luxemburg's time and detailed by them, still can't be proven to to be totally correct. The classical analysis seems to be that capitalism would spread into areas of the world which were pre-capitalist. So although they were correct in thinking that capitalism would export capital (finance) to other parts and that capitalism expands, there is still very uneven development even now. Not something which I think they realised might be the case.

What has happened is strange because it kind of mimics what has happened to women under capitalism. There is a dichotomy, women are needed to perform cheap labour but also in working for free within the home they save capitalists money but in many cases this work can be subcontracted to open up new areas of the market, micro meals, childcare, cleaners, oven cleaning, gardening, aged care etc,..so we are forced into the home, whilst also being forced out to work! There is no clear ideology coming at us on this.

What has happened is that capitalism has exploited pre-capitalist modes of production in undeveloped countries. So there is a tendency as with America to force open countries for investment and privatisation whilst also trying to suspend their development because there has to be "global" inequality, just as there must be inequality between individuals. Its fascinating. Reading this at the mo digamo.free.fr/brewer1990.pdf I have the book, but I think that PDF is actually the whole book and is the updated version & free I don't agree with some of it because I really think that the inequality is fundamental to capitalism. I agree with Marx's underconsumptionist theory. So you can't have a situation where there is any sort of equilibrium btw markets, nations or individuals.

In response to Basil's question:
Oh TeiTetua don't you think we can aspire to having more than a life expectancy of 80?
Is that really the zenith of human achievement?

In a practical sense, average length of life is continuing to inch up (or whatever it does with the metric system). But if you mean some equivalent to "Give us bread but give us roses" then under Marxism, it can be a problem.

You have to put in a request at the motor pool, and you can be sure private errands get the lowest priority. But if you're lucky, you can drive out to State Flower Farm Number 7, and they'll look up in their order book to see what their quotas are for public displays and municipal celebrations, and if there are any roses left over, they'll give you some. Don't be greedy, comrade, there aren't enough for everyone to have an armful! But no money changes hands, that's for the poor devils toiling under the capitalist yoke. So then you can head home with your flowers and put them in a vase, if the State Water Authority hasn't had a breakdown.

With capitalism, you can go down to the florist and buy all the roses you want, as long as there's money in your pocket. It seems like an easier way of doing things.

Does anyone need Prada handbags? Under capitalism some women measure their success in Prada and Choos with no thought to the fact that some poor women are making these things at 50 cents an hour.

Do only women make handbags (and footballs and a number of other goods)?

I'd rather have advertisements telling people to buy Prada, than a government telling them they shouldn't.

Government you do realise that communism is about having no government...... don't you ?????????

www.thefairtradestore.co.uk/fair-trade-bags/cat_3.html

Is there any successful society that operates under the 'Communist Ideal'?

Or are there always some who are more equal than others?

No government? I recall extensive quoting from Lenin a while ago, but maybe that was to illustrate what we should all be avoiding.

Three cheers for anarcho-syndicalism, but this is fantasy.

I've got to be honest, with all this rabid feminism and of course the Leninism theorising it is beginning to sound like a boring day in the student union bar...

All we need now is bunch of philosophy types debating whether or not the chairs they are sitting on are actually physically present, or an illusion of the mind.

Three cheers indeed. I am in favour of anarcho-communism. Of course there are ways in which people can operate outside of capitalism by setting up workers co-operatives. This undermines the system and it is a way of building an alternative.

Communists believe that there is no easy way to a stateless society Holding the means of production in common and setting up a government of the working class which is fully democratic is the only way to avoid complete chaos.

I am not in favour of large states. Marx said that the intention should be that the state melt away. Trotsky is famous for his theory of permanent revolution but Marx had already put forward his own theory on this. There will for a long time be counter-revolutionary activity on the part of the capitalist class, even if you have full democratic socialism.

You can not have socialism and capitalism co-exist. Capitalism will not allow this.

The news this week is that North Korea have arrested an "American business man" really?????? not CIA????? why does America send in the CIA and mount coos against democratically elected socialist leaders all over the world? is it because they are bored and have time on their hands or it is because they are acting as a large and powerful state, in the interests of corporations. Why do they do this? because they are greedy? NO because capitalist surplus MUST be reinvested into new markets, MUST exploit inequalities, MUST achieve 3% compound growth and it can not therefore tolerate anything that gets in the way, be it national borders or people.

Another thing to ask yourself about the size of the state is this........how big was the state before capitalism? It's grown in direct response to:

Increasing inequality, increasing welfare need, rising unemployment, the complexity of laws needed because of complex property rights, need for specialist skills and eduction, extended childhood, the need for huge spending on the national war machine to further capitalist expansion, banking regulations etc,...

Not sure Kim Jung Un election to power by his father is a good thing. Didn't son number 2 try to defect? And wasn't there rumours than son 3 had gender identity issues.

Animal farm always sticks in my mind when talking communism.

I actually like the idea of smaller states, rather than super-states, maybe winding the clock back a few years so we could return to 'village states' trading with other 'village states' with physical commodities rather than 1s and 0s.

But would we then be able to maintain such institutions as GOSH or other specialist hospitals and/research facilities?

'MiniTheMinx Thu 02-May-13 20:58:57

The news this week is that North Korea have arrested an "American business man" really?????? not CIA????? why does America send in the CIA and mount coos against democratically elected socialist leaders all over the world?'

Er, remind me again how many North Koreans voted for Kim Jong Un?

Well yes but the state makes a lot of people's lives better, too. The Middle Ages weren't exactly lacking in massive inequality and vast spending on pointless wars.

I would argue that inequality decreased quite significantly in the period leading up to 1980... it's the Thatcherite neoliberal model that's the culprit here. I don't see why social democratic managed capitalism isn't a realistic solution.

I suppose when EVERYONE is as poor as churchmice, on a three day week (or on unofficial strike) then inequality is decreased...

I know Kim Jong wasn't elected, but socialist leaders have been elected. Chavez, Salvador Allende, Evo Morales. I shouldn't short cut, I am assuming too much notice I said "all over the world"

MooncupGoddess, Neo-liberalism is a curse but Keynesian economics is doomed to failure just as capitalism itself is. It can't sustain itself for ever, it is impossible.

I would really recommend listening to Resnick, Wolfe or Harvey, they all have online courses you can follow. I can explain in detail many of the contradictions which point to its demise but far better to either read or follow a course. Why would anyone take my word for it far better to just read Marx I promise if you read Capital, you won't ever be the same again !

So any news on this conference? the last update seems positive, the problem seems to be logistics and size of the hall. Looks like the MRAs are going to be disappointed.

There were claims about fraud for Chavez, Allende committed suicide after only 3 years in power (okay troops at the front door).

Plenty of blood thirsty dictators from the communist side. Big communities will always end up with leaders who are distant from the grass roots. When you look at the "leaders" in feminism it is the ones who gain most column inches that get the speaking gigs and make money.

Jill Filipovic piece in the guardian here says it all.

Going back to this thread comments from a transgendered friend was the backlash was more about the speakers especially one well known anti TG proponent that seems to be in the leadership of the radical feminism movement. I am paraphrasing and toning it down. "So long as that B*tch is speaking then we will try to get to her to challenge her to say what she writes to our faces". If this is true across the board or just one opinion no idea but there is a lot of hate there.

Maybe it would say more about socialism not to ask how many socialists have ever been voted into office, but how many have let themselves be voted out.

'Sausageeggbacon Fri 03-May-13 09:24:47

When you look at the "leaders" in feminism it is the ones who gain most column inches that get the speaking gigs and make money.'

And to be fair when one looks at some of the comments above, and the comments of such 'leaders' you can see where the concern comes from.

To gain column inches one has to be 'attractive to the reader', hence bus lanes not being feminine compatible and a refusal to accept that men may have seen as property just as much as women.

Then there is 'Violent masculinity' a 'trigger word' if ever there was one to court controversy. 'Genderisation' would also work in lieu of 'violent masculinty' (with r without the violence), or perhaps 'imprinting gender characteristics', but we'll stick masculinity in because it winds people up and sells books.

As I've mentioned above, the cynic in me tells me 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas', so why would those who are earning a crust from defeating teh scourge of male oppression of females really want such oppression to cease?