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.

Elites may benefit, but wars can be justifiable to the plebs too.

Even if we go back to thousands of years before Christ we have a hierarchy in place. Be that Chiefs of villages, religious 'families' or those who had property and those who worked for them.

I've had to google Bonobos... but the premise seems to be that if human females put out more, we'd have less violence.

It would definitely work on a Fri/Sat night in town!

"I've had to google Bonobos... but the premise seems to be that if human females put out more, we'd have less violence."

Or perhaps if we were matriarchal?

Do you need the promiscuity along with being matriarchal?

You dislike violence and male dominance, but we are physically strong, hence the violence, and focuse on strength, endurance and what not.

In order for a matriarchal society maybe the females need to seize power by holding the men in thrall with sex.

The Bonobos apparently shag to reduce tension in the group, and with straying lone males they encounter (Common Chimps would form a gang and kill the lone male).

Whilst this reduces violence, it also increases the gene pool depth.

The problem with using animal kingdom examples is that they don't necessarily fit another species... we don't have 'let's live like a fish' do we?

Also in comparison with Common Chimps the Bonobos Chimp lives in an area where there is a lot of food, veg and the like. They still kill monkeys (as do the common chipm) for food.

I would put forward that if we started reducing food levels, we would see a more violent Bonobo.

There is also a chicken and egg question.

The Bonobo and Common chimp re genetically similar, but were divided by a water mass years ago.

So were the two similar to Bonobo to start with, with violence caused by lack of resources. Or were they similar to the Common chimp with violence gradually replaced by sex due to abundant resources?

OOOh,

as a further teaser... worth noting that in religion the sexuality of a woman is often seens as a sin, or as naughty. Did the framers of such rules know that a sexual woman could be a threat, leading to a matriarchal structure?

Perhaps Matriarchy leads to - or doesn't inhibit- natural promiscuity? Its quite possible that nothing is more of a turn-off and sexual disincentive for females than to have sexuality/fertility controlled by violent males according to their battles for social status and dominance over other males.

Also a lot of bonobo sexual activity is lesbian - I say that just in case of any possible presumption that heightened sexual behaviour is the way that female bonobos appease males.

"it seems when you explain your position the focus on economics downplays the violent establishment of inequality that gives rise to separate classes and the residual fear of that violence which helps to sustain inequality"

That's certainly possible, it is something that Marxism is often accused of, a sort of reductionism where economics becomes the be all and end all.

I'm now reading Engles (decided I must finally read this from beginning to end) He quotes Marx as saying "The modern family contains in embryo not only slavery but serfdom also, since the very beginning it is connected with agricultural services. It contains within itself in miniature all the antagonisms which later develop on a wide scale within society and its state"

So it seems that Marx acknowledged (as do I) that family is both the catalyst and a reflection of hierarchy within society. It perpetuates and mimics the class dynamics within society.

From my understanding lots of anthropologists and historians including many feminists still argue about what came first. From my understanding very early society had forms of group marriage and were matriarchal. It seems that at this time there was no slavery either because human labour didn't create surpluses.

Greater individual wealth through the development of agriculture seems to be the point at which things change, with surplus came questions about progeny. Slavery and changes to the sexual relations came about with the overthrow of "mother right"

Introduction of the pairing family and the need for monogamy along with women's labour being marginalised from "socially productive" to "reproductive" seems to be the point at which women become valued ONLY as vessels, to be traded, owned, seized and enslaved, because only with agricultural surplus can human labour create yet more surplus. No one would have kept a slave be they female or male unless they could be kept alive to work/toil/ or breed. They would only be useful if they produced a surplus be that food or indeed people. So there is a link again btw production and reproduction, as production changes so does the relationship btw men and women engaged in reproduction.

Gerder Lerner proposed that sex class came about before social class. I agree but I do believe that the relations btw men and women changed for material reasons not because of some biological determinant that makes men violent. The violence comes later, in order to maintain the social/material power and extend this.

"more of a turn-off and sexual disincentive for females than to have sexuality/fertility controlled by violent males according to their battles for social status and dominance over other males"

yy to this.

It is indeed. There's also a fair bit of incest and gay activity, oral sex, etc.

Apparently the Bonobo females clitoris is much bigger than other females, possibly due to the missionary sexual position they use, or the female on female genital rubbing.

There is a passage of position through the matriarchal line, but there is still the hint of the violence that could bubble up. When they chase down and kill monkeys for food.

Emory University's de Waal said, "We are seeing in bonobos what happened a few decades ago for chimpanzees: field studies begin to report great variation from population to population."

news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/10/081013-bonobos-attack-missions_2.html

We could have a case of the gay penguins of New York Zoo here.

Thanks Mini for your post- very interesting.

"Greater individual wealth through the development of agriculture seems to be the point at which things change, with surplus came questions about progeny. Slavery and changes to the sexual relations came about with the overthrow of "mother right"

When you use the word 'agriculture' it always makes barley and wheat and 'static' farming spring to mind - but the way the development of agriculture links with the subordination of women makes the domestication of animals and 'husbandry' far more pertinent- which nomadic people can do. There still exist links between male status and the number of livestock in a number of cultures today, and the links between the methods for 'taming' animals to use to work or to eat are very similar to the methods by which women are subordinated by violent men. Controlling the reproduction of animals is not a far cry from males taking control of human reproduction and therefore subordinating women into a sex class, whereby the number of children 'he' produces is a sign of his potency and wealth, giving rise to polygyny (probably in a lot of cases by abduction and rape) and the virtual slavery of all of 'his' women who in a state of group Stockholm syndrome work, work, work - give multiple births & nurture 'his' young. Some nomadic tribes today follow this model.

Mini " I agree but I do believe that the relations btw men and women changed for material reasons not because of some biological determinant that makes men violent."

Lazarus "There is a passage of position through the matriarchal line, but there is still the hint of the violence that could bubble up. When they chase down and kill monkeys for food."

I agree with both of you that violence isn't inevitable according to biology - of either sex, but conditions can give rise to it.

I believe that one of these conditions is the cultural normalisation of violence that has, in humans, become linked with males.

Methods used for taming animals are similar to methods used by violent men? Really? Examples?

You don't think any of this could just be a 'mating dance' where the woman, or hte family of the woman try to get her 'mated' with the best possible male they can find? Lot of cows = successful. In some areas a obese man = succesful, modern UK it is on cars and clothes in certain circles.

Polygyny, the alpha male, with his wives to produce as many good strong children as possible...

A purely biological reason, find the best man you can with the best genes (and trust me, in some areas of the world you can still see all manner of genetic weaknesses, but ALL teh women mate with him (despite some of them not being alphas) in order to provide as many children as possible.

A numbers game, where it is hoped the kids gt the best chance they can, in a world where most will be dead by their 10th birthday.

Try not to use 'probably'.

'Probably in a lot of cases by abduction and rape' I ignore. Unless you can back it up with evidence. It is as sentence to attract indignation in the reader, and cultivate emotionally based support for your PoV.

by abduction and rape' I ignore. Unless you can back it up with evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

"You don't think any of this could just be a 'mating dance' where the woman"

Please explain what you mean - I'm not sure I get the mating dance bit.

Ah, wikipedia. Not great but we'll work with it.

In the article it actually states...
'In most cases, however, the men who resort to capturing a wife are often of lower social status, because of poverty, disease, poor character or criminality. They are sometimes deterred from legitimately seeking a wife because of the payment the woman's family expects, the bride price (not to be confused with a dowry, paid by the woman's family)'

Seems to be a biological imperative to reproduce, so the 'groom' does it by whatever means are open to him. Isn't there a stoat or similar rodent that 'rapes' new born females whilst in the nest in order to get ahead on the gene race?

Oddly, the 'bride kidnapping' seems to be from areas that practiced polygyny. Not enough women, as 'alphas' are taking them all.

"in order to get ahead on the gene race" This anthropomorphication purports to rationalise a behaviour in an animal we have no idea how to explain, but it nods to the male chauvinist bias that has bogged down biology and anthropology over the years.

'mating dance'.

In the wild animals display certain attributes in order to prove their worth. This can go both ways.

In human world, we can show off a car, show off our clothes or how many cows we have.

Marriages in the past weren't necessarily for love as now (even that's debatable given the number of devorces we have), but were often to cement an alliance or what not. If not to cement alliance the family would look for a 'higher' family to marry their daughter in to.

Social advancement would come though her. Thus you would select her male partner on things such as 'how many cows'.

It works both ways, if she is deformed it is unlikely that a higher family would take her. genetics. Youwant strong kids to carry on the blood line.

If she is of good stock (yes, we are brushing on the livestock thing here) then she is of value. Chuck in the dowry (some families saved hard to achieve this) and a son is found to marry her.

That is the important bit at this point. There is a little too much 'oh the poor, woman'. The son wasn't asked if he liked her or f he would like to marry her. That was irrelevant, just told to marry her for whatever reason. Hence we have lots of 'secret love' type arrangements where the husband or wife's 'true love' often cropped up.

And occasionally were killed f they were silly enough to get caught.

The line was important because of the link to the progeny. If the child inherited, but was then found to be from another father they could take any goods/property to another family.

In a way you can see that perhaps, like the Bobonos, the females WERE important, and power flowed via them. But for some reason they suddenly had to be protecte - lack of resources? Why else would Europe start to explore and conquer the gloe?

'BubblesOfBliss Sun 05-May-13 09:19:00

"in order to get ahead on the gene race" This anthropomorphication purports to rationalise a behaviour in an animal we have no idea how to explain, but it nods to the male chauvinist bias that has bogged down biology and anthropology over the years.'

Certainly 100 years ago or so such fields were male dominated, so that is a possibly answer... I'd imagine if such fields were female dominated we could have a rabfem bias could we not?

If the gene race, and the desire to form a line of descendants, is false, what is the reason for behaviour that pushes one to the front of the queue?

Re 'mating dance' I meant - I don't know how the methods of taming/controlling/training an animal being similar to subordinating women could be viewed as a mating dance.

"There is a little too much 'oh the poor, woman'. The son wasn't asked if he liked her or f he would like to marry her. That was irrelevant, just told to marry her for whatever reason."

Not being allowed to choose who to marry is just one tiny part of 'oh the poor woman' you refer to. The whole patriarchal set up disadvantages women in a host of other ways.

I am aware of most of the disadvantages... I am also aware of how many times disadvantages to males have been played down or ignored (just on this thread) due to the perception they were part of what ever 'system' disadvantaged girls, rather than being victims of the same.

My only comment on methods of subordinating women was that if the methods are so similar to taming animals for farming... what are they?

A mating dance, is a mating dance. A chance for two potential partners to size each other up. Obviously in arranged marriages that descision is taken by the family(ies).

"I am aware of most of the disadvantages"

You know what Lazarus you really aren't. You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a male-dominated narrative and discourse.

Women like to meet with other women to find out from the common patterns in the reality of our lives to give a name to the disadvantages even hidden from us.

"My only comment on methods of subordinating women was that if the methods are so similar to taming animals for farming... what are they?"

My reasons for not answering this is because it would require finding different sources to link to on a Sunday morning - which tbh- I can't be arsed to do, however you are welcome to research methods of animal training/taming and patterns in behaviour of abusive men and see the connections for yourself.

Of course I am Bubbles, it isn't a fault. I could say about you.

'You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a female dominated narrative and discourse.

Women like you meet with other women to reinforce such beliefs and find new disadvantages to complain about (masculine road layouts anyone?).'

I am aware of my blinkers, I was hoping discussion on this subject would widen my field of view. And to an extent it actually has. I have found that many who have contributed on here, though, are very deep into the feminism thing and how they have been wronged, to the point they can't see or appreciate anything else. Even valid points.

Which I feel reinforces my original point. RadFem doesn't help. Nor does any other single source chit chat session.

A male only 'MRA' meeting will not move forward, it will just be a bunch of people with ONE view reinforcing each others view.

I am not a MRA (just incase there was any doubt but I may look them up in a minute), I feel I am pretty moderate on this sort of thing, and open to change as necessary.

But I still view things from my own point of view. It isn't a fault or a sign of low intellect... or male chauvinism.

"I could say about you. You are only aware of a very superficial summary filtered through a female dominated narrative and discourse."

No you couldn't actually - I have actually learned about the world through the same male-dominated narrative and discourse as you have. The difference being I have the jarring experience of how this 'accepted view' sharply conflicts with much of my actual lived experience as someone who was born female. Unlike you, who was not born female, this leads me to confidently declare much of it a load of utter bollocks, and seek out the tiny part of the discourse that helps me to make sense of my reality - which is feminism.

You haven't learned from the 'male dominated' world. You have lived in this world.

Same as I. My 'class and creed' certainly don't dominate the world, but I don't make an 'ism' out of it.

You have then painted over the world a feminist reasoning. Just as you think I have painted a male reasoning over my own experience.

ie You think arranged marriages only affected the women, and were for reasons of keeping the 'little lady' in her place. I offer other alternatives.

I know I am not in the 'big boys secret club of keeping women in their place' so I believe that natural imperatives has led to the arrangement as we see it.

"You haven't learned from the 'male dominated' world. You have lived in this world."

Okay if you want to be a stickler I have lived in and learned in a male-dominated world... It still holds I have learned from it - or do you dispute the fact that men dominate pretty much all the positions of power, authority and influence in the world?

"Same as I. My 'class and creed' certainly don't dominate the world, but I don't make an 'ism' out of it." Now you've lost me... Are you speaking about social class oppression or racial oppression?

"You have then painted over the world a feminist reasoning."
I disagree with this. The 'reasoning' is logic and empiricism. When logic and empiricism is applied to women's lives it is called feminism.

"Just as you think I have painted a male reasoning over my own experience."
I also disagree with this. I believe you have been prejudiced by the male-dominated narrative and discourse as I have. It is harder for you as a male to refute this discourse empirically, than it is for me as a female- because you don't (or are very unlikely to) have the jarring experiences which would lead you to do so.

"ie You think arranged marriages only affected the women, and were for reasons of keeping the 'little lady' in her place."
Did I ever say this? "I offer other alternatives." - some might call them mansplainations...

"I know I am not in the 'big boys secret club of keeping women in their place'" This straw man of the 'secret club' is no basis on which to refute any of the arguments presented so far in this thread.

"so I believe that natural imperatives has led to the arrangement as we see it." Perhaps that's because you haven't consistently applied logic or empirical evidence from women (or other oppressed/marginalised groups), to have a more considered and realistic view that counters that of the mainstream male-dominated narrative and discourse.

Feminism isn't necessarily logical or empirical. It is as open to diverstion as male views.

Not sure if you said anything about arranged marriages, but when I pointed out the lack of control by the man in the deal (n some cases) it was regarded as irrelevant. Groom is a man, so he isn't oppresesd. seemed to be the PoV. Even a genitally mutilated man was seen as a 'fellow of the oppressor' rather than a fellow of the oppressed.

My oppression I put forward doesn't need to be affected by any particular label. I am a man, but I don't dominate anything.

Mansplainations? I at least offer up 'little lady' tongue in cheek.

Mansplainations, violent masculinity... yep, I can just see the logical and empircal reasoning dripping out of RadFem. And you wonder why I have concerns wth sites that label themselves 'manhater' sites with poems about how all men are Violent rapists.

If similar language was used to describe women, the user would be up to hs armpits in drama.