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.

"Feminism isn't necessarily logical or empirical."
I agree - it is radical feminism that holds closest to this.

"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 oppressed. 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."

There has been a huge amount of discussion here on this thread about whether social class oppression or sex class oppression is more key to women's oppression. There's been far more overlap that disagreement between these two views. If social class (and indeed racial oppression, etc) is in anyway accepted as key to women's oppressions, then of course you will have male comrades in each of those struggles. However when focusing on sex-class oppression, men will be viewed to belong to the oppressor class. Also, in all this discussion of cultural violent masculinity, it is understood that being groomed into emotional numbness and competitive dominance isn't actually a nice way to treat little boys- even though the female victims are really the ones who bear the brunt.

"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." I don't get what oppression you are referring to. Who/what oppresses you as a man?

"Mansplainations? I at least offer up 'little lady' tongue in cheek." Basically mansplaining is where men who have less understanding/expertise on a subject than the women they are speaking to believe their opinion is of more than equal worth than the women's. It is very common ( here is a blog I haven't read but looks the thing )

"Mansplainations, violent masculinity... yep, I can just see the logical and empircal reasoning dripping out of RadFem." I just had to pull a smile here - of course you won't have empirical experiences of mansplaining - since you are male, of course you won't empirically experience the brunt of a culture of violent masculinity - you are male. Now do you understand why it is important to not have men around when we are discussing our own lived experiences empirically? Having mansplainers and refutations of 'well that's not my experience as a man' are somewhat derailing and unnecessary.

"And you wonder why I have concerns with sites that label themselves 'manhater' sites with poems about how all men are Violent rapists." I never claimed to know anything about the sites you have concerns with. In fact I have no idea what you are talking about.

"If similar language was used to describe women, the user would be up to his armpits in drama." I again have no idea what you are talking about.

Yet this genderisation of boys in to these stereotypes is as likely to be carried out by females as males... rember the video of the little boy told to 'man up' or what everit was by hs aunti and mum? When a girl punched him?

Who/wht oppresses you as a man? see above, and again we have the assumption that as a man I am free from any oppresion, and implying I am thus the oppresor.

I understand the mansipintion and the violent masculinty definition. I object to the term.

What would you say if I used terms such as 'womanplaination' as term to describe feminist explainations in a derogatory tense?

Above we have sseen all manner of lenisist comments about how we divide and conquer other groups or classes.

Yet it would appear your average feminist can't see her own side doing exactly the same!

Lazarus You've become unfocused. There are so many presumptions and generalisations underpinning your last post which suggest you haven't taken in anything discussed so far. I must admit that it is not worth my time refuting it in the necessary point by point way it requires, and just get on with other things.

Ah, a womanplaination.

In focused terms.

Men can be as oppressed as any other group.

Feminism seems to follow its own warnings and seeks to oppress men or at least sideline if t can through the use of excluding them, derision (manplaination) and provocative language 'violent masculinity'.

The quest to find sexual equality/fairness does not seem to be down this path.

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

That doesn't exclude changing opinions btw.

PS are you willing to describe the circumstances around the 'high ranking bloke' who though prostitution was essential for soldiers?

I am genuinely intrigued.

I know of a few bonkers types who are quite out of touch, in particular an old boy (retired about 20 years) who was genuinely concerned his son wouldn't be taken seriously as an officer (in the modern army) as he had a child out of wedlock. He came across as a few sandwiches short of a picnic tbh.

But i've not heard of prostitutes being seen as 'essential'.

"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 agree with this statement. Just as I think that RadFem conference will deliver up the same outcome.

However.......because women's oppression is something that IS specific to women, women should be free to politically organise without men. As someone said up thread, how can you talk about your experiences or your gripes with your oppressor sat in the same room. Your speech and behaviour will be censored.

But organising in a way that creates and facilitates ongoing antagonism, where you have two competing groups that never come together ensures that neither side sees where there might be points of convergence. It is reductionist in the sense that it narrows down the analysis to just one, that of sex class, biological differences which are insurmountable are given central importance and can not be overcome.

I hope the conference goes ahead not just because I think RadFems should have their conference, but because there are wider implications for all groups who wish to organise. Next it might be MRAs (no bad thing perhaps) or it could be women of colour, socialists, or any parties outside the mainstream, gay people, unionists..........in fact it could even be the neighbourhood watch in the next street that are denied the right to meet.

So you believe ALL men are your oppressors?

Hi Mini Just wondering about this:

"It is reductionist in the sense that it narrows down the analysis to just one, that of sex class, biological differences which are insurmountable are given central importance and can not be overcome."

I dispute that. Rather than focusing on biological differences, of central importance is differences in socialisation, social status, freedom and opportunities which arise according to the declaration of sex at/pre birth. These are all surmountable, and finding ways to surmount them requires the time and space to properly identify their various manifestations and common patterns first. Although biological issues like birth control, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, etc are key rather than being sidelined, I don't think addressing these things in a woman-centred way can be blamed for on-going antagonism.

Also regarding "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 agree with this statement. Just as I think that RadFem conference will deliver up the same outcome."

There is a lot of variance in the issues prioritised by radical feminists, rather than reinforcing each others view, I would hope there would be new ideas to challenge views, voices platformed for people from doubly oppressed groups to share their particular perspective, opportunities to wrestle and refine ideas etc.

Something for Mini here:

news.yahoo.com/photos/500-karl-marx-statues-highlight-20130505-043236-010.html?format=embed

TeiTetua, cute aren't they they look like rather naff gnomes.

I accept that those issues will be discussed BubblesOfBliss but I don't think that some of the "expert" speakers will be challenged on their ideas.

Did anyone else read the link from Sausageeggbacon from that it links to the New Yorker piece on Firestone www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/15/130415fa_fact_faludi?currentPage=all

"So you believe ALL men are your oppressors?"

No

I am reading this www.marxists.org/archive/reed-evelyn/1970/caste-class-sex.htm

I very much see women as a class within socio/economic classes, just as I do men. There are as many differences and clashes of interests between wealthy/capitalist women and working class women as there are between men and women. I have no empathy or common cause with women who seek to maintain their socio/economic privilege over others at all costs, just as I have no common cause with men who defend their social power over others.

Just as long as they are kept away whilst you discuss such things?

And derided with terms such as 'violent masculinity' or 'manplaination'?

Mini "I don't think that some of the "expert" speakers will be challenged on their ideas"...

I suppose that's the downside of a conference format- a brief Q&A doesn't really suffice, although last year the hierarchical nature of separation between expert speaker/panel and audience was challenged in one of the sessions- then women made an impromptu reorganisation from a Q&A to a discussion.

Also it is really tiresome if you want to hear what a speaker has to say about a number of issues, then 'opposing views' from hostile participants shrink the discussion back to beginners level within a conference, in the same frustrating way the development of ideas are inhibited in the antifeminist world outside.

Loz, Bubbles and others have already explained the two terms. Go back and read.

That's interesting Bubbles, sounds good me approves !! Sometimes the size of a venue, the number of people and the seating arrangements/ lay out of venue probably make it very difficult to avoid that division between speakers and spoken to. It becomes a mental obstacle as well as a physical one.

It's also a shame that opposing views are either seen as hostile or that those who voice descent can't do so without being rude and unpleasant.

So you have rules on who can talk and when.

With enforcement (ejection or banning fro next conf) they get the idea eventually.

It isn't an 'antifeminist' world outside... why do you all seem to have this inferiority/siege mentality?

It is not the Q&A format that is the problem it is the lack of diversity of views that stop conferences/meetings/activist meetings open to scrutiny of ideas, and beliefs.

Like Mini I would support self organised campaigns and political groups. At some point though within unions, or political parties these self organised groups have their ideas put before a wider and probably sceptical audience. This is how ideas are distributed and tested, if radfems only talk to radomes they will stay isolated. This might be desirable but in the end futile as unless the role is to play the victim or to tilt at windmills they will never be able to make the changes they want come in to practice.

I suspect though that as men are the oppressor class it would be difficult politically to accept that you need to work with men in a collaborative way in order to get them to stop oppressing you.

"It's also a shame that opposing views are either seen as hostile or that those who voice dissent can't do so without being rude and unpleasant." -

My reason for using scare quotes on the 'opposing views' was referring mainly to people who attend sessions for the sole purpose of derailing/heckling- in a similar style to antifeminist trolls on Mumsnet FWR. For example I've seen very strategic staged clapping and irrelevant questioning at conferences to try and trip up or smear a speaker. And I have to admit I sometimes wish speakers could just say to them 'go back and read' so we are not tediously stuck on the most basic principles....

TBH they need to get a grip of themselves, realise that not ALL men are oppressors, and they never have been.

Once they've given their collective head a wobble, they should make every effort to invite moderate (you could say tame) groups in to their midst and get them on side.

They see there is nothing to actually fear and the road suggested is fairly reasonable, and we step forward.

The more nutty feminists get put back in their box, as more moderate feminists realise that not every bloke is trying to rape them, chain them to the sink or indeed plan non-woman friendly towns, complete with pre-installed wolf whistlers to keep them in their secondary position

A nucleus of progressive, co-operation starts to move forward. Language becomes less aggressive and partisan.

And hey, we are on the way to Equality Street. Of course, we can't make an omelete without breaking eggs.

Book sales for 'men: they're all f*ing rapists' may drop, as will cod philosophy books like 'men are beasts'.

Bubbles, enforce a 'shut up, or get out' policy.

Questions can be addressed at the end... as they should be. No one should but in with a question halfway through the speach. Wait till it is over, or the speaker says 'question?'.

TBH they need to get a grip of themselves, realise that not ALL men are oppressors, and they never have been

I think most feminists realise this

Once they've given their collective head a wobble, they should make every effort to invite moderate (you could say tame) groups in to their midst and get them on side

I agree with this.

It's interesting seeing Loz's use of words and the fact that he doesn't have a shared vocabulary with "us" sitting beside Bubble's post about feminism 101. And having to constantly return to basics. It reminds me of playing tennis with newbies. Its so frustrating, not because they can't get the ball back or keep it in the court, sometimes they do and that is often more annoying. They do things which are unpredictable. It's often far more challenging to explain the basic principles than to get stuck into theory. I wonder sometimes whether it is because we forget the path we trod to get where we are. Its the same with having to explain the defining characteristics of capitalism when people think that it is defined by free markets, its a head thunk moment but it does challenge you because you have to work harder to explain things. I suspect that Sheila Jeffreys and others are used to it by now

I find lazurus's descent into increasingly controlling and aggressive language a bit disturbing..

"it does challenge you because you have to work harder to explain things" but there is a difference between someone who wants to understand and asks challenging questions and someone who is coming from a hostile place.

Also - where is this flipping notion that radfems never engage with people other than radical feminists from? There is no reason to assume that because radical feminists have a woman only conference they never speak to anyone other than radical feminists for the rest of their lives.

You might be shocked to find a radical feminist sitting next to you!

I get the 'violent masculinity', I don't agree with it.

To my mind it is painting a bad picture of what a man is to describe what essentially happens to both genders.

If we take a 6 minute synopsis of Disney films in which VM is explored.

Would you accept 'simpering femininity' or 'female domestication' to cover a similar process?

The shock kim, I imagine it would put many off their slightly questionable ideas.