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.

This thread is a very good illustration of why groups need to be able to meet in their own when they want to. This is a conference, not the be all and end all of the radical feminist movement. Just like the conference of any political party would descend into a bunfight if it was open to everyone. The RadFem conference would be reduced to discussing the very most basic concepts with self-important arseholes who would show up making their not very novel points and telling them what they should or shouldn't be discussing.

Mini "cute aren't they they look like rather naff gnomes."

I love the idea of people having Marx garden gnomes - I wonder what other figures would look great amongst the long grass.

^"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"^

I did thanks - was a very interesting read.

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

I found it quite infuriating because every sentence is founded on a false premise, so I couldn't read very far in.

Bubbles,

genuine question.

What sounds controlling or aggressive?

The first five paragraphs are outdated and it was written in 1970, so when I read it I tried to put it into the context of that time. The first few paragraphs also go over much of what we have already discussed but when I got to the matriarchal communal society of sisters....I thought way to go

kick Marx into the long Grass! nooooooooo I would put that nasty Herod in the long grass.

No I wouldn't want him kicked there:) just happily hanging out with the other gnomes,

Flora, I am guessing I am the one making the 'not very novel' points...

I take it you've heard such a reverse on your terms for engendered genders before?

So why do you still use one that could be construed as insulting?

Use one what?

I have just read this whole thread in one go! FWIW I think women only spaces should be accessible to all women and I think it is awful that MRAs seem so intent on disrupting feminism.

This dicussion is exactly why we need women only places. Such a useful discussion when it is not being purposely derailed! I think there should be a place to challenge people who have different points of view but it is very important that like-minded people have an opportunity to discuss and develop their ideas.

use a term that could be construed as insulting.

'violent masculinity' to be exact.

thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/violent-masculinity-as-a-cultural-ideal-both-men-and-women-are-victims/

Why use a term that insinuates a whole gender class is negatively violent?

I didn't.

You're fellow feminists did though.

They are women, you are a woman (I think).

Guilt by gender.

your most irrelevant post yet

Loz, you accuse us of generalising and then you accuse all of us of having used the term "violent masculinity", I haven't used the term but I guess you assume I must say this because I am a woman? Bit hypocritical.

"guilt by gender"?

Excellent, are you carrying the can for all crimes, insults etc to come from men now, LL?

TDOS,

Apparently I do anyway...

Mini,

that was sort of my point.

So tedious. No-one said that.

After all the time spent by various posters talking to you, you're still on square one.

You'll probably find Flora that I am further ahead than that.

But I'm on a different board.

LazarussLozenge, have you read your own link?

thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/violent-masculinity-as-a-cultural-ideal-both-men-and-women-are-victims/

The gist of it is 'patriarchy hurts men too'.

Violent masculinity is being discussed as a harmful social construct.

I get that beachcomber.

I don't like the term.

If only

Why?

It is a term to describe how boys and men are socialised in patriarchal society to associate their sex with the social construct of masculinity as performed through violence/aggression. Sometimes this is also called 'hypermasculinity'.

Neither term is a slur on men and boys - they are both analytical tools used to describe cultural forces.

Do you disagree that men and boys experience this type of socialisation?

(What do you think violent films, gang culture, violent sports, alpha male bullying, etc are all about then?)

Beachcomber wrote - "Violent masculinity is being discussed as a harmful social construct."

LazarussLozenge wrote - "I get that beachcomber. I don't like the term."

LazarussLozenge, you are entitled to not like the term "violent masculinity" but that does not mean that its use is inappropriate or inaccurate when feminists discuss how and why many men behave badly. You give me the impression that you want feminists to stop linking violence and masculinity in any way whatsoever. I don't think that feminists are trying to imply that masculinity is always violent. On this thread, feminists have been prefacing the word masculinity with the adjective violent to distinguish violent masculinity from non-violent masculinity because both forms of masculinity exist, even if you, LazarussLozenge, have a problem accepting that masculinity is often expressed by violence.

LazarussLozenge, you wrote that you believe that "men are no more conditioned towards violence than women."

I suggest to you that men are more conditioned towards violence. A couple of examples: boys play with weapons while girls play with dolls in hundreds of cultures across time and place; men are conscripted into armies to learn how to kill people and then doing the killing. Have these examples of social conditioning somehow passed you by? If men are not conditioned more than women towards violence, that suggests men are naturally more violent, because what other cause is there for the undeniable fact that it is men who are doing most of the killing, fighting and raping in this world?

Don't disagree with any of that.

I disagree with the term 'violent masculinity'.

I feel it debases men in general. Insinuates that for men to be men, they must also be something highly negative.

For an organisation/group that allegedly promotes equality of women... how is this an aide to that which is to be achieved?

Earlier in this thread we have heard how various groups are excluded, denigrated, have their worth removed and then enslaved/killed off.

Then we find terms such manplaination for unpalatable explanations, malestream appears to be a term for media we don't really like.

Should women stand for similar terms used about themselves?

Not to mention the constant singular view of many. We even have a re do of Nimullers 'first they came' poem in regards to the RadFem2013 event and how it is a bad thing for 'women everywhere'.

I would counter that such a event shut down due to alleged intimidation is concerning for ALL free speech including the MRAs who allegedly shut RadFem down.

Finally at the other end of the spectrum we get the really sad part. 'Man hate poems' etc.

I appreciate those on this thread may not have heard of ths term or used it... but it s out there. Oddly, my very first google of 'radfem' brought it up.

'Man hate and quotes from books I like'. Delightful.

Lazarus
"I feel it debases men in general. Insinuates that for men to be men, they must also be something highly negative."

I agree violent masculinity and the culture of violent masculinity does indeed debase men and boys. For those steeped in the culture of violent masculinity it is terrible that they feel that in order to 'be men' they must be doing something highly negative.

"For an organisation/group that allegedly promotes equality of women... how is this an aide to that which is to be achieved?"

Weird comment- doesn't make sense.

"Earlier in this thread we have heard how various groups are excluded, denigrated, have their worth removed and then enslaved/killed off."

Yep, Uh huh..

"Then we find terms such mansplaination for unpalatable explanations, malestream appears to be a term for media we don't really like."
This you pulled from where I don't know. You need to re-read the definition of mansplaining again - it has nothing to do with 'palatability' and everything to do with a man being ignorant, arrogant and sexist without realising it. 'Malestream' is not a term for media 'we' don't like - (I think you can take the word 'we' out - I have no idea why you put it in), it refers to the fact that mainstream media is overwhelmingly by and for men and upholds patriarchy and regenerates misogyny and inequality.

"Should women stand for similar terms used about themselves?"
Ahhh hahahahaha! You couldn't make it up!

"Not to mention the constant singular view of many. We even have a re do of Nimullers 'first they came' poem in regards to the RadFem2013 event and how it is a bad thing for 'women everywhere'."
What?

"I would counter that such a event shut down due to alleged intimidation is concerning for ALL free speech including the MRAs who allegedly shut RadFem down."
What would you counter that with? In order to counter something or dispute it, you do actually have to counter it or dispute it with something a point? A refutation?

"Finally at the other end of the spectrum we get the really sad part. 'Man hate poems' etc. 'Man hate and quotes from books I like'. Delightful.""I appreciate those on this thread may not have heard of the term or used it... but it s out there. Oddly, my very first google of 'radfem' brought it up."
Spectrum? Man hate poems? ....

This is a relevant article to the thread

"Feminism strikes a nerve. When men don?t get our way, backlash isn?t too far behind. Feminists face it from all directions. It seems anarchists, communists, sexual libertarians, men?s rights activists, and right-wingers can agree on at least one thing: the sanctity of male power. Men, along with whatever groups they dominate, come out in full force to put women back in place, whether through slander, censorship, threats, or physical violence.

There?s been little reason for women to count the male-dominated radical Left as anything resembling an ally. On the contrary, radicals seem ever willing to lend a hand to the other side. Take just this past week for example, when one environmentalist woman was barred from speaking at a university?s Earth Day event because she happened to also be a feminist; and when a decades-old women?s music festival was publicly ostracized for not letting men in; and when a venue slated to host one of the world?s only radical feminist conferences is considering reneging on the agreement after ongoing harassment from radical and conservative men, alike.

But if it?s not blunt retaliation men use to silence feminist women, its outright lies. The most common one is that men are, in fact, oppressed too. The radical Left has taken the bait. In the face of story after story depicting the terror waged daily against women, radicals want to know one thing: what about the men?