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.

So no men have been or are oppressed? I am lying if I say there have been or are?

This perhaps is why people don't take feminism as seriously as you wish it to be taken...

the utter nonsense spouted to make women the ONLY victims there has ever been.

And of course, yet again, we get the underlying impression that there is some sort of network at play (the 'manwork' perhaps?)

You are trying to bring about equality for women. ie men and women are equal - a nobel cause.

Push yourselves up, don't pull others down.

To respond Lazarus here is the next paragraph from the same article:

"Of course men experience oppression?but not because we are men. Patriarchy means that, no matter the individual man, he will be treated as more of a human being than a woman would within the same circumstances. Men may be subjugated in a myriad of ways?each abhorrent and deserving of resistance in its own right?but not because we were born not female. Indeed, even the most otherwise oppressed or egalitarian or radical men have the capacity to use their power as men to hurt women. We needn?t ignore one injustice to see another."

Still more piffle.

I'll speak here from experience. Former Republic of Yugoslavia, 1990s there was no such thing as an 'individual man treated as more of a human being than a woman'.

We get it, there have been instances where being a woman wasn't great. But thanks to this sort of stance we've just seen the ludicrous 'equalisation' of car insurance.

The last line just puts the icing on the cake...

We get it, there have been instances where being a woman wasn't great.

Give Lazaruss a round of applause.

As a feminist I agree the equalisation of car insurance is fine because it treats men and women equally. Likewise it is fair that women will no longer be allowed (or forced depending how you look at it) to retire earlier than men.

As a feminist or as a muppet?

You think we should be treated equally for car insurance?

If women, as a whole, are cheaper to insure, then that should follow in to what money is taken from them. As should any other recognisable group.

If you went in to a restaurant for a salad but got charged at a price that covered the next person's fillet steak, bottle of wine and all the trimmings you'd rightly complain.

I'd like insurance costs to be individual, the realist in me tells me that is impossible and costly, so as many groupings as possible will do.

It isn't equal, but it is fair.

No body was 'forced' to retire at 60 or 65. Shame married couples are now no longer able to enjoy their retirement together...

I'd be interested to know peoples views on the alcohol induced violence that women have presented increasingly over the last 20 years or so. This is across the whole spectrum of privilage. Can the patriachy be responsible for these actions?

I'd like insurance costs to be individual, the realist in me tells me that is impossible and costly, so as many groupings as possible will do.

Well quite, so the division into two big groups - men and women - is simplistic while there are not insignificant numbers of safe men and reckless women. It penalised safe men and let reckless women get away with it. Under the guise of being 'fair' it was in fact grossly unfair.

If you went in to a restaurant for a salad but got charged at a price that covered the next person's fillet steak, bottle of wine and all the trimmings you'd rightly complain.

If you are going to disingenuously compare car insurance with salad and steak then under your reckoning the salad and steak comparison would still apply except it would be only men buying salad who would have to pay extra for the next woman's steak and trimmings.

As a feminist who believes in equality I totally accept that there are some situations where women will lose out and some where they will gain. That's OK.

And, just to correct your error of fact. People have been able to be forced to retire at 60 or 65. Forced retirement was scrapped only in 2011. There is no rational or fair argument for unequal retiring ages.

Sorry for thread derailment. . I'll refrain from replying any more on this point.

I never said who was buying what in the restaurant.

Just that person 1 bought salad, person 2 bought steak. The 'you' was a generic 'you' for anyone reading the post, I said 'person' not man or woman when referring ot the steak eater.

Dragging sex in to for no reason?

Which brings us on to insurance.

You do know that in some instances women did pay more for insurance don't you?

A friend of mine worked in the 'maths' department. They actually looked at the statistics and divided the groups from the stats, they didn't start with standardised groups (ie men 18 -30, women 18 - 30, men 30-40 etc). There wasn't an 'unfair' assumption or split in to male and female.

When they looked at the statistics of pay outs that is how it fell out. There were cases of men being cheaper than women too.

I must have imagined the 67 year old bloke working n 2010 then...

Someone spouts false equivalence arguments galore and when confronted with a feminist agreeing with an instance of equalisation which disadvantages women, suddenly switches to substantive fairness.

Twisting in the wind.

I must have imagined the 67 year old bloke working n 2010 then..

Sorry I said I wouldn't reply but you are misunderstanding and I need to correct that. I am still working part-time and I am 69 so your comment above is meaningless. What I said was correct. Up until 2011 people could be forced to retire as long as they followed correct procedure. For example:

www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/discrimination-and-rights/forced-retirement/

Extract

"For employees over the age of 65? it is lawful for an employer to force them to retire? as long as they follow the procedure outlined below. Employees have the right to request to continue working beyond the date when the employer wants them to retire, but the employer does not have to agree with this request."

Etc.

www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/discrimination-and-rights/forced-retirement/

Not quite Flora.

The equivalence arguments I said were false were the animal kingdom ones.

In this instance the restaurant is equivalent. You are buying a service according to your needs/wants.

The fact you find this stance odd says much. I am not 'twisting in the wind' just putting across my stance. Sorry if it confuses you, of course your could be under the delsusion I am in sort secretive patriarchy or MRA.

Now then... equivalence.

We now have the male and female paying the same regardless of what they eat in the restaurant.

When in walks a OAP couple and a 18yo couple...

How much do they pay? Surely Ageism should be wiped out?

a 1, a 2, a 1, 2, 3, 4

'If you tolerate this, then your children will be neeeeeexxxxxxttttt'.

What's that? You've only got a 1.2litre 12 year old shed, why should you pay the same as the owner of a 3.6 litre porsche.

'Will be next, will be nexxxxxxttttt'.

I'm getting the sense that this feminism thing is perhaps to mixed in with left wing ideals...

It's not equivalent. In a restaurant, you order meal, get meal, eat meal. Benefit received/food served vs price paid will always be the same. With insurance, you buy a right to a receive a payment on the happening of a specified event, subject to conditions. Totally different.

You have no sense of "this feminism thing". You don't get it at all. Don't let that stop you telling the wimmin how it is though.

MRA = misogyny rapey arseholes who rape and beat women

Flora, don't sweat about it. It isn't a woman thing. I am like this with men too. It's just my nature to not just think I am right, but know I am right.

As one of my bosses once said 'you're not the only one who can be right you know'... about an hour later I was proved to be the only one who was right but that's by the by.

If you want the restaurant taken out, it's gone.

Now back to insurance.

Now we have ridded ourselves of sexism in the provision of insurance, we have the precedence needed to rid ourselves of the injustices of age, experience, past claims, garaged or on the street parking, milage and so on.

Makes getting a quote easier I suppose... unless we rid ourselves of the inherent inequality of differing prices too.

-----------

FeministDragon, good to see you're a well balanced person; with a chip on both shoulders.

A quick trawl of MRA groups seems to indicate a wide spectrum of male interests covered. Even some that have nothing to do with you feminists, ie conscription.

The only mention of rape appears to be those groups fighting (rightly) for the rights of those men falsely accused of rape.

"those groups fighting (rightly) for the rights of those men falsely accused of rape."

I would only think they were 'rightly' fighting for 'rights' if they were fighting for men falsely accused of theft, burglary, drug dealing, ABH, robbery, fraud, etc- the whole range of crimes....... The fact they focus exclusively on supposed 'false accusations', only for those crimes against women where chronic under-reporting, disbelieving, victim-blaming, low conviction rates occur - shows they simply hate women. There is no fighting for 'rights' about it. If you think they do this 'rightly' Lazarus - congratulations, you can now call yourself a fully paid-up, card-carrying misogynist.

I am like this with men too. It's just my nature to not just think I am right, but know I am right.

Archetypal pub bore. Loses argument so changes it. Yawn.

This thread really
demonstrates why a hide poster button wd be so useful

LazarussLozenge wrote - "A quick trawl of MRA groups seems to indicate a wide spectrum of male interests covered. Even some that have nothing to do with you feminists, ie conscription."

I've recently read that women are conscripted into military service by ten countries. Therefore, conscription is of interest to feminists because women are conscripted. The conscription of men is also of concern to feminists because any military conscription upholds patriarchal values, which many feminists oppose.

Bubbles,

I used that example because on the list of groups that was one on eo fo the groups.

Good to see, yet again, this 'everyone is against us' mentality surface.

Yes, I am actually against revealing the identity of ALL accused, unless guilt is proven or in a probability of guilt/probability of help balance - a decision to be taken by a judge or other responsible person after due consideration.

False/malicious accusations are as odious as the actual act, if not more so. The belief that someone can just shrug the accusation off, on being cleared, is absurd.

These sort of cases are merely the lead cases, with the massive change in media over the years people can not just 'shrug' accusations off. No matter how hard.

With background checks on job applicants becoming ever more prevalent even accusations of quite mundane crimes could affect the individual unduly. The internet means you can't even move to a new town/area.

The basic premise is 'innocent until proven guilty', even Romans had this outlook, the burden of proof was on the accuser not the accused.

Again, you seem to assume to know too much of what I may believe. I used an example of an MRA activity I agree with and wasn't in agreement with whatever nonsense FeministDragon spouted.

I didn't tell you what I believed, in detail, did I?

Flora, I never argued about my personality. If you are referring to the ditching of the restaurant analogy, we can go at it if you wish. I said let's drop it because it would merely tie up resources debating a topic not that relevant to the thread.

LazarussLozenge wrote - "The only mention of rape appears to be those groups fighting (rightly) for the rights of those men falsely accused of rape."

Then perhaps MRAs could consider adding campaigns to support men who have been raped by men?

I said let's drop it because it would merely tie up resources debating a topic not that relevant to the thread.

Arf.

'vesuvia Wed 08-May-13 20:09:48

I've recently read that women are conscripted into military service by ten countries. Therefore, conscription is of interest to feminists because women are conscripted. The conscription of men is also of concern to feminists because any military conscription upholds patriarchal values, which many feminists oppose.'

The groups listed were American during the Vietnam War. Therefore women were not affected.

I had a feeling someone would google and find the countries who conscript.

Let's think China, NKorea, Israel, Cuba, Taiwan and Tunisia... who are the others?

'vesuvia Wed 08-May-13 20:15:40

Then perhaps MRAs could consider adding campaigns to support men who have been raped by men?'

I'll look in to it, but I'd imagine their stance covers that as well.

Is this another of those knee jerk reactions because all MRAs must be bad is it?

Remember I am not personally responsible for the beliefs of MRAs.

"I used that example because on the list of groups that was one on eo fo the groups." Not sure what this sentence means or why its here.

"Good to see, yet again, this 'everyone is against us' mentality surface." You'll have to explain what you mean - everyone against women? No I actually think patriarchy and its defenders are against women. Everyone against feminists? No I think patriarchy and its defenders are against feminists. How you came to form this sentence has no logical pathway I can glean.

"False/malicious accusations are as odious as the actual act" - so what would you prefer- to be violently raped, or to be accused of violently raping someone? (hint-remember if you violently rape someone you only have a 1 in 20 chance of doing time for it- being raped, you are most likely to be traumatised, have your confidence jolted, flashbacks, intimate relationships damaged, your options narrowed and it could take a lot of work to get on track -although being male you have a greater likelihood of being believed and getting a conviction than a woman and can't get pregnant, so its not quite like for like.)

"if not more so." mmmmmm......... I think I'd rather have words than physical violence myself. Very strange priorities there. Malevolent woman-hatred is starting to seep through your lack of empathy...

"The belief that someone can just shrug the accusation off, on being cleared, is absurd." I remember that woman who was set up by a tabloid to accuse the Hamiltons of rape. As far as I remember they got away with their reputations unscathed by it, the truth came out and everyone quickly put the woman in the stereotype box of 'some nutter' and moved on.

"With background checks on job applicants becoming ever more prevalent even accusations of quite mundane crimes could affect the individual unduly. The internet means you can't even move to a new town/area." You are starting to sound a bit too familiar with this process...

"The basic premise is 'innocent until proven guilty', even Romans had this outlook, the burden of proof was on the accuser not the accused." Yup and it still is, and not just the burden of proof, but when the accuser is a woman the burden of sexist stereotypes which make her seem an unreliable witness is also upon her, working against her and in favour of the male accused.

"Again, you seem to assume to know too much of what I may believe. I used an example of an MRA activity I agree with and wasn't in agreement with whatever nonsense FeministDragon spouted." Your posts are peppered generously with controlling turns of phrase and leak out a consistent misogynist perspective.....

"I didn't tell you what I believed, in detail, did I?" You don't need to - I can join the dots between all the attitudes leaking out of your posts.