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.

"I think you lot definitely need to talk to some more men. Find out what their thoughts are and their beliefs. You all seem rather one sided, which is why you will never get to your 7th step."

If men with absolutely nothing new to contribute could just get the fuck out of the way and stop mansplaining at us we may get more women doing steps 1-5 -essential preparation for generations of younger women who want to engage in 6-7... (But I suppose that's the point in you and your fellow MRE's efforts around radfem - you want to stop this from happening - with a range of tactics from intimidation using threats of violence to tiresome trolling & derailing)...

Yet as to step 7 ... it is already happening - there are actually some more enlightened pro-feminist men out there who are gender-critical.

"Strikes and the like are just terrorism by another name."

You have some bizarre ideas - a strike is a form of terrorism? You are either incredibly stupid or completely bonkers. Earlier you said being falsely accused of a crime is worse than being a victim of crime....

How do you get through the day when you can't even make the most basic value judgements? You probably completely cack-handedly misfire in every social exchange you have.. Perhaps that's why you find life so frustrating and blame women for it.....

Given that you seem to have done enough chatting in stages 1 - 5, and started merging in to Left wing theory, I'd suggest you start with stage 6.

Points to note. If you're intent on merging left wing politics in to the argument, will you insist on those with right wing views moving to yours too... in which case you may find your fight for female equality a little harder.

Gender critical? I assume you mean men who don't regard the traditional gender types as canon?

Funnily, neither do I. Spout your hyperbolic vitreol all you like. My little lass is as happy doing 'boy' things as she is 'girl'. So is her Mum. That's why we get on so well. You may recall earlier I mentioned Dad and Daughter baking together and splashing the pink fondant icing around. We also camped on island in the middle of a lake and cooked marshmallows and boil in the bag. Sleeping under the tarp sail over an upturned canoe... awesome.

I find it quite amusing you think I am part of some MRA. I wont bother arguing the toss. I doubt you'll change your mind.

Why are 'younger women' to engage in the later steps? Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?

"I'd suggest you start with stage 6."
I'm not interested in your suggestions Lazarus

I would be...

Am I not your target demographic?

"I'd suggest"

Also, since you have consistently shown yourself to be ignorant about feminism and revealed an inability to make sensible value judgements - it is the ultimate mansplain to start 'suggesting' how we do feminism or what to prioritise.

"Points to note. If you're intent on merging left wing politics in to the argument, will you insist on those with right wing views moving to yours too... in which case you may find your fight for female equality a little harder." Why do you give a shit about what makes the struggle easier or harder? What does 'intent on merging' mean anyway?

"Gender critical? I assume you mean men who don't regard the traditional gender types as canon?"
You assumed wrong there - I mean men who apply critical thinking to gender.

"I find it quite amusing you think I am part of some MRA. I wont bother arguing the toss. I doubt you'll change your mind."
If it thinks like an MRE, trolls like an MRE, mansplains like an MRE and outstays its welcome like and MRE....It probably is an MRE

"Why are 'younger women' to engage in the later steps? Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?"
Wrong end of the stick there .... New generations of girls are being born -they need a mansplain-free zone to explore their realities and find their voices in order to continue the work of feminism.

"I would be..."
Why not make some suggestions to yourself then?

"Am I not your target demographic?"
No. I am not interested in you. What on earth makes you think you are my target demographic? Are you confusing me with Mini?

FWIW I think Mini is referring to left-wing men as the men to engage, so I don't think she would be interested in engaging you either -( I could be wrong though)..

If it thinks like an MRE, trolls like an MRE, mansplains like an MRE and outstays its welcome like and MRE....It probably is an MRE

So how will you reach your goal by excluding those who 'don't interest' you?

I believe I told you all that I didn't know much about feminism in depth.

My values may be different to yours but they are not wrong. And to be fair you are looking upon them with a highly critical eye.

"In order to achieve the emancipation of ALL people, it will require ALL people to engage with the struggle." By this you mean it will require 'all oppressed people' to engage in the struggle? Or do you think oppressors need to engage too-(not nit-picking just wanting to clarify to understand)?"

All oppressed groups.

I like your seven steps Bubbles I think I might have skipped through 1-6 at break neck speed.

It's interesting, several pages back I thought Loz showed real potential He seems to have a materialist conception of history and the formation of class/gender relations, all very good. But as soon as women start to really question him (his authority) if we speak directly and without apology, no that won't do. He sticks his heels in and reverts to the same old defensive posturing that men assume. This clearly illustrates the reactive nature of the emergence of radical men (MRAs)

"Do you feel you are unable to talk to men in these matters?"

Well what do you think Loz, seems none of us have any difficulty discussing this with you, although it would be easier if I could just understand what your motivations are in being here? As already stated if women challenge men, men become defensive, how can a discussion be had when men revert to hostility because they feel under attack? Is that how we make you feel?

"I think I might have skipped through 1-6 at break neck speed."
Did you have the good fortune of going to a single-sex school?

No, I was a tree climbing, camp building, catapult wielding menace as a child, no decent girls school would have taken me . My mother was a socialist and feminist as were many of her friends.

I have just been reading this factcheckme.wordpress.com/

Does anyone know what social determinist/reformist radical feminism is all about?

And I don't think this update has been linked here yet sisterhoodispowerful.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/the-dangerous-tale-of-the-mres-and-their-allies/ if anyone is interested.

Just for you Mini, I'll try to get my heels out.

Although please don't assume it is because you are women. I am what I am, to men as much as women. Seriously.

Only recently I butted heads with a (male) superior (never met him before).

My motivation? I've left a predominately male environment, that by accepted terms is probably heavily 'violently masculine' (still don't like the term).

Oh, and I like to think I am Libertarian, but will sometimes veer left or right depending upon topic.

Incidentally, my Mrs attended a single-sex school. She has mixed views on the experience.

Does anyone know what social determinist/reformist radical feminism is all about?

I have never heard of this. It sounds as though the author was being a bit presumptious about whom the 'claim to' referred- so clearly an important and sensitive distinction for her...

Google it.

It's all there.

Hi Laz

Would you rather be badly beaten up or be falsely accused of GBH?

Regarding the fatcheckme site. She says:
as an example of the MRA/tranny anti-radfem propaganda campaign, the radfem13 organizers state that MRAs and others are guilty of "Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we?d wish to discuss those differences internally)" lol. see what they did there? more denial and erasure of non-social determinist radical feminists by social determinist/reformist radical feminists. of course, like a lot of good PR, this is partly true ? non-social determinist radfems are indeed all the time being attacked by MRAs. we are teh evol, you see, and apparently, reformist radfems and MRAs/trannies are mostly in agreement on that point. d?oh!

I think there's a serious wrong-end-of-the-stick-grabbing. By saying lots of people 'claim' to be radfems in the organiser's statement, I would have thought that this refers to variances such as those who call themselves radical feminist but are not gender-abolitionist or not prostitution abolitionist or who don't critique heterosexuality... Perhaps also including people who exhibit a tribalist hatred of transpeople rather than rejecting gender identity and queer theory.... Or perhaps the fatcheckme author has some insider info that justifies her assumption

So what I glean about it is that the factcheckme author is a biological determinist(?) (which she calls non-social determinist)... I reckon by 'social determinist/reformist radical feminism' she means the vast majority of radical feminism- where gender is viewed to be a social construct that must be abolished as part of ending patriarchy and reforming society. The biological determinist view I imagine would be that men are innately violent and women need to set up separate societies from men or take other measures to contain and control men in order to be free from their violence and dominance....

'TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 11-May-13 13:29:24

Hi Laz

Would you rather be badly beaten up or be falsely accused of GBH?'

You appear to be trying to get me in to a battle of wits...

alas you have turned up unarmed.

So what would you prefer then?

You haven't actually answered her question, just bored us all again with a predictable childish come-back.

I can really see why MRE's don't consider themselves alpha males.

BubblesOfBliss, that is my understanding now, I have gone back and read her Blog "1000 Years of This. 40 Years of That" where she is critiquing Lerner's work. I can't believe the conclusions she has reached having read Lerner.

"and we notably have never as far as i can tell tried to convince anyone that mens true nature wasnt and isnt exactly what it appears to be, and what men demonstrate by their own behavior, institutions and dictates across time and place"

"women who for 1000 years (or more) have been documenting what appears to be a universal model of male behavior that doesnt differ at all across time and place"

Stranger still is this: "feminist-thinking women have been asserting for over a millenia that womens nature is misrepresented by patriarchy (and via patriarchal institutions such as religion) and that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of men who want to dominate and enslave us. women know, somehow, that this is not our true nature"

Leaving aside whether you have a historical/material conception of history or cultural, or choose culture over a materialist framework in trying to understand the inequalities between men and women, she thinks that the social totality that shapes women's behaviour doesn't effect men. So whilst traits that are deemed feminine are socialised, masculine traits are determined by biology. So if women are not naturally inclined to be deferential, non-combative, submissive and nurturing then what is our true nature? Might this mean that women could be "naturally" violent, combative, domineering etc,... If this were true, might femonade conclude we all need to be "dealt" with. I can't quite get my head round the idea that if human history has been one of great struggle between the sexes (as Firestone set out) wouldn't it be logical to say all traits considered male/female, masculine/feminine are either: natural and innate or due to social processes. I can't see how you can use both a biological determinist argument and a social one to assess a dialectical phenomena.

Oh and Loz, don't make special concessions for me

Basil and Doctrine, you are both rather foolishly pursuing this.

Read what I said. I said ALL criminal acts were odious, and that the act of a false accusation could be more odious certain in circumstances...

Your question is inane.

Well done though, Basil. Backing up your mucker like that. I like to see that sort of thing.

I'd never dream of it, Mini... equality and all that.

You've certainly opened up Pandora's Box there. Are women as they are for social or biological reasons, are men as they are for social or biological reasons?

Could the religious warnings (ie Lilith and Eve) be a simple warning to men about the 'true' nature of women at that time?

"I said ALL criminal acts were odious, and that the act of a false accusation could be more odious certain in circumstances..."

Which circumstances?

Just rape, by any chance?

This is what you said in your Wed 08-May-13 20:15:09 post:

"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."

You were talking about rape in that post, not about any other crime.

"I can't see how you can use both a biological determinist argument and a social one to assess a dialectical phenomena."
I agree Mini - I think the author takes big leaps there- and her leap of assumption about the statement from the organsisers of radfem principally speaking about herself when they mention people who "claim to' be radical feminists, without any qualification as to why she took that leap puts me off her perspective.