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.

And my line about how we are going to kill all the men, by the way - I would not be at all surprised if that turned up on an MRA site some time as an example of radfem hate speech. I am completely serious about them doing this. I have have seen it happen. That's why I take the 'look how nasty the radfems are' sites with an ENORMOUS pinch of salt.

It seems incredible when you think about it.

The EDL presumably hold meetings. They probably all go along the same lines and you have to take your own beer.

Fathers for Justice hold meetings

All kinds of groups who spew various kinds of hate speech have meetings.

Yet radfems are blocked from a venue.

Transphobia? Or a case of disagreement on what gender really is. I have also never heard a radfem advocate violence against trans people.

In any movement of any kind, you are always going to get a fringe element who don't represent the majority. No one believes that all Chechens are plotting bomb attacks against marathons because of the Boston suspects, but all radfems are tarred with the same anti-trans brush because of the alleged actions of a few.

Yes please, happy if you pm me. I'd like to read the blog post too.

A couple of F4J turned up a while back, I saw one off. They really get turned off when you use the least unemotive language. Which is another reason why I wonder what shouting "shut the fuck up" actually achieves.

I really do believe though that men and women throug historical process of production and reproduction have built this social system. History didn't happen to us whilst we slept, we have made history just as we are now.

With this in mind I think the best way forward is solidarity. I know plenty of men who agree that more equality is needed btw men and women. Dp is great and he's a socialist too (so much to talk about here) but he is very defensive when he has encountered some radfem analysis. He will not accept that he has privilege over all women. Actually I won't accept that he has either. And I think this is the place that many of the disaffected MRAs are coming from. Dialogue is needed and that can't be had shouting over the barricades.

*through must proof read more!

Alex - yes, it's almost enough to make you believe in patriarchy

Mini - Here it is: The solution to MRA problems: more feminism

LRD I linked to a site earlier in the thread. I am also basing my opinion on a few of the blogs and sites I have encountered having followed links from here.

I don't generally read blogs unless someone recommends reading something, then I tend to follow the links in the text from the blog to look for the sources.

I absolutey agree Mini, the only thing is that in order to have solidarity each and every group will have to compromise. That will mean everyone being willing to give up what ever power base they have. That's not a popular message for most folk, one though that we must make time and again if liberalism/patriarchy/class/capitalism are to be brought down.

I think I'm with tunip on sites like that.

I've got to say - I hear what you're saying about 'solidarity', but what does solidarity mean to you? Does it only mean saying it's not your DH who has male privilege?

I just wonder where that ends. We could surely all say 'yes, it's the patriarchy I mind - but not my DH, he has no part in it', but there aren't any men in the world who are no woman's husband or son or brother, are there?

I don't think my DH is a horrible patriarchial oppressor (oddly enough! ), but I do think he has male privilege, and so does he. If he didn't like the idea, I think there'd be an onus on me to talk to him about it (since we're married), but I don't think there'd be an onus on me to change my views or expect others to change theirs.

So I guess what I'm getting at is - can I still show 'solidarity' while continuing to believe what I believe as a rad fem, or does 'solidarity' actually mean 'not being a rad fem anymore'?

(I'm not being snide, btw, I mean this totally seriously because I think it is a pretty big issue here.)

Ah. Right, leith at least believes 'solidarity' actually means rad fems not being quite so rad fem.

If you believe something to be absolutely wrong - which IMO the patriarchy is - you can't 'compromise' by pretending to believe it's only a little bit wrong, like you can compromise about how many conference sessions to fund.

Yes that's exactly what I believe LRD, the same with MRA, being way less MRA, racists being not racist at all, the rich giving up their wealth and the symbols of wealth, countries that have the power to annihilate everyone on the planet three times over GIVING UP that power. Solidarity being that no one gets to wave the privilege card or the oppressed card. So you betcha you radfems dont get to be radfems but that's because you need the rest of us to change and once we have you also change.

I swear to god, if you mean that to be sarcastic, you probably need to tell me the next nine posts whether you're serious or not, because I will struggle to tell.

Excellent leith, you are so right. I don't believe in any hierarchical power structures, right through from child rearing to managing staff. We can not overcome any form discrimination whilst other forms still exist. The place to start is in finding common goals and to do that we need to locate the cause of the oppression.

LRD I am a feminist, it doesn't stop me from also being a mother, daughter, friend and Marxist. Being all of those things doesn't stop me from running a business.

I can see that if you believe that patriarchy is located between the legs and the ears of the male of the species you may actually find it fairly difficult to have any solidarity with men. If you conclude that patriarchy is a social system alongside capitalism (for which I don't blame individuals) then its entirely possible to start a dialogue that includes men and therefore men and women in other groups.

mini - why should being a feminist stop you from being those things?

I don't think the patriarchy is located in those places.

I don't actually find it difficult to have solidarity with some men, either.

What I asked was, do you think the 'solidarity' you mention, necessitates compromise of radical feminist ideology? Do you mean, you think radical feminists shouldn't really be allowed to be radical feminists?

If so, I think you're perfectly entitled to feel that way, but I disagree. Just as you and I obviously disagree about hierarchical power structures.

My view is that it's fine to disagree, and that's why it's useful that we live in a world where - most of the time - people do accept in principle that others can peacefully express different views. But that is precisely what these attacks on Radfem 2013 are not allowing.

I am not Marxist, probably more socialist, or even old, old labour men and women united in struggle to bring up families in proper housing with enough food and heat with out any compromise of dignity.
So were never going to agree on some things Mini, but in that the need for the majority to work with each other to bring about the changes to society that groupings like radfems want, you and I agree.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the responsibility is on women to compromise or moderate their speech. That seems like appeasing the MRAs to me. Based on what they have posted on the Cathy Brennan site, they don't seem to distinguish between the radfems and the liberal fems who were protesting the men's rights issues at U of T. It seems like the root of most MRA's concerns are the position of family laws currently, which are not exactly rad fem.

Mini I think you are completely misunderstanding radical feminism if you think they think the patriarchy equates to male genitalia, but I have to put kids to bed/have tea now so I will come back later if I get time to explain why.

I feel like that, flora.

MRAs don't feel opressed by radfems. That is bollocks.

They feel "waaaaaahhh evil bitch ho thinks she's my equal but I'm better than her because I have a PENIS".

Men are opressed by our society in many ways. The solution to the problems of gender pressures on men is not to silence all the bitch ho radfems. The answer is more feminism.

Your discomfort is personal Flora, if by working with MRA's, and radicle trans, as well as black panther, radicle lesbians/gay men, you could put together the type of coalition that would start by sweeping away the type of political parties that we have now on a platform of addressing the major issues of all the groups in the coalition like banning pornography for example, or enshrining 50/50 child care, or banning the bnp/ukip/edl, would you flora live with your discomfort?

leith, if you could advance feminism massively by enduring the discomfort of not being able to post any more on MN, would you do it?

I'm just curious, like.

What would you give up LRD?

Ooh, I dunno. What would you like me to give up? Could I balance it out against the pain of the last few threads, maybe?

Leith I don't believe that would ever work. A coalition requires some shared ground or beliefs. I don't think that MRAs or gay men (for example) are generally in favour of banning pornography. Feminists groups don't have consensus on that point either. I would not be in favour of banning the BNP, UKIP or the EDL.

My discomfort is political, not personal.

Dunno why your in pain did you hurt yourself? Spluttering hot drinks can cause nasty burns.

I really do not want you to give up anything LRD, you are who and what you are.

The question then flora is how do you square the fact that the changes in society that YOU want, will never happen as the status quo will always be maintained. That makes me really blody angry thinking about the lives, hopes, potential of women and men lost, and the continuation of human life only being valued by how much money they can make/accrue.