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.

Good good, that was useful then.

I think the issue isn't just the lack of shared beliefs. It's that some things can't be compromised upon. If one side wants 50% less of x and the other side want 50% more of x, there is absolutely no point in trying to meet in the middle, is there? All you can do is hope (rather hopelessly) that one or other will completely forget the issue existed in the first place. That isn't compromise.

I think there are loads of issues on which individual feminists can work out a compromise position when they want to talk to people with other ideologies, but it's not really possible to compromise the ideology of radical feminism so that it fits in better with what MRAs want.

Thats the point of solidarity LRD, compromise is not only understood it's the reason to meet in the first place. Things always seem difficult or impossible, that's the major barrier to starting projects, it just looks to hard. Until you try it though you never know, the main question is though is the lack of willingness to believe that things wont work going to be the hurdle to trying?

BTW LRD if that was useful then perhaps we could try it again sometime.

I think you are misunderstanding what 'solidarity' means, leith. I have already asked some questions to try to explore whether or not this term is being used in a meaningful way, or merely as a euphemism for 'compromise'. It appears it is the latter. This is not very helpful, because as flora has already explained, political ideology is not quite the same as personal feelings.

Does that make more sense now?

You will be aware that people have been trying to think about the possibilities for compromise for a very long time, but maybe you can tell me - since you think there is a way - how precisely you would expect radical feminism to compromise its ideology? And what you imagine would be achieved by those compromises?

I'm not 100% certain, but I would be dubious you can come up with compromises that do not, in fact, change that ideology, such that you're no longer talking about radical feminism.

As a rule, it is rather a lot easier to get people who aren't rad fems to agree to compromises of rad fem ideology, but I can't help feeling it also misses the point ...

Leith in a democracy, we don't all need to agree to compromise to make changes. What you are proposing is radically different from any system of government I am aware of and I don't believe it is workable. If you look at the last 50 years, there have been huge changes in the status quo that have not come about because groups at either end of any particular belief system have come together to compromise.

That's true, flora.

I think compromise can be important - but I don't quite understand what compromises are being asked for here, and how on earth they could be made to fit with rad fem ideology.

My sense is that, truly, what is wanted is simply 'oh can't you be a bit less ... well ... feminist'.

I do not accept that analysis nor do the men and women of the occupy movement, the many green initiatives, in fact lots of groups, most fundamentalist it is not acceptable to the billions who live in abject poverty in third world countries, rape torture, trafficking oppression of belief, and freedom of movement and thought. All these things are reflections of the social structures that we built, it is up to us to knock them down not just for us but for thos who have no voice. There need is more important than politics.

Less feminist wanted by whom? Me and Mini or just me?

Do you have an answer for me at all?

And why is it you're only upset about 'those who have no voice' when they're not the radical feminists who, you seem to be saying, should not be entitled to a voice simply because they disagree with you?

That seems rather hypocritical.

You do realize that radical feminism believes that the social structures 'we' built are the patriarchy, which oppresses women? I'm not sure who this group are, who 'have no voice' in those social structures 'we' built, if it isn't oppressed women?

I didn't think you were speaking for mini. I will continue to assume she'll speak for herself, unless she says otherwise.

LRD who are the "some" men?

Marx proposed that "historical materialism is the view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all historical events in the economic development of society, in the changes of the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and the struggles of these two classes against one another"

As I remember, Firestone broke ranks with the civil rights activists because not enough emphasis was placed on women's issues. Despite the fact that civil rights encompassed all rights of the oppressed groups.

She proposed that " Historical materialism is that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause, and the great moving power of all historical events in the dialectic of sex: the division of society into two distinct biological classes for the procreative reproduction, and the struggle of these two classes with one another; in the changes in the modes of marriage, reproduction and childcare...."

Firstly we can not have known and we do not know with any certainty that the first evolutionary steps taken from pre-historical tribal society would have lead in this direction.

However before we even think about procreation we must first produce the means to subsist just one more day. We must find food, shelter and protection. We reproduce the means of subsistence first, that is our overriding urge after which comes procreation.

Patriarchy is real, it isn't to be found in btw the ears of men. It is to be found within the superstructure above the socio/economic base. All explanations for life arise out of the need humans have to make sense of the material conditions of their lives, their lived experience. Because patriarchy is a social system built on the material base and as a "catch all phrase" can be used to explain the state, judiciary, institutions etc which also sit within the superstructure It is not the cause or the catalyst but a term used by sociologists and people to explain how those institutions have shaped relations btw men and women.

What actually creates the division of the sexes is what happens in the base structure, the modes of production and of course the biological differences btw men and women. What happens in the superstructure only reinforces this.

Which is why accepting that a social system has been the cause of women's oppression has led in my opinion to a situation where there is disagreement about biological determinism.

It stands to reason that if you believe women's oppression is not a casualty of the material or of the biological then you are left thinking that men created a complex social web simply to oppress women. So where does all the other forms of oppression fit into this?

For me personally? It tends to depend when I meet them. Or read their work, if you're thinking about people more in the public eye. DH, obviously! But loads of male friends, people I've worked with, that sort of thing.

I'm sorry, but I can't follow what you're saying about the rest?

I believe patriarchy is real, but I don't believe it's found between the ears of men - why do you think anyone does think that?

I don't too much care about the origins of women's oppression. Fair enough if you do - I can see it's interesting to speculate, and sometimes I'm in the mood for a bit of that.

But now it's here and real, for me, the big issue is simply, what do I think is the best way to end it? And for me, that's radical feminism. I do believe that other forms of oppression intersect with oppression of women, of course (never met a rad fem who didn't). But I don't believe that men are oppressed because of their sex, so I can't accept that MRAs have a point. And I do believe that men are privileged relative to women when we consider sex privilege.

Would it be fair to say that your analysis is based on the judgement derived from feeling?

What is difficult to follow? happy to elucidate on anything

I think the origins are important because understanding the origins is understanding the theory.

I thought radical alluded to the "root of" it isn't enough to say that some radfems understand how other forms of oppression interesect because that doesn't explain how sex class oppression caused other forms of oppression. If it isn't linked in a causal manner then it simply isn't the root of the problem is it?

No, I don't think so.

Why do you think it's about feelings when it is political? I understand your feeling of wanting to dissociate your husband from analysis, but I don't share it, not at all.

I don't follow why you think the points about Firestone etc. are relevant - what are you trying to say?

You may be right origins are important. I'm not sure myself. But no, the 'radical' bit means that rad fems think that sex discrimination is the root issue. It doesn't mean we go back to imagine what it was like for cavemen and women, and try to think what 'went wrong'. That's pretty pointless IMO (not that it's not interesting, but it's not going to solve much now!).

I believe patriarchy is real, but I don't believe it's found between the ears of men - why do you think anyone does think that? that is because of the incomplete or total lack of theory on the part of the radfems who are posting man hating horse shit.

The points about Firestone are relevant when discussing the formation of radfem theory but also in any discussion about social solidarities.

Am I posting man-hating horse shit, mini? Because you seem to think I think this about the patriarchy.

I'm not entirely sure which rad fems, where, are posting man-hating horse shit, TBH. If there are some, I will continue to ignore them and focus on the vast majority of rad fems who, like me or tunip or the women I know attending this conference, are not in the least 'man-hating'.

I still don't follow the relevance of Firestone - this isn't me criticizing it, I just honestly don't have anything helpful to say, but explained I didn't see the relevance because I didn't want you to think I was ignoring that bit.

OK, so the root issue is sexism ? is that what you think ?

Why?

Discussing the origin of oppression is important because it will uncover the root of all oppression. In doing so it is possible IMO to see where multi-issue politics can take the place of single issue activism.

Otherwise I win rights at a cost to you, you win rights at the cost to malcombe or who ever, he wins the right to do something or say something and then all hell breaks out. That is called liberalism. This is where no ones rights trump another's rights but no ones oppression can be overcome without trampling on someone's rights. This is why liberalism is so popular with the ruling elites (whether you think they are all male or not (I do) This is the status quo. Nothing can be resolved because where one gains ground another feels he has lost. Some men believe that women demanding rights mean them handing over some of theirs. Of course this isn't really the case but when you have many separate groups you always have a perceived and sometimes real conflict of interests.

Hell no LRD. I have never once read you post anything man hating. I appreciate everything you say and give a great deal of thought to it.

Maybe I'll give in, I don't know, I didn't think I was that incomprehensible or vague.

Firestone came out of the civil rights movement and founded the womens movement.

"Shulamith Firestone (January 7, 1945 ? August 28, 2012)[1] (also called Shulie, or Shuloma) was a Canadian-born feminist. She was a central figure in the early development of radical feminism, having been a founding member of the New York Radical Women, Redstockings, and New York Radical Feminists. In 1970, she authored The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, an important and widely influential feminist text."

Wiki

Without her ground breaking analysis which turned Marx on its head (I posted this above) you wouldn't have radfem.

I would say misogyny.

I don't know why it is the root issue, but I am sure that it is, because the majority of adults living in poverty are women, because the majority of victims of rape and domestic violence are women, because women still do not earn as much as men and are not as well-represented in the professions and in parliament as men, even in a first-world country like the UK. Because when I look at history, there is never a time when misogyny doesn't exist.

I do see what you're saying about the importance of origins. My reservation is, though, that the origins of misogyny are evidently located in the time before recorded history. Whatever they may be, they apply to a time so far back we can't imagine what it'd be like to live in it - and we wouldn't want to.

I think it is quite possible that the fact women have children has a lot to do with it - but I am not interested in trying to work out a situation where we return to a world where childbirth kills huge numbers of women, where contraception isn't known and where there is no alternative to breastfeeding for a baby whose mother can't feed him or her. So I have no interest in trying to reconstruct and retroactively right whatever wrongs may have happened back then. I'm more interested in pointing out that - in the here and now - it's a crock of shite that women are still being treated this way.

I agree that some men think they must lose rights in order for women to gain rights (and, no doubt, vice versa, though women have fewer rights in the first place). And I agree this is not necessarily correct. However, when we are talking about 'solidarity' and you feeling your husband isn't part of the patriarchy, I can't help thinking we're talking cross-purposes.

The patriarchy describes sex oppression. It is not a personal insult; it is simply a description to say that men (as a group) are more privileged than women (as a group). To say 'well I don't like that because I don't believe that's true of my DH and if you wanted to show solidarity you wouldn't say it' - which is what it feels as if you're saying - is muddling the personal in with the political.

If that isn't what you meant, I'm sorry - but, what compromise did you have in mind? What do you mean by 'solidarity' in the context of radical feminism, Radfem 2013, and MRAs?

Cross posted.

Whew! I was wondering what the heck I'd said.

I expect I am not following correctly - I'm sorry about that.

I know who Firestone is (though I'm not sure I agree without her we wouldn't have radical feminism, because I honestly believe radical feminism is immensely simpler and more obvious than some folk like to make out).

Personally, I like to think Mary Wollstonecraft pre-empted quite a bit of Marx anyway.

I agree that childbirth has a great deal of relevance both to the formation of the general relations and the formation of class society (whether we accept that to be patriarchal or socio/economic materialist)

There was a time I think when women were revered for their life giving properties, we had fertility godesses and temples devoted to female gods. Men created (patriarchal) mono-theist religion where men became the central force in creation, supplanting women's role. A male god became the creationary force. This seems to have happened as a way of trying to reinforce women as child carers and token of exchange within the class system. A system where women were denied sexual freedoms because men wanted to be assured that their progeny was theirs in relation to protecting private property.

Hegel's dialectic informed Marx's thinking which he then applied in a materialist analysis of history.

I think that if radical is truly to mean "the root" then leaving out the materialist historical enquiry of Firestone which is key to the formation of Rad feminism is actually counter productive to finding a way forward in understanding the formation of class society (be that patriarchal or socio/economic) But then I am a sucker for theory

I'd like to think that too (about goddesses etc.). I hope so.

I think 'radical' can mean 'root' without requiring us to do historical guesswork - and necessarily there is a big element of guesswork here. I think it is perfectly possible to say that the root problem in the world is the patriarchy, without being certain of how the patriarchy came to be.

I don't see how this means radical feminism is counter-productive, though? Am I being really thick here? (You can say yes!). I just think that identifying a root problem, and trying to identify the roots of that problem back in the mists of time, are quite different things.

And I will say, I am truly terrible at theory. I can cope with political ideology, but pure theory is something I think my brain just doesn't do.