Just posting from Radfem 2013 with the MN feminists - couple of interesting comments :-)

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I'm just posting because I'm at a conference with a few MN feminists. We've just been to a panel about feminist parenting, and the others are chatting with other feminist mums.

I've been listening in on the discussion mostly on account of not having any children - which is why I'm posting on MN instead of talking - but a couple of women mentioned the old stereotype of MN being full of anti-feminist middle-class white mothers who only talk about nappies. And a couple of FWR regulars were saying that we're actually quite nice. So, I am hoping maybe people who were at the conference will come to check out this section.

Or maybe they won't, but if they do - hello! :-)

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

And btw, I do think it matters (and I think this is what you're saying?) that women born women are expected to be the ones who get pregnant and have the babies, and it is on these grounds they're oppressed, even if they never do have babies.

However I think we also have to remember that it's not a trade-off, where women get oppressed but also get the benefit of being able to get pregnant and have babies. For a lot of women, it's that they get oppressed, and they don't get the lovely idealized 'fully functioning female body'.

[marfisa]

I totally agree with Hully here:

I think, in simple terms, there are raving extremist loons in all walks of life and the raving loony extremism comes out in whatever their "thing" is, be it religion, transactivism, racism etc etc.

And no, condoning or threatening violence is never acceptable. I'm sure that violent transwomen and queers exist, and they're wrong. That said, Brennan's statements are themselves extremely violent-sounding and inflammatory. She also consistently uses language that implies she is referring to ALL transwomen or ALL 'queers' rather than a small, loony minority within those groups.

LRD mentioned starting a women's political party. Much as I like the idea, I wouldn't be able to support any political party that propagated hate speech about minority groups in this way.

'Queer' can also mean lots of different things according to the context. In some circles it's simply used as a synonym of gay or lesbian.

There's a real contradiction between Brennan saying that she rejects any identity imposed on her by society, and then attacking 'queers', because the term queer (in the 'queer theory' sense) was coined as one possible way for people to describe themselves when they want to embrace an identity NOT imposed on them by society. So in theory it seems to me that rad fems like Brennan and self-described queers should have a lot in common - they are both objecting to roles assigned to them by patriarchal/heteronormative society. But obviously not!

Brennan is very keen on putting people into the right pigeonholes, it seems to me. If you fit her definition of a woman, then you are free to assert your own identity in your own way, but if you are too trans or queer or whatever, you're excluded and given a pejorative label. She's entitled to her own views, of course, but as I say, I prefer a more inclusive brand of feminism.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Mmm. 'Violent-sounding'.

That's a bit weak, if you'll forgive me.

She's had people tell her they want her to die in a fire, get raped brutally, etc. etc. That is 'violent'. I'm not sure saying 'sorry about your dick', crude as it is, is 'violent'.

Bit of a double standard here.

I think she knows 'queer' can mean gay or lesbian, btw.

(I feel really weird here saying 'I think she knows' as I don't want to pretend to speak for anyone else.)

But ... I never heard her say she rejects any identity imposed by society.

Why do you think she does?

I think she rejects the denial of her identity by a section of society. And I agree with her there.

Sorry, but it really is a lie to say she's pigeonholing people. Or that radical feminism is. I will demonstrate in a moment how that one works.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

If I post, now, saying 'I don't mind how other people define themselves, but I refuse to be defined as 'cis' and my own personal definition of 'woman' is 'a person born with a vagina', that is right on the edge of what MNHQ will/won't delete.

I'm putting it in a separate post in case someone fancies reporting it and they do delete it (though I hope they won't since I'm trying to illustrate something here).

But if I make a distinction between 'women' and 'transwomen' in order to clarify that I see myself as a woman because I was born with a vagina, and I don't see myself as a woman because of my gender identity, in many contexts, I will be silenced. And I am really not a particularly 'call a spade a spade' type who usually gets into trouble for her language.

[Hullygully]

It all gets very monty python and paper bag with gravel for dinner

no one has it easy

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Yeah, I get that hully, but I'm not posting to whine 'wah wah, MNHQ could delete me', that's not the point (and as oppression goes, you know, much as I love OliviaMN I don't feel she's up there with the patriarchy quite).

I'm just trying to explain that there set of social pressures that we recognise are discriminating against women in all other walks of life don't magically disappear when women come into contact with other minority groups. Many women are members of more than one minority group anyway.

[marfisa]

OK, I'm not going to sift through Brennan's webpages to pull out the most violent bits. Nonetheless her speech is hate speech. It's designed to be inflammatory. Rape threats against her are deplorable, but that doesn't justify hate speech against ENTIRE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. It's like Daily Fail talk: "Immigrants blah-blah", "Muslims blah-blah". If you read the entire article you find that the story is about specific individuals, but the headlines are designed to stir up rage at a whole minority group.

Maybe I misphrased the identity thing. I don't want to put words in her mouth, either. Both rad fems and 'queers' reject the traditional sexual roles imposed on them by society. Or am I wrong about that?

MNHQ would delete that? Really? Wow. I don't think it's hate speech to say "I believe I'm a woman because I was born with a vagina". I just disagree with that definition of women, that's all.

I'm still curious as to whether rad fem conferences have to do genitalia checks at the door.

[Hullygully]

No no, I mean the thinking other people's lives are shimmering with rosiness and advantages.

Everyone thinks someone else is more fortunate in one way or another.

Soz, was following own train of thought rather than thread!

[Hullygully]

my last was to malenky btw

[Hullygully]

marfisa, have I understood? You don't accept the definition of woman is a human born with a vagina?

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

marfisa - it's not that I don't get where you're coming from. It's that I'm bemused you feel the need to put 'entire groups of people' in capitals, as if somehow lesbians, or radical feminists, or women, are not 'entire groups of people?

No, they didn't do a genitalia check. But then it was open to transwomen IIRC.

hully - ah, yes, take your point, sorry.

Though natch I am shimmering, rosy and advantageous.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Apologies for linking to the lunatic fringe, but, well ...

www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cis+scum&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=IjO3UdueAuev0QWEqIGQDA

Draw your conclusions, eh.

I'm belabouring this point because I am now getting quite tired of people assuming it's all the nasty rad fems. My natural tendency is the same as yours, marfisa, to see an isolated comment and want to start lecturing the perpetrator on how s/he is making it much worse by lowering her/himself to that level, etc. etc.

But then I look at the context and I feel a bit irritated it's all directed one way.

[Hullygully]

I...I...

there are a truly frightening amount of barking people in the world.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Indeed.

Barking people coming at the debate from every possible angle.

What is scary is when it becomes normalised. Obviously.

[TunipTheVegedude]

Marfisa, I'm genuinely interested to know what words you'd use to describe rape threats to children and those involving broken bottles if you consider Cathy Brennan's posts to be 'extremely violent'.

I've been wondering about this all through the school run.

Inflammatory - perhaps. Extremely violent - I struggle to see why you describe them that way other than that you are using a double standard in which women's words are judged on a different scale to men's.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Oh, they are hugely inflammatory. They're obviously intended to be.

But the issue is, you can be as un-inflammatory as you like and you still find people who are burying their heads in the sand about the vague possibility that radfems might have any sort of point, or right to discuss that point.

[marfisa]

I never meant to imply that all forms of violent language are equal. Yes, threatening to rape someone is much worse than calling someone a dick or saying that someone has a dick.

And violent language against rad fems or against women is just as disturbing and unacceptable as violent language against transwomen or queers. The point is that no one on this thread (as far as I know) have condoned the behaviour of the transwomen who threatened to rape Cathy Brennan. If anyone does condone it, I'll jump to the head of the queue to object. But people ARE defending Cathy Brennan and condoning/rationalising her hate speech. That's what I find objectionable.

Hully: nope, a transwoman is a woman in my book.

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Yes ... I'm defending Cathy Brennan because what she said was not as bad as what the transwoman who threatened to rape her said.

You don't seem to get it. You say you get that not all forms of 'violent' language are equal, but then you're ticking us of for not responding to them in an equal way?

[marfisa]

And I don't think that conference was open to transwomen. Not according to some of the statements made on Brennan's twitter feed.

[marfisa]

Right. So "not as bad" equals "OK"?

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Why would it?

[TunipTheVegedude]

It was open to radical feminists.

I don't know what would have happened if a transwoman had popped up and said 'I'm a radical feminist, I believe in the aims of radical feminism, and I want to come.'

But no-one did AFAIK. And I do know transwomen who self-define as radical feminists but they are also people who get the issues around all-female space and support the right of women to all-female activism, so they wouldn't have wanted to.

[marfisa]

You said, ' I'm defending Cathy Brennan because what she said was not as bad' ...?

[MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik]

Yes, I did.