I am confused about feminism

[endofthelinefinally]

Why is Feminism Chat "Modern Feminism" and Feminism Sex and Gender "Intersectional Feminism".
Genuine question about the new titles applied by MN. I apologise in advance for my ignorance, I would appreciate if someone could explain.
I understand Radical Feminism, but that isn't mentioned.
TIA.

Because they dont want to admit they ever made a mistake by un-naming it from Feminisn and Women's Rights.

I wouldn't worry. It doesn't change how we all contribute.

I suspect someone at MNHQ was a bit bored one day.

And / or they realised we never accepted that this one a single issue board about Sex & Gender.

One day we will log in and without and fanfare it will be FWR again and everything before will be like some bad dream or an episode of Dallas.

Some posters felt that talking about the impact of transgenderism upon women and vulnerable people was hateful and needed to be in a separate topic that they could then avoid. So FWR was split into F:C and F:S&G. As every feminist issue ultimately boils down to sex and gender, the nett result was that feminists who wanted to centre women in their feminism posted in F:S&G, whereas F:C became a tumbleweed zone where even those who wanted to centre men in their 'feminism' found little interest in discussions.

I guess they could have chosen to add "Radical Feminism" for the S&G board, but the meme "Radicalized by Mumsnet" is not great PR for MNHQ so I presume they don't want to look like they're actively promoting "radical ideology"... It'd be waving a red rag to the bulls.

The descriptions for the boards aren't confusing to me.

If anything, elsewhere 'intersectional feminism' is usually a term used for places where you'd find the gender-y kind.

If anything, elsewhere 'intersectional feminism' is usually a term used for places where you'd find the gender-y kind.

Exactly, that's why its best just to ignore this changes. Just keep posting what is relevant to you and responding likewise.

If they really cared they would ask us.

Are you in any other situation where you say or write something, and someboyd who knows nothing about you decides to tell you what you are for saying that.

Just ignore. Its just a tag. We can collect them all together in years to come, and laugh about how useless their focus groups must have been to come up with stuff that has no bearing on anything.

Maybe its a tag line that went down well with advertisers.

Who knows.

Who cares.

I don't think any posters know why these particular descriptions have been added. Maybe report your post and ask MNHQ to comment or ask in Site Stuff?

Sorry just to repeat this is the least intersectional forum - c complete misnomer.

Which I mean in a positive way.

It means this is a forum for independent thinking, not for captured minds.

Well I guess I am not alone in thinking it is a bit baffling. Thank you all for responding. I wonder what the thought process behind the new descriptors was.

Please dont report to site stuff it implies we think they can tell us how to think.

Lets just see what next baffling title they add - without ever telling us.

That is the most bizarre part of it.

it implies we think they can tell us how to think.

Not sure how you make that out. It implies, if anything, some lack of knowledge or thought on their part.

Or... newbies click on this "intersectional feminism" and get totally radicalised 😎

If one board is modern feminism and the other intersectional, isn't that mn saying they think intersectionality is outdated?

I think its mn clumsy way of saying F:S&G is welcoming to trans ideology, as in 'if your feminism isnt intersectional it isnt feminist' ; and a response to the accusations that mn feminist boards a too white, so are using the old definition of intersectionality.

No, I am not going to ask MNHQ. That is why I asked the question on here.

Blimey. It is a bit of a word salad, isn't it.

There is a thread on Site Stuff. They've been fiddling about with it. Nobody knows why.

Trying to get Titania McGrath's real-life counterparts (i.e. the staffers at the Grun) to engage civilly in the debate and actually learn something?

They changed the ND one too apparently without discussion.

To be fair, though, if you take "intersectional" as what the dictionary says it means rather than what it actually means (considering the demographic who, let's say, self-ID as intersectionalist), it's an accurate descriptor. We are at an intersection between different viewpoints and ideas, we are not a hive mind speaking from the same indoctrinated hymnsheet and imposing doctrine on others. It's very rare to find two women from the FWR boards who entirely agree on everything because we all think for ourselves.

People from the outside like to paint us as some group of monothought that got radicalised by MN but in reality that's an oversimplification to make it easier for people to "other" us and draw naive young thinkers into what they think is a "good vs evil" debate (only the script has been flipped). So we are truly at the intersection, trying to stop it being bulldozed into a long straight highway with no junctions by people trying to shout the loudest.

Unfortunately intersectionalism has been hijacked by TRAs. It would be nice to reclaim it because I consider myself an intersectionalist by the literal definition of the word but not at all by the TRA-defined version whose black and white thinking makes a mockery of the idea of intersectionality.

In the context of feminism intersectionality just means talking about other characteristics that may intersect with sex - class, race, disability etc.

We should resist attempts to suggest it includes males.

The concept of "intersectionalism" has been well and truly bastardised by people who never really grasped what it was for.

There is no way that you would leave out being born biologically female as an axis of oppression, were you wanting to include all of them. But of course most "intersectional feminists" deny that having female sex is meaningful to how women are oppressed, and adhere to an ideological belief that the only oppression we face is "gender", which is greater for a small group of males who identify as women, and therefore actual women's needs are secondary.

I quite like this though.

We can reclaim the original meaning of intersectional feminism, i.e. feminism which includes women of colour, disabled women, old women, immigrant women, poor women, abused women and women in the prison population, rather than the bastardised meaning of intersectional feminism which includes male women at the expense of all those groups.

So its time to reclaim it then.

I would describe myself as an intersectional radical feminist in the old style - I view women as a sex class and our experience as a sex class will be massively aggravated or mitigated affected by our race, class and a number other factors.

The fact that men have tried to appropriate intersectional discussion to centre men does not mean we should let go of intersectionalism, rather reclaim it and if anything - amplify it for women.

I agree, and we do that a lot here.

Personally I also think we are the most 'woke', if you use that to mean 'politically aware', with regards to feminism... but I avoid using 'woke' if I can because it's so meaningless.

We can reclaim the original meaning of intersectional feminism, i.e. feminism which includes women of colour, disabled women, old women, immigrant women, poor women, abused women and women in the prison population, rather than the bastardised meaning of intersectional feminism which includes male women at the expense of all those groups.

I've been doing my very important work out specifically for keeping my female menopausal body well, thinking exactly this.

While listening to woman's hour...