I Want To Go: RadFem Rise-Up! in Toronto

Another Radical Feminist conference and more threats of violence. I'd love to be in Toronto for the RadFem Rise-Up this weekend as I do believe in the importance of women-only organising to discuss issues which uniquely effect womyn-born. I believe all oppressed groups have the right to self-organisation. There are many issues, particularly male violence, which harm us all, however the right of groups to self-organise remains fundamental. We can support one another in campaigns whilst simultaneously acknowledging the right of others to organise and campaign without us.

The level of threats levelled at radical feminists who choose to self-organise is both distressing and a clear indication of how afraid the patriarchy is of us. RadFem 2012 and 2013 in London had to change venues because of threats of physical violence and harassment by men. Yet, somehow, a group of womyn-born is so frightening that other feminists actually supported the men who threatened us.  I genuinely cannot get my head around the idea of women supporting MRAs in trying to silence other women. Surely if there is one common enemy all oppressed groups have, it is violent men.?

This is a statement from conference organisers:

Despite hundreds of threats of death and violence directed at women and at the venue staff, the RadFem Riseup conference IS GOING FORWARD. We are having a great time with some wonderful women, gearing up for a day of presentations and strategy tomorrow. For every threat of violence we receive, another woman wakes up to the reality of the situation. Every death threat strengthens our resolve. We will not be prevented from meeting. We will not be prevented from organizing. We will not be prevented from rising up.

We need to stand up and support our sisters who are being threatened with violence by men. We need to support our sisters voices, even if we don't agree with them. Feminism can achieve nothing as a movement unless we start focussing on male violence and the silencing tactics by MRAs. Collusion with men who silence women only supports the Patriarchy.

I can't be in Toronto but I wish all the participants a wonderful and supportive conference.

Read More

The REAL reason #RadFem2013 is having problems with its venue

This is the official reason that #RadFem2013 has been having problems with the venue. This statement is from Off to Work as posted on their Facebook page:

The booking with Off to Work, based at London Irish Centre, was going ahead with the Radfem2013 organising committee, who are professionally organising a successful event for the Radical Feminist Community. The organisers were completely transparent about their conference and we have no criticisms to make of them and we have no opinion at all about their political analysis. 

Allegations that some media sources and bloggers are putting forward about the reason for the decision having anything to do with their political analysis, opinions, "hate speech" or the conference being in breach of legislation are completely false. Our partner, The London Irish Centre, is in agreement with us that these allegations are not the reason for this suspension. The reason, as outlined to the organisers, are specifically around the safety of staff, the overall ability of the centre to logistically manage the booking, and the level of disruption that a small group of protesters have caused. We support the conference going ahead and we are working with the organising collective to find a way forward to ensure that this happens.

This has quite clearly been their stance since the first rumours started about the venue possibly pulling out to do to harassment of their staff. The lies and deliberate misinformation spread by both the MRE group A Voice for Men and certain supposed feminist-activists are quite clear. 

I expect the feminists who deliberately spread this misinformation despite knowing it was clearly false will apologise now. That would be the feminist thing to do. 

Read More

#ReadingOnlyBooksWrittenByWomen: Radical Feminist Theory

My reading theme for May is radical feminist theory. I haven't actually read many classic texts of radical feminism; a lot of my radical feminist theory has been learned reading blogs and discussing it with other women on FB and at conferences. Since I am attending my first formal RadFem conference this June, I thought it might be worth covering more texts than Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse and Kate Millett's Sexual Politics [both of which are must-reads].

These are the texts I've lined up for this month:

Valerie Solanas' Scum Manifesto
Marilyn French's The War Against Women
Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy
Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Womens Liberation Movement
Lynne Harne & Elaine Miller's All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism
Janice Raymond's A Passion for Friends
Diane Bell & Renate Klein's Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed

Three of the texts, Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful, Lynne Harne & Elaine Miller's All the Rage and Diane Bell & Renate Klein's Radically Speaking, are anthologies. They are also huge. I'm not sure I'll make it through them all but I wanted to get as big a variety of radical feminist voices as possible.

Read More

The Dangerous Tales of MREs and Their Allies

This blogpost is cross-posted from Sisterhood is Powerful and is written by Ruby Fruit who is one of the organisers of RadFem2013.

I don't think it matters what you're individual stance on radical feminism is, surely all women should be extremely worried that MREs are causing such extreme harassment that they can get a  venue to cancel a feminist event. If the MREs are dictating policy, are any feminist events safe?

And, frankly, if you're one of the "feminists" who thinks that the MRE harassment of radfems is a "good" thing, you need to reexamine your feminist principles because silencing women is not a feminist  stance.

The Dangerous Tales of MREs and Their Allies

* MRE = Male rights extremists.

This post is intended to shed light on all that has happened, so far, to radfem2013. What has happened should be important to those on the radical left and all feminists everywhere – but thanks to alliances made between trans/queers with MRE‘s, it’s very difficult for us to be heard in the public domain without the distortions flooding our truths and drowning them out.

There is a reason why, whenever I go to refer to anti-RF blog posts, the sticky “L” on my keyboard leads me to write “bog”. That is far more apt. Bogs which are full of misleading lies, distortions, inaccurate interpretations of what radical feminism, as a movement, is, including a continual misapplication of the law in order to attempt to censor our beliefs. Bogs which pull you down more and more into the mud of obfuscation and red herrings so that the political significance and/or consequences of the MRE ‘s (Male Rights Extremists) actions are lost

DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT RADFEM2013

I want to dispel some myths floating about right now in the social media about radfem2013 and very clearly lay them out as, it seems, that some trans/queer activists and their allies are missing both the facts and the wider implications about what has happened, so far, in relation to radfem2013.

Stavvers, a vocal anti-radical feminist blogger, did a bog post which was re-tweeted (so far) 59 times. I haven’t checked to see how many men that includes but I am sure we can assume that extremist right wing men are among them – despite her rather weak attempts to paint some distance between her political position and MREs. Her jubilant support of yet another venue folding under pressure in relation to a radfem conference booking hinges completely on her mistaken belief that radfem2013 has been rejected by London Irish Centre/the company with whom the booking is with -Off-To-Work – on the grounds of “hate speech”

I can categorically assure her that this is absolutely false. The real reason (detailed below) is due to MRE intimidation of the venue and its staff. I would also encourage her, and anyone else, to look at our conference website and see we are completely transparent with what we’re about. We wish to discuss male violence, and gender, within an international context. We want to provide a creative, supportive space for women. We support the rights of autonomous disadvantaged groups to meet. We claim a right to meet around specific issues relating to biology such as reproductive rights. None of this is unreasonable. It is far from the false accusation of “hate speech”. Our analysis of gender is not rooted in “hate”, it is rooted in the way in which gender has been structured under patriarchy to oppress women.

THE STAVVERS BOG AND ITS SMEARS

Stavvers starts her bog by tweeting “Please read and share why the #radfem2013 venue pulled out. There’s been a lot of myths spread”. The bitter irony of her last sentence not lost on me, I @rubyfruit2 attempted to explain to her that she was wrong. She merely repeated this rumour about hate speech and blocked me. That is how nonsensical the targeting of radical feminists has become. Someone in the know tries to explain rationally, and someone in complete ignorance shuts down any possibility of dialogue. You don’t have to agree with our politics, but the implications of stavvers’ words and behaviour, and that of her allies/friends, is that radical feminists are not allowed to critique gender, and the role it plays in oppressing women, without being targeted with hostility and hatred. In a dangerous reversal, she states: “To some women, the RadFem2013 conference organisers and speakers are a persistent and dangerous threat.” As one of the organisers, perhaps you’d like to tell me exactly how *I* am a threat to any other woman. That is a despicable statement and one straight out of a MRE handbook. I find this bog and its false claims based on a MRE smear campaign unacceptable and so should you, whoever you are.

MRE HARASSMENT OF VENUE

The real reason for the company’s concerns about the booking is confirmed by Off To Work, (the company which took the booking). In a facebook statement, it says the concerns are “about staff safety”. There were numerous incidents of intimidation, within less than a week, which targeted the centre, with the clear aim of putting so much pressure on the venue that it would capitulate and withdraw its commitment to honour the booking. It is no secret that the MREs claim responsibility for these acts. They say so on their website and boasted of their intentions to intimidate the venue until it caved in. In a post dated 15 April, MRA London stated, as a direct threat to the centre: “we will publically manacle you to their hateful ideology”(sic). Police reports made as a result of MRA intimidation are still under investigation. We’re not at liberty to reveal further details about the intimidation tactics which may make someone, who has inadvertently become caught up in this simply because they’re doing the wrong job at the wrong time, vulnerable. I have the utmost sympathy and compassion for the targeted staff and would, in all matters, wish to protect and support them.

Off to Work have put a statement on their Facebook page, which you can see here: https://www.facebook.com/offtowork/posts/10151561719698958 and there will be more to say at a later date either by the company or the organisers of radfem2013, but this statement makes clear that Off To Work confirms our version of events, rather than stavver’s:

“Our cancellation of the booking was a very difficult decision, but one that we have made to protect the safety of our venue staff……We wish Radfem a successful conference.”

MRE HARASSMENT OF RADFEMS

We too are targets for the MREs. Despite being a responsible and considerate organiser who has fought against social injustices all my life, I don’t doubt that I am already a target-in-waiting for the MREs. Threats have turned to us as organisers and to our attendees. There comes a time in our lives when it is right to openly speak truths. For me, that time has come. I will not stay silent when a group of thugs attempt to bully and harass their way into disrupting a peaceful, lawful conference to talk about the rights of women. They are bullying women who are already survivors of multiple abuse and who are living with trauma. That the irony of this is lost on those so blinkered by hatred towards radical feminists (and yet consider themselves champions of “intersectional” social injustices) resonates with me

There are examples all across the net of how feminists and radical feminists are targeted by this male extremist group. They offered a reward of one thousand dollars to find out the real name of a woman and, once they got it, they “doxxed” her. They showed a video of another woman and harassed her with death threats and other nasty tactics so badly that she disappeared. There is story after story on their website about how these thugs consider themselves “victims” of a feminist conspiracy of power and how (radical) feminists are out to destroy the male class through “mass genocide“. The reality and truths of women’s lives is twisted to paint men as victims and feminism as a dominant force in society

MALESTREAM PRESS DISTORTIONS

In her bog post, Stavvers relies on a quote in an article in The Sunday Times to make her argument about why radical feminists are not the innocent victims of an MRE intimidation campaign. We are currently investigating with Off To Work and London Irish centre how such a false and misleading quote came into the public domain because no one is claiming responsibility for it. So far, we’ve drawn a blank as to how it happened and have launched a series of formal press complaints about the article. It should be clear from the Off To Work statement that concerns about “hate speech” did not lead to their decision. The following statement; “We have made this difficult decision based entirely on our available infrastructure and the wellbeing of our staff [...] without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference”. In other words, accusations of “hate speech”, breaches of equality and diversity policies, or legislation, were not part of the decision-making process. I draw you back to this: The venue has made the decision “to protect the safety of our venue staff“. There is also a failure to protect a vulnerable group who have made a booking transparently and in good faith. The way the Sunday Times article is written with a first paragraph stating that there were complaints that some involved with radfem2013 “advocate violence against men”, when there’s absolutely no evidence of any such thing, suggests that MREs are working behind the scenes somewhere and it was a put up job to shit-stir, using a malestream media, to create problems for the venue and organisers and mask the truth about bully boy tactics.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN TRANS/QUEER/ALLIES AND MRES

As I watch the tweets and the bog posts mushrooming, both this year, and last, I observe collaboration between those who are uncritical about gender and MREs and similarities in approach between the 2. Here are some of them:

* Presenting the political views of radfems in an inaccurate, unfair and ludicrous light

* Once they have established the false presentation of what radical feminism is, arguing with that false presentation as if it’s fact

* 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)

* Shutting down debate, or opposing presentations of radical feminism, by calling an individual names (e.g. “bigot” in the case of queer allies and “man-hater” in the case of MREs)

* Using a range of intimidation tactics to prevent us from meeting such as writing emotive but untrue emails to anyone who‘ll listen, doxxing, claiming they know that what we do is unlawful or contravenes policies etc

In an incredible reversal relating to just who is aligning themselves with MRES, stavvers’ bog states: I hope RadFem2013 giving MRAs the credit for something they didn’t do isn’t the beginning of an alliance forming. Allying with those who seek to intimidate you. Yes, that makes sense.

WIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS 

In my view, cancelling the booking is the wrong way of “protecting venue staff”. There are numerous ways staff could be protected but cancelling a booking for a group of women who’ve done nothing wrong sends out a very dangerous message. It says bully boy tactics get you somewhere. It has long term implications for feminism, radical feminism, and the ability of “neutral” venues to freely provide a platform for events about social injustice without fear for their own safety. Did your mum give you the same advice mine gave me when I was at risk of attack from school bullies? She said “Fight back, if you shrink away, they will do it all the more until they get what they want”. And so I did and they backed off. Businesses have a responsibility to cater for, and protect, vulnerable groups and, despite the unacceptable pressure brought to bear, that is a reasonable expectation, particularly, as everything was thoroughly discussed beforehand.

That a venue is being bullied out of offering a booking, that radfems are in fear their real life details will be revealed and “doxxed” leading to death threats, should be of grave concern for those for whom radical change matters. Instead, stavvers and friends/allies focus on myths, lies, and distortions about radical feminism, even equating radical feminism, (concerned with the well-being of females), with MREs themselves. It would be hard to find two sets of agendas more opposed – but stavver’s attempt to align the politics is an example of how queers/allies have colluded with the MREs to mask the real threat in this story. And the real threat is that women coming together to politically organise, and anyone who supports them, have, and are, bombarded with terrorist tactics until something caves.

I know it’s such a cliché but I can’t get out of my head “First they came for the radical feminists but I was not a radical feminist…” Then they came for the socialist feminists and so on across the different strands of feminism until “And then they came for the non-political non-gender conforming people and there was no one left to speak for me”. You don’t have to like all radical feminists or the politics of radical feminism but what has happened, so far, with radfem2013 sets a dangerous precedent for all women, all feminists and all those involved in the struggle for radical social change. There’s a lot of myths flying about. Stavvers, do the radical left a favour and withdraw yours.

Read More

I am going to #RadFem2013.

When I first wrote that I was going to RadFem2013 two months ago I did so with trepidation and fear because I knew what the reaction would be from that core group of white, middle class ciswomen who claim to be feminists.

And, I was right.

Their deliberate attempts to besmirch my reputation and harass me are not making me reconsider attending RadFem2013. Frankly, the abusive behaviour, harassment and general nincompoopery I have  experienced in the past few weeks has made my desire to attend RadFem2013 even stronger. I may not be a real radical feminist [however you want to define that] but I do know it is not feminist to use abusive, aggressive, male language to maliciously attack other women who have made the cardinal sin of not being a member of your Borg [however you want to define that].

As I have said countless other times, feminism is a journey. We are all at different stages. We are all on different paths. We are all learning. We all want nothing less than women's liberation. How about we spend more time listening to each other and less time threatening violence? And, I can't even believe this needs to be said, spend less time with MRAs. 

If you need to side with MRAs to win the argument, you've already lost your soul. 

I made a mistake several weeks ago and lashed out in anger when I learned that several women were telling lies about me on twitter via subtweets. I subtweeted into my timeline something along the lines of "that psychotic bitch they are all whining about is me". The original tweet is still in my timeline because I thought it unacceptable to delete the tweet when I had clearly crossed a line. I also apologised for making that statement. No one called me a psychotic bitch. They were telling a number of lies about me but that isn't an excuse for what I tweeted. I was wrong and I apologised. 

I would have hoped that this would be the end of the situation and that we could all move on and act like adults. Yet, I'm still being targeted by a very clear smear campaign because I have publicly labelled myself an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist. 

How do we expect to liberate women from male violence when supposed feminists are using the very language and tactics of men to harass and stalk other women? 

Since when did it become acceptable to trigger other women in order to score points in an argument?

This is not my feminism. My feminism is about liberating all women and children from the capitalist-patriarchy. It is not about insulting, denigrating or lying about women. Sure, I've made mistakes. We all make mistakes. 

My feminism is woman-centered. 

My feminism is about hearing women's voices. I am very privileged to be able to hear the voices of thousands of women via twitter and facebook. I learn everyday from women who make me a better feminist. I've also learned that it doesn't matter what I do or say, there will always be those who insist on causing fights because they enjoy them. I'm not playing their games anymore.

How about women start acting like women and not over-priveleged toddlers with poor impulse control?

I am going to #RadFem2013 and, childcare permitting, I plan on attending the UK Feminista Summer School, as I have done in the past, and, hopefully, I'll be at the feminist conferences in Newcastle and London in the fall. 

I am a feminist. I believe in women. I will fight for women. I will not allow the behaviours of a few on twitter to stop me. 

After all, if they aren't interested in what I have to say, they don't actually have to read my blog or follow me on twitter. 

[And, fyi, there are a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes in my blog. They reflect my disability but if you must use my disability to insult me, feel free. After all, the only ones it reflects poorly on are those who do so.]

Read More

Jezebel: Could We Please Stop Confusing Humanism with "Humanism"

This image is by Tatsuya Ishida at Sinfest

I have a love/ hate relationship with Jezebel. Sometimes they are just spot-on. Sometimes they are a bit confused. But, mostly, they seem to forget what that word feminism means and they participate in the same women-blaming culture they claim to be critiquing [see: anything they've published about Kim Kardashian]. Lindy West's piece "If I Admit that 'Hating Men' is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?"is one of those pieces that I really, really want to like but West resorts to some lazy stereotypes about RadFems which generally annoy me. There is nothing more dire than a supposedly feminist organisation completely misunderstanding the political theory of radical feminism and babbling on about how the RadFem community of tumblr hate men. Yeah, some do. Let's take 10 minutes to think about why this is and not resort to lazy stereotypes. And, erm, I may have missed a news item but I can't remember a single moment when a RadFem raped, tortured, abused or murdered a man. 

West also gets confused about the actual definition of "humanism". Now, I get that some of the MRAs out there insist on babbling about humanism in order to discredit feminism but do we really have to lower ourselves to their standards? Humanism has an actual definition which is historically and culturally situated within the Western understanding of the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution and the rejection of religious "truths". Granted these are all problematic theories in and of themselves but the MRA co-option of a term they don't understand doesn't require the rest of us to join in. The word MRAs [and other categories of anti-feminists] are looking for is equalist: the definition of which is "don't change anything because otherwise menz will have to acknowledge their misogyny and other generalised nincompoopery". Alright, possibly this definition works for humanism as well since I've not seen a definition of humanism which discusses sex/gender analysis but, really, it's not helpful to conflate the two just because MRAs are too dim to use Wikipedia. 

I guess what annoyed me is that most of the article is seriously brilliant. It just got let down by two lazy cliches. These are my favourite quotes from the piece: 

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of "misandry." You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don't hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you. 

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of "misandry!" from men and replies of "misandry isn't real" from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow "conversation" built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let's unpack it. I promise not to yell.

...

Feminism isn't about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it's about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women's basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field. It's not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they're women. It's that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn't sexism. But she shouldn't have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).
...
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy.  

The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy. 

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you. 

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Read More

I am going to RadFem 20123.

I've been worrying all week about writing this post. It feels dishonest not to write it but, at the same time, I find the anger that labelling oneself a Radical Feminst induces frightening. I have a half-finished blog post on my thoughts on radical feminism, socialism, and intersectionality that I actually don't want to finish writing because I would feel obligated to publish it and I'm not sure I'm ready for that. At the same time, it does feel like lying not to state that I label myself an anti-capitalist pro-radical feminist [anti-capitalist because I refuse to use the label socialist considering the endemic misogyny within the socialist movement that we're all supposed to pretend doesn't exist and pro-radical because I don't feel radical enough to call myself a radical feminism but that is mostly because of my anxiety than not being a radical feminist]. Just writing this is making me nauseous. 

But this is me trying to be honest.

I am going to RadFem 2013. 

I want to go to RadFem 2013. It is important to me for all the reasons outlined here on Sisterhood is Powerful. This is something I need to do for me. I understand that this means that some women whose opinions I respect will block me on twitter or unfriend me on Facebook and that makes me really very sad. I just don't want to lie about who I really am and I am an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist. 



My comments policy is here. Please read before posting comments.

Read More

Hugo Schwyzer is Not a Feminist

Normally, I'm not one for telling people whether or not they can self-define as feminists. I think it's rude and pointless. We all come to feminism from different perspectives and are all at different points of our feminist journey. It's counter-productive to insist on the right to label, or not, others. That said, there some pretty basic tenets of feminism that aren't negotiable. Perpetrators of domestic violence, rape and other forms of MVAW aren't feminists. I do think it is possible for men who express anti-feminist statements to change. I don't think violent men can change enough to ever be feminists.

This is why I am genuinely perplexed by the fawning that Hugo Schwyzer receives. He has consistently minimised his history of violence against women. Schwyzer writes of being an "accidental rapist" and "accidentally endangering" a former partner in a murder-suicide attempt.

I have no time for men who seek to minimise their personal history of MVAW by claiming personality disorders or drug addiction. Being a feminist means taking responsibility for one's actions and the consequences therein. Claiming that an episode of MVAW was "drug-fuelled" isn't taking responsibility. It is minimising one's responsibility. There is a huge difference between the statements "I am a recovering drug addict but my addiction does not minimise my culpability for the violence I committed" and "it was accidental VAW because I was stoned". 

One is forgivable because it involves genuine remorse. The other is not. 

Real male feminist/ feminist allies get this. They understand that their behaviour has no excuse, that it would remain unforgivable for many women and they don't insist on trying to get women to forgive them. They take responsibility for their actions and words quietly and without requiring cookies and blowjobs for being good boys.

Hugo Schwyzer needs to start listening to women. He needs to start acknowledging that there are valid reasons that women find him frightening and then he needs to stop trying to intimidate them into silence. When he stops trying to silence women, I might be willing to engage with his work. As long as he continues to embrace the silencing of women who disagree with him, Schwyzer will never be a feminist.

And, let's be realistic here, if Mike Tyson, who has a similar history of domestic violence and rape, were to start referring to himself as a feminist whilst blithering on about hegemonic masculinity, no feminists would be lining up behind him to stroke his ego and insist on his admittance to feminist spaces. We'd be laughing our asses off at him. Schwyzer is allowed in because he's white. That's a huge problem that white feminists need to address because we are silencing our sisters by allowing Schwyzer to continue pontificating as if he were the Messiah of Feminism.

Read More

Feminism, Men and Women-Only Spaces

The demise of feminism is back in the news again. Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Katy Perry have both made public statements about how unnecessary feminism is to their personal lives. Suzanne Venker has not only declared feminism dead but claims that there is now a war on men.   Ironically, this death of feminism has coincided with very public demonstrations of feminist activism, as well as increased public debate on the issue of the inclusion of men within the feminist movement. 

Yet, the debate over the inclusion of men within feminism movement has always been important. It has never stopped being important. It has only re-emerged in the mainstream British press due to the backlashto the women-only RadFem 2012 conference in London in June; as well as the no-platforming on the Manchester Women-Up North Conference who chose to have one session for FAAB-women survivors of sexual violence only.

I support women-only spaces. I think they remain fundamental to the success of feminism as a political movement dedicated to the liberation of women. Yet, no one ever seems to ask feminists why they believe women-only spaces are important or why the exclusion of men from *some* feminist events is necessary for revolution. No one asks why feminists are moving back to women-only organising or why feminists are increasingly identifying as political lesbians or lesbian separatists?  Why are women-only spaces, once again, becoming so important? No one asks why there is such a backlash to thought of women-only organising? When people do ask, they don't appear to be hearing the answer.

Whilst the inclusion of men within the movement is necessary, they do not need to be involved at every meeting and conference. There are thousands of ways that men can be, and are, involved with feminist activism that doesn't require them encroaching on women-only spaces. They can help financially support women's organisations like Rape Crisis, Shakti Women's Aid, Women's Aid, Nia, or Southall Black Sisters. Men can join activist groups like Object, UK Feminista, Fawcett Society, and Abortion Rights. Men can fundraise by holding car washes and bake sales. They can join the White Ribbon Campaign and help to raise awareness about male violence against women and children.

The most important thing men can do to help the feminist movement is to challenge sexism every time they witness it. They have to challenge every rape joke. They have to challenge every man who minimises domestic violence. They have to step up every time; not just once in a while but every time they witness sexism. Sometimes this means they have to challenge themselves and recognise that their own behaviour is sexist. Sometimes it means accepting that they won't be allowed into every feminist space. As a white, heterosexual feminist it would be hypocritical of me to demand to be allowed into feminist spaces for Black, Ethnic and Minority Women. It would be equally hypocritical for me to demand entry into a feminist space for lesbians-only, just as it would be hypocritical for me to demand entry into a room of male survivors of sexual violence or testicular cancer. Campaigning for women's liberation to bring about the destruction of the capitalist-patriarchy and the creation of true equality does not mean every person deserves equal access. It means hearing the specific needs of specific groups and taking those into account. Like kindergarten, it's about learning fairness.

We need men in the feminist movement. We need men who understand the real long-term effects of male violence. We need men who listen. We need men who support without dominating. Male domination of speech, both in public and private, has been well proven in research for thirty years now. Dale Spender wrote about it in The Writing of the Sex? in 1989. Andrea Dworkin wrote about male silencing tactics in her classic text Intercourse:

"Men often react to women’s words - speaking and writing - as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women’s words with violence. So we lower our voices. Women whisper, Women apologize. Women shut up. Women trivialize what we know. Women shrink. Women pull back. Most women have experienced enough dominance from men - control, violence, insult, contempt - that no threat seems empty."

Margaret Atwood wrote about men dominating classrooms in early 1980s. There have been countless studies in education and within the workplace that demonstrate the silencing of women's voices within the presence of men. The largest global study on violence against women found that it was the feminist movement that had the biggest impact on tackling the issue; much of this was accomplished with women-only spaces. This is what men need to recognise and understand.

The main reason why I believe women-only spaces are integral to the feminist movement is because the silencing of women's voices never stops. Sometimes the only way to stop the silencing is to uninvite men and that's the lesson men need to take from this. If they insist on attending, whose voices are they really silencing?

Published in the Huffington Post here.

Read More

Femen Redux: Still Conforming to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test

I've blogged about Femen before because I was utterly gobsmacked that a photo of a topless Femen protestor without any political context managed to win a World Press Photo award (and the total lack of understanding of the irony of this photo being called The New Amazons). Supposedly, Femen protests against sex tourism, the legalisation of prostitution and the selling of "brides" internationally. How they quite expect the Patriarchy to take them seriously when they protest using pretty basic anti-woman signifiers is beyond me and that's without getting into them selling prints of their breasts as a fundraising tactic. In using women's bodies as a canvas of protest, Femen are conforming to the norms of Patriarchal objectification of women's bodies. Their message is obscured by the medium of their protest because the medium conforms to the normalised construction of the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. As Exiled Stardust says, getting naked or stripping aren't acts of Feminist defiance. They are exactly what the Patriarchy  wants after all: 

Doing what men want is appeasement. Feminism is resistance. Appeasement and resistance are opposing forces; the more you do of one, the less you can do of the other. That’s why these groups are insidious; they divert feminist energy into meaningless acts that only serve male interests. Men don’t care if you write incendiary messages of revolt all over your naked body, as long as they get to see that body. 

We all have to appease in one way or another to survive, but let’s not confuse that behavior with feminist activism. It’s not. Let’s do as little of it as we can get away with, and as much resistance as we are capable of.

Femen's activism is the same old Patriarchal twaddle dressed up as "Fun Feminism". The objectification of women's bodies to make a political point isn't new. It isn't clever. It's just the Patriarchy trying out a new hat. After all, PETA's been doing this shit for years and their supporters are a whose who of celebrities with criminal convictions for Violence against Women.

Whilst I'm willing to concede that there might be a reason why using women's naked bodies as a platform of political protest in the Ukraine is an interesting tactic because I know nothing of the their Feminist movement, it isn't a new or even interesting tactic in Western Europe. More importantly, I think it's a tactic deliberately chosen in order to get recognition in the western media because appealing to horny men is really the only way women get any attention. I think Femen are more interested in the attention than they are in achieving specific Feminist goals. They are hopping on far too many bandwagons, such as the Free Pussy Riot movement. Frankly, there are very few attention-seekers who haven't hopped on the Free Pussy Riot bandwagon. It's proving to be quite a profitable one for everyone but the two women currently being transported to a penal colony in Russia. Inna Shevchenko demonstrated her "support" for Pussy Riot by destroying a crucifix in Kiev with a chainsaw. This stunt coincided exactly with the court in Moscow finding Pussy Riot guilty of hooliganism; make of that what you will.  Femen also occupied the Louvre to protest the rape of a young woman called Mariam by two Tunisian police officers. This article seems to imply that the Femen protest in Paris was more important than the woman in Tunis who protested outside the courtroom. Maybe I'm over-thinking things here, but I think the women of Tunis taking to the streets despite the crackdown on women in Tunisia is a shitload more important and so much braver than a bunch of topless women running around the Louvre. Thing is, which protest got more coverage? And, which one really deserved the media attention?














Femen's anti-burkha protests are equally offensive. Regardless of what I, as an individual, think of burkhas, the fact of the matter is that many Muslim wear them. It is utterly arrogant for a group of non-Muslim women to tell Muslim women what they can and can not do. The debate over whether or not the burkha is anti-feminist or whether or not it should be banned is a debate that needs to involve the voices of Muslim women. This does not mean that others can not have opinions. I think the burkhas use as a tool of oppression for all Muslim women in some countries supercedes its use as a tool for freedom for a small number of women in "western" countries. However, Muslim women's voices need to be central in this discussion. In this case, Femen are attacking an easy target; one which has very little access to mass media. Veiled Muslim women are some of the most frequently silenced of women's voices. Femen aren't really doing anything really radical here. They are just doing exactly what western neoliberal men do: attack a visible target with no power. A radical approach would have been for members of Femen to approach Muslim women's groups and ask them how to support them. Running about in front of the Eiffel Tower stripping off burkhas to reveal young, thin white women in their underwear isn't radical. It's not even very interesting. Setting up a "bootcamp" in Paris to teach French feminists how to tackle the Patriarchy using tactics developed in the Ukraine is also not very clever. It's a reversal of the normal imperialism but, nonetheless, it shows a rather incredible lack of self-awareness.

I would not have bothered to write another blogpost on Femen had I not caught the discussion on Femen live-streamed on AlJazeera called the "Future of Feminism". I knew from the beginning that the discussion was going to piss me off when the host got herself confused between Radical Feminism, the political theory, and radical forms of protest. Femen are not a Radical Feminist group. Femen's idea of "sextremism" is not Radical Feminist. This is not to say that they aren't feminists. Femen clearly defines that way. They just aren't Radical Feminists. That said, I agree with Chloe Angyal from Feministing that we should be having discussions about the role of women's bodies in the public sphere but it isn't Femen starting these conversations. These conversations have been started recently by the Everyday Sexism project, the Turn Your Back on 3 campaigns, the publication of nude photos of Kate Middleton, and the unmasking of violent, predatory internet trolls. Femen are getting media attention for being naked; not for their message. They are just like PETA: equally tedious and utterly incapable of listening to others. And, this is the problem. The issues Femen claims to want to discuss are important. They are so very, very important, particularly the issue of sex trafficking and prostitution in Eastern Europe. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable and poor women is increasing at astronomical rates. But, this isn't what the media is discussing. Femen's insistence on baring their breasts, regardless of what they are actually protesting, just reinforces Patriarchal norms. They have become objects for men to wank to rather than feminist protestors. Whatever message they had, is obfuscated. Instead, their breasts are what is deemed important. 

We won't destroy the Patriarchy by reinforcing it's constructions of "acceptable" women. We won't destroy the Patriarchy by targeting one small group of women and demanding that they remove their veil, without even considering the political and cultural structures in which they are either forced or, in some cases, choose to wear the veil. We can not demand the government of Tunisia tackle the issue of rape by police officers by running about art galleries naked. We won't change the control that the Church has by chopping down crosses half-naked. Protest needs to be vibrant, engaging and culturally specific. Suffragettes marching on Parliament this week was truly beautiful but it would have been a stupid protest in somewhere like Zimbabwe where the symbol of the Suffragette does not have the same political meaning. Femen's protests lack the imagery that Pussy Riot managed. We will not smash the Patriarchy by reinforcing its belief that the only women who matter are those who conform to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test.

As many a wise feminist has said: if the penis is keen, it probably demeans. And, that's the problem with Femen. Men aren't listening to the message. They are wanking to the image.

Read More

Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism

I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's read a single post on my blog that I am most emphatically an anti-porn feminist. I believe that Robin Morgan was correct when she said "pornography is the theory, rape is the practise."* I support Dworkin's thesis that porn isn't just the representation of VAW but that the very existence of pornography is VAW.** I believe that people who buy and/or watch porn are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture.*** I believe people who go to strip clubs, burlesque clubs and lap dancing clubs are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe men who buy "Lads Mags" are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe that people who argue that pornography is an issue of free speech are deliberately obfuscating the violence committed on women's bodies in the porn industry and the violence to women outwith it. I do not believe that the existence of so-called feminist porn is anything but an attempt to obfuscate the hegemonic construction of porn which privileges the male orgasm at the expense of women's bodily integrity and existence. I believe the porn serves only to reinforce the hegemonic construction of heterosexuality within the capitalist-Patriarchy. I believe the language of "choice" and "empowerment" are lies perpetuated by the capitalist-patriarchy in order to deny culpability for VAW. I believe that women's liberation will only come with the complete destruction of the capitalist-Patriarchy and the eradiction of pornified rape culture.

I think it should come as no surprise that I love Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism. Long is a radical feminist, anti-porn activist who is an active member of the London Feminist Network and Object. It's a brilliant thesis. It's both a critical analysis of the representations of anti-porn feminism, pro-porn feminism and the pro-porn campaign within the media and culture; as well as a history of the anti-porn movement within Britain. It is an academic text full of theory but is incredibly easy to read as Long doesn't allow the jargon of academia to obfuscate her message. Long outlines the numerous factors in the ongoing pornification of society, which include but are not limited to, lads' mags, strip clubs, and the normalisation of the Playboy empire.

But, most importantly, it is a radical feminist critique of the debates surrounding pornography [and prostitution]. Far too often the "debates" on porn within the media focus on porn as an empowering tool for women [conveniently ignoring the fact that men are the ones getting rich from porn] and porn as an expression of human sexuality [and ignoring just how much porn dictates a hegemonic, heterosexual, racist sexuality which, in and of itself, is incredibly limited]. Long traces the feminist activism against pornography and illustrates some of the more successful feminist activist anti-porn campaigns: from Object's Stripping the Illusion to UK Feminista's Eff Off Hef. Long has given a voice to both the survivors of the porn industries and the grassroots activists fighting against pornographication. She has contextualised the anti-porn feminist movement in the UK within diverse factions of feminism.

It is a brilliant book and everyone should read it; especially those still trying to argue the libertarian assumptions of the total lack of harm caused by porn because some men like it.

Julia Long has a book reading  Sheffield October 15 at the Quaker Meeting House at 7:15

*Robin Morgan, (1974) Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicles of a Femininst, New York: Random House

**Andrea Dworkin, (1979) Pornography: Men Possessing Women, London: Women's Press

***Susan Brownmiller (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster

Read More