29 Jul 2012
Radical feminists are acting like a cult
WRITTEN BY:
ROZ KAVENEY
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 May 2012 12.07 BST
The banning of trans people from RadFem2012 is just one of
the disturbing aspects of this monolithic conference
Twitter has been flooded with controversy for the last week
about the RadFem2012 conference, currently booked into the Conway Hall, which
announced its membership as restricted to "women born women and living as
women" (it originally said "biological women", but that got
changed after much mockery). This disturbed the trans community, which it is
meant to exclude, but also those feminists who regard trans-exclusion as
something other than radical.
To be clear, I know no trans women, still less trans men,
who want to spend time in a space organized by people who slander us. However,
one of the main speakers at the conference is Sheila Jeffreys, who has a
forthcoming book critiquing trans medical care. In much of her earlier writing
(see, for example, page 71 of this journal), she calls for "transsexualism"
to be declared a human rights violation and then surgery banned by
international law, so it's fairly clear that we have an interest in the debate.
What Jeffreys proposes has, of course, other implications for all women – the
Vatican would love to make similar declarations about reproductive freedom.
There is also, more importantly, the question of whether
what Jeffreys and her supporters say about trans people constitutes hate
speech. As of two days ago, the Conway Hall expressed their concerns about the
legality of trans exclusion, and about hate speech, to the conference
organisers.
One of the problems with the Internet is that it is possible
for people to lock themselves further and further into a restricted mind set
where they hear no other voices. On the other hand, it makes it possible for
those with a strong stomach to overturn every stone and find out just what
people are saying and thinking. It's clear that Jeffreys and her supporters are
very hurt and disappointed that so many younger women don't agree with her –
Jeffreys blames the corrupting influence of post-modernism and queer theory;
"trans-critical" lawyer Cath Brennan - who uses Twitter to deride
trans people's experiences and mock non-trans feminists who are their allies -
is also a RadFem2012 attendee.
Of course, the trans issue is only one aspect of the
conference. Its mission statement makes it clear that this is a
"female-only, activism-focused conference with a radical feminist
agenda". Space will not be given to anti-feminist sentiments, which is
arguably another way of saying that, on most crucial issues, the party line is
predetermined and that any dissent from correct "radical feminist"
thinking will be stigmatised and driven out. Jeffreys makes it clear in many of
her writings that post-modernism and queer theory are the enemy, and that
piercing, tattooing, BDSM and role play are all pollutions of a feminism that
is nothing to do with choice or preference, everything to do with commitment.
Indeed, the Radical Feminist Hub, to which she contributes regularly, links to
resources arguing that what it calls "penis-in-vagina" sex is a bad
idea, from which women should choose to refrain.
There are many debates within feminism, and the women's
movement ought not to be a monolith of orthodoxy. There are, for example,
legitimate arguments on both sides of discussion of sex work – whether the
stress should be placed on prohibition or harm reduction, say. But such a
debate will not be allowed at RadFem2012. I hate to say this of other feminists,
but aspects of their feminism – the anti-intellectualism, emphasis on innate
knowledge, fetishisation of tiny ideological differences, heresy hunting,
conspiracy theories, rhetorical use of images of disgust, talk of stabs in the
back and romantic apocalypticism – smack less of feminism than of a cult.
18 Jul 2012
11 Jul 2012
Daily Burlesque: Stalking the Stocking
Daily Burlesque: Stalking the Stocking: The visual impact of stockings is erotic and forceful. When I was a child I was so fascinated by the images of stockings in old lingerie ads...
9 Jul 2012
8 Jul 2012
Change and conformity.
Over the last few days I have been contemplating these two words:
Change
Conformity
Both to me are ideas within humanity I have, throughput my life, either rebelled against or cherished. Change. This is one I cherish. The ability of society to change. But, it takes a strong minded person to accept change and envelop it. Throughout history, man had feared change. feared the unknown. People have adopted the attitude that the world is OK as it is. They fear change, they prefer the security of the status quo in which they live in. Even those who may think change in any form, whether social ideas, democracy, politics, attitudes, social systems requires change, will not pursue change unless it affects them on an individual level. Who cares if those living on an estate 3 miles away are trapped in a circle of degeneration? As long as it doesn't affect us personally, it can stay the same. these are the people who join the bandwagon of rebellion in thought only, for, the most morbid fear to mankind is the fear of a new idea, doctrine or belief. We would rather , as Shakespeare noted, choose to bear the ills which we have 'than flee to others that they not know of.'
The idea of Gay Marriage in America, Women as Bishops, attitudes towards bdsm...I could go on. Minority Issues, as they are classed by society. Attitudes need to change. This cannot be done as long as we are willing to stay silent, trade the future for a quiet life. Change cannot come until everyone is informed about these issues, stereo types are crushed, false information corrected and support is given.
This brings me to to conformity. I am, by nature, a nonconformist! I will not, if I can help it, conform to the majority idea, rule or view point if I do not believe in it.
Non conformity is difficult. We have been brought up in a society governed by people pressure, a conditioning of our minds to accept the status quo, a governing of group consensus. we are physiologically conditioned to take the path of least resistance. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once said that; 'In this world a man must either be anvil or hammer.' We must either mould and create a better society, or we allow society to mould and condition us to the views of the majority rule.
People fear taking a stand supporting an idea or belief which may make us stand alone against prevailing public opinion. We would rather not stand alone. Collectivism crushes individualism. We fear being singled out, noted for being different. How many of us truly have the audacity to express our convictions in public? How many of us would express enjoyment of BDSM during a discussion in the staff room? Society tells us: Its OK, in fact, encouraged, to ENJOY drinking alcohol on a Friday night until you can't stand, until you are sick, to making a fool of yourself in public, to urinate against a public wall while intoxicated, but, to admit to enjoying BDSM? No way!
Nonconformists. If it was not for disciplined, dedicated nonconformists, man kind would never have grown. We would still be segregated within society according to our colour, race or religion. Women would still be waiting for the right to vote. We would still think the World was flat.
I am a nonconformist.
All things must change to something new, to something strange. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)