Feminist Cultists and the myth of the ‘Broad Church’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012
One of the most common reactions to my criticisms of feminism in recent years has been along the lines of: ‘feminism is a broad church, there are many different perspectives within it. Don’t taint us all with the same brush!’
It is in my view, a way of trying to stamp on dissent. To pull the rug from under any serious challenge to the dogma. And often it works.
Roz Kaveney’s article in the Guardian this week is a case in point. She is distancing herself and feminism in general from the ‘cultist’ behaviour of the people organising the #radfem2012 conference in July. Their stipulation that trans women are not welcome at the event has been noted as exclusionary and plain wrong.
Roz writes:
‘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.’
My retort to her is simple. Try leaving this ‘broad church’ and you might find it displays the exact qualities of a ‘cult’ you describe above.
We have been having a discussion about what it is like to be cast as a ‘heretic’ for being women daring to reject feminism as a dogma at QRG blog:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/feminist-witch-hunts/
The radfems are in some ways only explicitly stating what ‘reasonable’ feminists express more subtly. That the supposed ‘enemies’ of the ‘women’s movement’ are actually …yes… men.
I have not seen one feminist in all the furore over this #radfem2012 ‘bigoted’ conference, suggest that maybe it should also be open to men delegates. In 2012. I suppose that feminists, radical, liberal, Tory or other, are all really good old fashioned girls at heart. Keeping the old misandrous traditions alive.
Well then fuck ‘em. Sheila’s not my sister. Neither is Julie. Neither is Suzanne. And neither, though it saddens me to say it, is Roz.*
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/02/09/misandry-the-acceptable-prejudice/
*Roz Kaveney blocked me on twitter a while back for…arguing about feminism.
With respect, I blocked you not for arguing about feminism but for constant and unpleasant attacks on women who are my friends, and because I came to feel that we were never going to agree about anything serious.
they are not your friends. They are misandrous, transphobic feminists. Good luck though
Actually, there has been a bit of debate at individual conference and event level on whether or not there should be a per se blanket ban on men. See here, http://www.gaycork.com/forum/threads/womens-fun-weekend-2009.8339/
There was holy war over this event at a debate in gay marriage given by an academic, because gay men were excluded.
The links to various petitions and the comments on them speak for themselves. Interestingly enough, the event above, does not turn away transwomen. And i think that might be my fault for bringing a trans friend last time I went in 2005. I honestly think that the women hadn’t the guts to say no. You wonder what might have happened in the RadFem conference had the trans community deliberately stayed quiet and then showed up. A lot of these women have the balls to scream from the anonymity of twitter and blogs but it’s different when real women are standing at the door staring them in the face.
Roz Kaveney left out Sexual Paranoia as one of the reasons why feminism is a cult.
Off topic to your post but on the point of feminist distancing; I recently discovered a blog called ‘Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog’ where, in a post apologising for giving the oxygen of publicity to a TERF event, the writer proceeds to attempt to amputate TERFs from feminism altogether in the comments section:
“After a bit more reading, I think the trans-exclusionary set should better be described as TES, with the S standing for separatists. A lot of the positions that are presented seem far too essentialist to be adequately described as feminist, let alone radical feminist.”
A search for “radical feminism” on this blog will return the facetious post “Aren’t feminists all lesbian man-haters?”(which also happens to be the search result for “misandry”). Interestingly, the search result for “sexism against men” hilariously returns the page “Derailing for Dummies”.
I wasn’t quite sure what it was I had supposedly derailed but, for a blog that by definition of its title deals in the basics of feminism, this all struck me as rather radical.
I was sent to Feminism 101′s “What is sexism?” FAQ when I dared to suggest that a feminist was sexist for claiming that the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened if more women were in power.
Their FAQ explains that “feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men” and directs the reader to the entry on male privilege. The people who disagreed with this definition in the comments were dismissed as trolls, MRAs and whiny bigots.
These are meant to be the ‘good feminists’: the non-radical kind who can be relied upon to present feminism as a wonderful movement for sexual equality. I can’t say that I was particularly convinced.