Login Join IOPS

Are radical feminists trying to take over the ICC?

forest
  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:

I was shocked today when I read the ICC proposals. Note the part about "large majority women", that goes against the IOPS mission, but is what I have found prevalent is not a desire for gender equality but taking over. I think most IOPS members want a "kinship" that is neither patriarchy nor matriarchy.

http://www.iopsociety.org/article/icc-reports

"Given the message that we, the International Consultative Committee of IOPS delivered in a blog post (that is visible on the IOPS page - http://www.iopsociety.org/ ) - that it would be excellent if all members of IOPS would try to soon recruit one additional member each, a woman, to try to double membership and simultaneously move from a minority to a large majority women (italics are mine. ed.) - it seems that perhaps we should take our own advice and apply it to the composition of the ICC itself. "

I prefer the feminist ideas that desire equality of treatment, respect and trust which is diametrically opposed to the other (mostly radical or extremist) feminist ideas which promote the opposite. Not all feminist ideas are worth the same consideration. We have to recognise that ideas are always going to be diverse in any community.

Here's one of many examples I could come up with off of the top of my head without needing to dig too hard. As a white male and sincerely concerned about gender equality in 1994 I was berated for having an idea that was contrary to my (female) women's studies prof, and instead of intellectually engaging with me she shut me down by glibly saying "You would think that because you are a white wasp male."

This type of approach helps noone build a better world. The only way is to listen and discuss matters rationally with each other and try to put our biases aside.

Discussion 23 Comments

  • LedSuit ' 20th Dec 2013

    As noted before Jason, by others, this could have been posted in the forum section, not the international blog. Your points above also could have been part of the discussion, ongoing, that you initiated on your other blog, from which you have been strangely absent! Further, I find no necessary correlation between what you determine to be radical feminism, and the desire for IOPS "to try to double membership and simultaneously move from a minority to a large majority women." A majority of women does not mean a majority of what you deem to be "radical feminists". I further feel, upon your disclosure of a personal matter while studying, that perhaps you should endeavour to practice what you preach when you say the best approach "...is to listen and discuss matters rationally with each other and try to put our biases aside."

    Further, if you have issues regarding radical feminism, perhaps instigating a discussion in the appropriate forum section may help in working through such things. Personally, if I was discussing such things, the opinion of a large majority of women would be most welcome.

    One more thing. Your first paragraph, whether you are aware of it or not, verges on what is, within the cultural sphere, referred to as reverse racism. The reverse sexism that you allude to here, is in my eyes, untenable, if not damn near impossible.

  • 20th Dec 2013

    So you stating that you think women should have more to say than men? My mother thought that too, and she was brainwashed by a womens shelter and a womens clinic to think men are the enemy, and she committed horrible atrocities of unspeakable character. The idea that women are incapable of making mistakes or even committing horrble atrocities denies what it is to be human. The moment you vaunt one gender over another is when you lose your own humanity. My mother deprived me of sleep, love and food in favour of my younger sister who was golden to her. She died 2 moths ago and when I expressed my tergiversation about the female who molested me I was told by a left wing guy on facebook that I should honour her because she gave birth to me. I wondered after that post, what if a girl were raped by her father and he died, would anyone question her post? We all know the answer. (as for the absent part it's only because my dad and mom both died in the last 3 months, and there are many loose ends to take care of) I'm hoping for a more sophisticated argument from you in the future.

  • LedSuit ' 21st Dec 2013

    Jason,

    "So you stating that you think women should have more to say than men?"

    I stated no such thing. The thoughts you express after bare little connection to what I said, if at all, so I have nothing more to say other than refer you to your own statement."The only way is to listen and discuss matters rationally with each other and try to put our biases aside."

  • 21st Dec 2013

    So, I'm not quite sure what you said then, could you clarify for me?

  • LedSuit ' 21st Dec 2013

    1. Move such posts to forum rather than international blog.

    2. A majority of women does not mean a majority of what you deem to be "radical feminists".

    3. Start a conversation regarding your issues with what you deem "radical feminism" in the forum blog.

    4."Personally, if I was discussing such things, the opinion of a large majority of women would be most welcome." Merely a personal opinion not an argument.

    5. There is no fear of reverse sexism.

    Something like that.

    • 21st Dec 2013

      I'm not sure what you're bulleted list means at all, but:

      The forum is sweeping things under the rug and a majority of anyone should not be seen as desirable just as we would not want to see a majority of men. However, correcting the situation with a quota only suggests that women are somehow more important or some kind of goddesses. They can make heinous mistakes, just like the rest of us humans. Just ask Margaret Thatcher (she is no different than Ronald Reagan or any other "patriarch").

    • LedSuit ' 21st Dec 2013

      You asked for a clarification of what I wrote. Basically that was it in point form.

      Whether you want to use the forum or not to pursue whatever you wish is your decision but there are some who have pointed to the fact that that is the appropriate place for the sorts of issues you are raising.

      I was only responding to this blog, the issue of "radical feminism trying to take over the ICC." An absurd notion. I was not responding to the quota issue which you raised on another blog. Hence why I suggested that this new blog post of yours could have been a mere comment on your other blog. But that's probably a moot point or possibly even not understandable to you. I don't know.

      Here's something. When you practice fast tempos in music, sometimes you overcompensate by practicing faster than you will actually play so that when you perform you can nail the actual slightly slower tempo with ease. Suggesting the possibility of attaining a majority of women could be seen in a similar way. If IOPS could attain a majority of women, then perhaps we could relax in regard to the measures of attracting more.

      However, it certainly would NOT mean that "radical feminism" (whatever you mean by it) is taking over anything, or that women in general, regardless of their stance on feminism, are taking over.

      "However, correcting the situation with a quota only suggests that women are somehow more important or some kind of goddesses." Another absurd comment. It suggests nothing of the sort. It may suggest you have some issues in this regard, however.

      I hope I have made myself clear.

      Cheers.

  • LedSuit ' 21st Dec 2013

    Oh, and I might add, that NO-ONE is trying to take over anything here. The title of your blog is absurd and not supported by anything your present as evidence.

  • 21st Dec 2013

    This is why I love listening to musicians do their music but when they open their mouths regarding politics I yawn. Bono shouldn't just mean good ear but good listening skills. I am guessing you are 32 years of age.

  • 21st Dec 2013

    you're drunk, go to sleep, and read what you said in the morning. The truth of the morning light will wipe the cobwebs from your eyes. Please, before you embarrass yourself even more, young grasshopper.

  • Lambert Meertens 21st Dec 2013

    One's views may be shaped by one's experiences, so let me state up front that I've never had, or witnessed, unpleasant encounters with feminists touting radical or extremist ideas. I've occasionally run into unpleasantly aggressive activist women, but the issues involved were not related to feminism. On the other hand, I've seen no lack of expressions of male sexism and chauvinism. If there is a contest between the sexes which one has the more exaggerated sense of self-entitlement, men come out as the winner That makes it hard for me to relate to these repeated complaints about supposed radical feminism festering in the bossom of IOPS.

    The page referred to in the original posting is labeled "ICC Reports", but this is a misnomer. In actuality, the page lists decision proposals sent to the ICC - such proposals can be formulated by any ICC member. If I have a complaint it is about a lack of consistent transparency – why are these proposals anonymous and why don't we see the responses? We can only witness the outcome if it is somehow revealed in a blog, which it isn't systematically. Also, the page is apparently not complete, as we see no proposal leading to the April 2012 ICC message, and there have also been later proposals related to polling.

    The actual message supposedly about the excellency of moving to "a large majority women" referred to in the April 2012 decision proposal is the blog posting IOPS: A Priority, a Problem, and a Solution By ICC of 20th April 2012. It does not actually refer to majority [of] women at all – only to recruiting at least as many women as men as new members, something that, even in the utterly unlikely case it is 100% successful, will not lead to a female majority any time soon.

    This was just to set the record straight. For the rest, I agree totally with everything James wrote.

    • 22nd Dec 2013

      Maybe the problem with our very radically different experiences is that I live in a weird town called Winnipeg. Lots of feminists in this town believe 100% of all men are the problem, men have no feelings, men created capitalism and second wave feminism informs them to take over any Board of Directors, non-profit group, co-op for the glorious new beginning of a matriarchal society. They are cunning, clever and psychopathic, in fact it reminds me of the beginning of any dictatorship.

      Don't be duped and let narcissists hijack parecon.

    • Lambert Meertens 22nd Dec 2013

      I'm truly sorry that you went through such horrible experiences, which are another example of the sad fact that any ideology, when taken to extremes and thus robbed of compassion that stood in the way, will turn absurd and cruel. Liberating ourselves from inculcated conceptions in which people are prejudged not by who they are but by in which group they are put, whether class, race, creed, gender, or age group, is a difficult social and personal struggle. We should look upon all certainties with distrust and not silence the whispers from our hearts.

      But just look around on the site and read the discussions in the forums and on the blogs. I don't see many certainties there but find instead lots of expression of compassion. Nowhere do I see signs suggesting there is a risk of some radical ideology taking over IOPS.

    • 24th Dec 2013

      In Winnipeg they are not just unpleasantly aggressive women they control (mostly) all left thinking men. They cry rape or accuse men of things so unbelievable that it's made up in their head. Boy can they have maliciously fertile imaginations that have severely impact thousands of people. But they are creating a fake anti-boys club and the modus is to behave like their fantasies of a boys club is and then make it so believable that no man can ever hurt them again. I know this is deep stuff and terrifying, but it's more true than anyone with a conscience wants to realise, because it's so painful to even think about. I lived it. I'll spare you the details in exchange for learning the lessons I have learned about the dark side of humanity.

      In solidarity,
      Jason John Loughead

      ps- John is the name of my father and am proud of. I piss on my mother's corpse.

  • Gerry Conroy 21st Dec 2013

    Here's a relevant norm on posting agreed by the ICC, that seems to me to apply to what Jason Loughead is doing here with these 'blogs'.

    -> no excessive posting of the same basic themes and contents in many places, crowding out other exchange.

    Here, we clearly have an abuse of the blog system.

    The origin of that norm appears in the July 2012 ICC report, just above the April report Jason Loughead refers to here and describes the actions of a poster who was abusing the kinship forums at the time, in a similar way, talking about "sexism against men".

  • 22nd Dec 2013

    I see witchhunts going on even now Gerry Conroy. To quote your quotation "-> no excessive posting of the same basic themes and contents in many places, crowding out other exchange." I see loads of this everywhere on IOPS: "of which at least 30% are women, and the chapter is active". Is that not considered basic themes in your book?

    I have noticed that most "radical feminists" are neither and indeed brainwashed by capitalist ways of thinking, just like the majority who have to get by in this capitalist world. Julian Assange is (I believe) falsely accused of "sex crimes" meaning rape, because he was political and getting rid of the problem was easy to call him a rapist. Most radical feminists do not care about truth or habeas corpus. Any accusation of rape is guilt in their minds. This technique was honed in the 1990's when all a women had to do was accuse a man of rape and he's an instant pariah. It happened to me many times and many other men. They have to be stopped by exposing their methods and lies, before more good people are hurt.

    What if I'm a crackpot? Does the IOPS mission get fulfilled by shutting down my abuse? History will decide what's right, the question is what side do you want to be on?

  • Mark Evans 23rd Dec 2013

    Jason -

    You write "Not all feminist ideas are worth the same consideration."

    I think that is true of all revolutionary leftist ideas - not just feminism. IOPS vision and strategy is the result of a historical analysis of left ideas - rejecting bad ideas, keeping good ideas, and adding what are hopefully some even better ideas.

    You also write: "I prefer the feminist ideas that desire equality of treatment, respect and trust which is diametrically opposed to the other (mostly radical or extremist) feminist ideas which promote the opposite."

    IOPS "Mission" clearly states, as part of our "Key Goals and Priorities" that we are "anti-sexist" - which is to say that we are for equality between men and women.

    Despite our stated commitment to man-woman equality in this blog you pose the question "Are Radical Feminists Trying to Take Over the ICC?" Maybe that is true. Maybe there are "radical feminists" inside the ICC who have a hidden agenda to replace patriarchy, not with man-woman equality, but with matriarchy. That could happen and I agree that that would not be good - it would violate IOPS values and vision.

    If this is happening then we should all be very concerned - as you clearly are - about the future of IOPS. But is it actually happening? What reasons do we have to think that this is a genuine concern for IOPS?

    As far as I can see you present one small piece of evidence in support of a "yes" answer to your question - "simultaneously move from a minority to a large majority women". Presented here, like this, the wording does seem a little unfortunate, but I don't think that it warrants the level of concern that you expressed.

    It seems to me that - perhaps due to your experiences outside of IOPS - you are seeing here what you expect to see. When trying to understand anything the possibility of a confirmation bias is an issue that we all have to keep in mind. We know from our own experience, as well as from systematic studies of others, that strong emotions can impact on our thinking resulting in cognitive distortions of all kinds - again this is something that we all have to try to keep in mind as we attempt to make sense of things, and it is not easy.

    But if members do have concerns about violations of IOPS values and vision then they should, of course, present them to the membership. However, we do need to be reasonable about this. Such concerns really do need to be backed-up with substance / supported by actual evidence and perhaps presented with some humility. I hope we can agree on that.

  • 24th Dec 2013

    I didn't just join IOPS yesterday. I have lived it for 20 years. I started three pareconish workers co-ops each getting gradually more difficult as time went on and I realised that as I got more respect the heat of the challenging would increase. Intellectually I knew that but was I in the least bit prepared for it, no. Luckily my wife was a socialist at heart (we're Scottish) and encountered elitist marxists before and she worried that it was a sad state of affairs for the anti-tina crowd. Then she was blown away by parecon. And it's all happily ever after. :P

    Seriously, I live in what's technically a city but behaves more like a smalltown. On the good side we're proud to be the city that is the home of the 1919 General Strike and the highest per capita pareconish worker co-ops the US and Canada has ever seen but there's a dark underbelly of cut-throatishness mostly from the social democratic left to the socialist left (except those who have made a name for themselves).

    Feminists almost killed craft, knitting, baking etc because it was considered a slave job for women prior to the 60's. Fair enough, I can understand that but when women ridicule a man in a pareconish yarn store simply because he's male then there's a sexism problem. The good thing is I have gone through hell and back and almost didn't make it, but that made me strong.

    If we as a species go further then we need to drop ego's, hurt, and the past. As someone wise said "We cannot change the past, but only the future." Whoever said that was astute.

  • LedSuit ' 25th Dec 2013

    You may be extremely experienced Jason, and you may be extremely knowledgeable about stuff and you didn't come down in the last shower. You may have had individual experiences which have had extreme effects, much like many others who may be members of IOPS. You are most definitely not alone in this regard.

    I would like to say one thing though. I was responding purely to your blog and particularly to its title. The answer to which I gave a resounding no. An issue to which you provide no evidence whatsoever. Further you ask everyone, "... to listen and discuss matters rationally with each other and try to put our biases aside." Something I think you have not really done. You also ask or suggest that "...we as a species go further then we need to drop ego's, hurt, and the past."

    Yet you respond to my initial comments above that are directly related to you blog, quite clear and specific and I think unbiased and rational, with this comment, "you're drunk, go to sleep, and read what you said in the morning. The truth of the morning light will wipe the cobwebs from your eyes. Please, before you embarrass yourself even more, young grasshopper."

    If that is what you regard as being rational then you and I are on different planes. You had no respect for what I said.

    If you want to go further as a species by dropping "...ego's, hurt, and the past", then maybe you should think hard about the way you use precisely those things to countenance views that I cannot. You seem to also use them, to argue against rational viewpoints put by others.

    Unfair brother, unfair.