I think it’s about time some balance was restored to this debate. The arguments regarding FemSoc’s ratification have been dominated by one or two vocal personalities and no-one has come forward to defend YUSU’s decision lest they draw out the vitriol of outraged feminists across the nation.
The luckier ones of you out there might even be completely oblivious to the shitstorm being kicked up about YUSU’s decision not to ratify FemSoc. So, for those of you who don’t pay attention to campus media/live on Twitter, I’ll sum up the arguments for you. FemSoc is a collection of likeminded individuals who want to practice feminism on campus, and want YUSU to officially recognise their right to do this by giving them money (a process known as ratification, for the less cynical out there). YUSU think their aims cross over too much with our already established Women’s Committee, and have suggested the two join together and pool their ideas to create a feminist supergroup, much like Them Crooked Vultures, but with more discussion about cis-privilege than Josh Homme is likely to engage in on a day-to-day basis.
Naturally, there are valid points on either side, but due to FemSoc’s monopoly of the debate and there being no united movement against them, it’s unlikely you will have heard the reasons against their ratification. Except, of course, if you’ve spoken to almost anyone at York about it, because it seems to be the popular, common sense opinion held by students here.
The first blindingly obvious argument against is the demand for a feminist society. I know this evidence is purely anecdotal and so should technically be struck off the record, but almost everyone I’ve spoken to has said that they don’t feel like they would be represented by a FemSoc, and that they think WomCom fulfils their needs adequately.
The second is more theoretical. I’d characterise this debate as feminists vs. feminists. Given that feminism is about promoting solidarity and unity among people versus the patriarchy, splitting the movement and cannibalising the others’ resources seems to be antithetical to the principles (I hope) as feminists they are meant to espouse. It seems to be more a question of egos than determining what is best for their cause.
The third is the worrying problem of FemSoc becoming an insular society that enters into this cycle of self-perpetuating self-righteousness because they don’t engage in debate with the rest of the University. Again, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are a lot of disgruntled feminists at other universities who feel like their FemSoc doesn’t represent them. At least, as a committee, WomCom won’t be deliberately exclusionary because members hold differing beliefs.
Fourth, by creating a political feminist society, chances are being increased of an “Us and Them” mentality. I am a feminist, but I would not join a FemSoc, because unlike other political movements, I think that everybody (reasonable, at least) is a feminist. You don’t need a society to proclaim something that is obvious to everyone. Furthermore, people who are likely to join a FemSoc are usually to the more radical end of the spectrum, and the inevitable conflation of feminism and extremism is something that feminists have been trying to shake off for decades. Personally, I think that by creating this separate movement, you are undermining people who regard feminism as something that they live without thinking about it, which is an ideal we should strive towards, not something we should condemn.
Finally, the alternative offered by Chris West, our Activities Officer, is perfectly reasonable. Yes, men can’t stand as part of WomCom but there was a referendum narrowly defeated by feminists in 2011 to create a Gender Equalities committee, where men could stand. There is no reason this cannot be attempted again. The argument that WomCom can’t be political is absolute rubbish, they can run campaigns and be overtly political if they like. The point is, WomCom isn’t this unchanging unflexible institution. Far better that the ardent feminists from FemSoc concentrate their energies on revolutionising WomCom than in creating a splinter movement.
Vision reported that the signatures on their petition are nearing 700. I would imagine that a tiny portion of them are actually students at the University of York, given that something like 66 signatures were attained last time FemSoc was not ratified. Make what you will of that, but it is not anyone else’s money or time but York’s that is being wasted in these deliberations.
Finally, a message for my friends and fellow feminists involved with this campaign. I have no doubt your intentions are noble, but your decision to campaign quite so furiously for ratification before even entering into discussions (happening today) with WomCom reeks of hubris. You have thus far proven yourself unwilling to enter into reasoned debate, nor have you considered the fair point of view of YUSU when it comes splitting time, money, resources, and ideas between two overlapping bodies. I would recommend listening to those that advise you differently.
YUSU is not the patriarchy, this fight is not that of centuries of women against oppressive mechanisms played out in microcosm. Ironically, this fight is needlessly weakening the argument for feminism throughout campus. A united and strong movement will overcome, not this pointless bitter infighting.
Thank you Jo, glad to see some rational arguments against the FemSoc ratification. I agree with everything you’ve said :)
I don’t know if you realise, but all of those arguments are as valid against any other political society on campus. UKIP members can even stand for democracy committee if they wanted to.
If political parties and pressure groups are allowed to organise societies, I see no reason FemSoc isn’t allowed to do the same.
It still comes down to an allocation of resources, YUSU doesn’t have a bottomless pit of gold to hand.
Also, if FemSoc is ratified then there will be increasing pressure on YUSU to ratify the Mens Rights Soc which seems to be building some popularity. The idea of most students at York having these two groups constantly clashing over their heads isn’t a great one.
So your argument is partly premised on the idea that the goal of a feminist society would be to “represent” some constituency within the university (which constituency you have left unclear. Students? Women? Feminists?). No other society does this, so why would the feminist society?
What has happened here is that you have sophistically conflated the goals of WomCom (which is intended to represent) and the proposed FemSoc. This is begging the question and undermines your entire argument.
In fact what unintentionally becomes clear from you argument is that York definitely DOES need a FemSoc, precisely because WomCom is supposed to, as you say, represent, and thus has different possibilities available to it to the opportunities FemSoc would/does/will have.
FemSoc isn’t going to cost the uni any real money.
A really well reasoned argument that fully deserves the national distribution the other side of the argument has been enjoying.
I’m not anything to do with FemSoc, but this article exasperated me because you repeatedly conflate women and feminists as though they are the same thing. They are not.
As you pointed out, anyone who believes all genders are equal is a feminist, and by that logic many men are feminists. I am consequently curious to know if any of the people you spoke too who “think WomCom fulfils their needs adequately,” were men, as they are by definition not represented by WomCom.
And while your point about WomCom being made into a Gender Equality committee is valid, saying that the referendum was “narrowly defeated by feminists” is bizarre and clumsy phrasing that conflates all feminists with supporters of WomCom.
Also, if you really think feminism is a self-evident identity that is “obvious to everyone” I recommend the following: everydaysexism.com, The Lad Bible, UniLad, and Sexism on Campus.
You offer the counterpoint to your first point yourself, if you think feminism lacks demand on campus you have clearly not been involved in feminism on campus.You evidence is anecdotal, So’s mine. moveon, no point here.
The second is a problem and i agree that feminists v feminists is never a good thing. I think the two organisations have separate roles, womcom for representing all women on campus and campaigning, femsoc to represent feminism as a distinct political ideology, i do think there is space to work together, like other socs collaborate, but to not allow feminism a society, like ones for those of a socialist, conservative or liberal ideas shows a lack of understanding and respect for feminism.
The problem of a soc becoming – an insular society that enters into this cycle of self-perpetuating self-righteousness because they don’t engage in debate with the rest of the University, is a criticism that could be applied to most on campus, move on. Also point to be made that as ratified, femsoc will not be allowed to be exclusionary, it’s in the rules.
Forth argument – just because you don’t need somewhere to learn more (i agree with your idea that feminism is for everyone) this does not mean that everyone on campus knows everything about feminism/does not want to in some cases even learn what it is/does not want a group of
likeminded people to meet up with and talk abut it. again, what socs are for!
Are people more likely to be radical? i’m a liberal feminist, i know many are, many are not, who cares, lets have an argument over a philosophy, what uni is for etc. the word extremism is extremely misplaced. your argument that radfems should not talk about feminism because that will turn people off feminism is very strange. and that radical ideas shouldn’t be out there in a uni environment? i don’t get this point.
Final point – by having a feminist group you undermine those who live as feminists is ridiculous. as feminists we are undermining other feminists is the diversionary argument that you tried to destroy earlier.
I’m not sure femsoc’s aim is to condemn feminists.
In your final point about having a gender equalities officer you condemn all your former arguments. i refer you to all the brilliant arguments made at the time by the womans officers as to why a gender equality officer is a ridiculous idea.
Womcom are ace, are political, active, do a brilliant job but i don’t see why there is not space for feminism to be taken apart academically as an ideology in a specific feminist soc.
Please don’t take the loudest members of feminism as the ones who have the most to contribute or to say, and don’t assume the beliefs of everyone who supports the existence of a particular group.
” YUSU to officially recognise their right to do this by giving them money (a process known as ratification, for the less cynical out there).”
simply not true, of the 3 societies I’m involved with, two have never received money from YUSU, and the third received its first grant after existing unfunded for around 5 years.
Not just brilliantly reasoned, but also eloquently written. I look forward to your comments on future topics.
One thing though, you declare your “[worry] of FemSoc becoming an insular society”. I’d argue that it already is.
It’s evident to anyone who has glanced at FemSoc’s Facebook page that persons within the organisation are overly zealous when it comes to protecting and upholding their own version of Feminism. To the point where even mild criticism has been treated with warning, bans and claims of ‘trolling’ supported by the official proclamation that people were ‘welcome to attend’ but that they should ‘shut up and listen’.
More and more, this FemSoc seems to be heading towards one of blind-sighted preaching rather than inclusion and discussion. Student societies are about the latter.
When I grow up, I want to be a real feminist like Helena Horton!
Fantastic article. Brilliantly written and has made my day!
without fem-soc it wont be long before vulnerable young women are being completely abused and taken advantage of by men on campus. Sexual favors in exchange for 2.1s, girls being congratulated with a firm slap on the ass by coursemates and being forced to do presentations in lingerie are all very real possibilities unless you ratify this soc!
That comment above obviously was not me
Thanks Cpt. Obvious!
This is hollow to the point of being sophistic.
1] “FemSoc is a collection of likeminded individuals who want to practice feminism on campus, and want YUSU to officially recognise their right to do this by giving them money”
ME = You define the process of ratification in purely financial terms, but one of its primary values if the fact of official recognition, publicity and the internal structure mandated by such (hence why being a society is a sufficient but not necessary condition for YUSU financing – you need a certain number of members, etc. to receive such) – these things also, by extension, serve to reproduce the society through cycles of incoming and outgoing students. Femsoc, I presume, is not merely staging a demand for its financing.
2] “I know this evidence is purely anecdotal and so should technically be struck off the record, but almost everyone I’ve spoken to has said that they don’t feel like they would be represented by a FemSoc, and that they think WomCom fulfils their needs adequately.”
ME = Since when is a precondition to ratification the representativeness of the given society of the wider student body..? That is neither the function nor purpose of a student society, which is simply a forum for the organisation and discussion of like-minded persons around a particular subject (as you just admitted above in point one). Art society does not ‘represent’ me, nor does Dance, Amnesty International, or Labour society – this claim is fantastical.
3] “The second is more theoretical. I’d characterise this debate as feminists vs. feminists. Given that feminism is about promoting solidarity and unity among people versus the patriarchy, splitting the movement and cannibalising the others’ resources seems to be antithetical to the principles (I hope) as feminists they are meant to espouse. It seems to be more a question of egos than determining what is best for their cause.”
Firstly, the co-existence of femsoc and womcom does not constitute a “cannabalising [of] the others’ resources” – it would have absolutely no effect on the resources granted to womcom. If anything, the kind of active discussion and organisation entailed by a feminist society would almost inevitably cultivate interest and support in womcom. Creating two organisations which have partial complementarity in their interest does not equate to conflict, it would – most likely – create parallel partial complementarity of organisation/discussion/whatever.
More fundamentally, the point of Femsoc is that it serves, in large part, a different function to womcom. The former is a forum for the organisation and discussion of feminism (i.e. wide questions about gender and power relations) as a student society, the latter is an official YUSU concerned with female welfare at university. They are not two competing groups directed towards the same function; they are two groups with a partial overlap of concern.
4] “The third is the worrying problem of FemSoc becoming an insular society that enters into this cycle of self-perpetuating self-righteousness because they don’t engage in debate with the rest of the University”
ME = Firstly, this is mere speculation. Secondly, and as already stated, it is not the function of a society to “debate with the rest of the university”. Thirdly, this is questioning the internal character of a feminist society – not the principle of its existence.
5] “Fourth, by creating a political feminist society, chances are being increased of an “Us and Them” mentality. I am a feminist, but I would not join a FemSoc, because unlike other political movements, I think that everybody (reasonable, at least) is a feminist. You don’t need a society to proclaim something that is obvious to everyone.”
ME = I struggle to take this argument seriously. One of the foundational claims of contemporary feminism, in its most basic terms, is that prevailing society is ideationally gendered, and that – as such – our subjectivities and how we relate to one another are thus reflective of that fact (this is reductive to the point of being wrong – but you get the idea). It is held those relations are to the significant (but not exclusive) repression of females. If you agree with that, you might reasonably be given to starting a society to discuss and organise feminist issues (i.e. the relation between gender and power relations, or whatever). If you don’t, you might reasonably not care for such a society. However, it is a difficult – if not patently absurd – line of argument to declare oneself a feminist and then castigate a feminist society under the proposition that it is unnecessary. You either (i) are not a feminist; (ii) hold a marginal feminist position; (iii) don’t believe or see the worth in organising causes around which you believe (there’s probably more). The point is, this statement seems to be a disagreement with one of the foundational claims of contemporary feminism. It is not, as it is disguised as, a claim against the principle of a feminist society per se.
*Necessary but not sufficient – my bad
Though having reread this article it does make some good points, we aren’t really encouraging debate. But we just want to make sure that people don’t just try silly things like equalities groups or mens rights groups because that’s just not fair. Only women truly understand these issues.
Most of this article was complete nonsense. Here are a few choice quotes: “guys I know this is anecdotal evidence so don’t listen to this but totally do”, “I am totally a feminist but I don’t want a feminist society because everyone there would be, like, too feminist for me.” “If feminist issues ceased to exist, we wouldn’t have to think about them, therefore, we should stop thinking about feminist issues.”
However, I do think that a feminist society intersects too much with the aims of the Women’s Committee, which, according to the YUSU website, exists to “discuss issues affecting women students, and to plan campaigns and events which will help to make out [sic] university a gender-equal environment”. Unless FemSoc can convincingly demonstrate that their goals are sufficiently removed from those of WomCom to merit the creation of another society, I think that YUSU have made the right move.
“shitstorm”…really Vision?
Amen, Tom Armston-Clarke.
WHAT ABOUT A HommeSoc?
MALE RIGHTS NEED TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT TOO! I WANT TO GET INTO CLUBS FOR FREE WITH MA BELLAY OUT!
“Only women truly understand these issues”- Helena Horton, you’ve just proven how hideously wrong you are.
You’re firstly implying that gender stereotypes don’t affect men too, which they do, and also, pertinently, that if there is a feminist battle to be fought, men can’t be a part of that. Don’t you understand that the only way to tackle the issues of female treatment is to make men a part of it? In saying ‘men don’t understand’ you’re not only bringing on more abuse for yourself but making your cause completely redundant.
I think you’re a bit of an idiot.
None of the comments above were in fact me!
A football anecdote I believe can appease the issues that have been brought up over the last few weeks. An Arsenal fan will dislike Tottenham and a Tottenham fan will dislike Arsenal. This is due to their geographic rivalry. Feminist’s and Men’s Rights movements will dislike each other as they are gender rivals. They are fighting for equality within their own sex; making them similar to some extent to Arsenal and Tottenham. Each fan group will have extremists who will be the loudest advocates of hate and these are the voices that will be heard by the rest of society. Each group will be blanket punished by society for their actions. This is the problem with group think and any real ideas for change will be jeopardised. Within football, supporters will have mutual teams in which they will support. For an Arsenal fan let’s say they might see their mutual as Swansea and a Tottenham fan might also see Swansea as a mutual. Even though they are rivals there is common ground in which they can discuss the quality and attributes of Swansea. In the case of gender relations I believe children are that mutual ground. Both group’s frontend campaigning fails to addresses child issues however they both would agree that invoking equality and protecting children would be apposite. Sex is determined at birth and cannot be changed (unless operated on) but gender is a social construct. Overtime a person’s identity is formed what makes you who you are; through the relationships you have with others and what you have learnt through experience or teaching. As a university community we should attempt to change the way in which our younger generations experience life and what/how they are taught; instead of squabbling over issues that are already predetermined. By focusing on children, both groups would be able to address issues at the root cause for gender rivalry in a constructive manner. We are supposed to be intelligent, open-minded and insightful people. What I suggest is that someone sets up a Youth Development Society. I would do this myself but I’m a 3rd year leaver, I posted this so that someone can take up this cause and help stop all the hate.
^^Well at least someone has bothered to read that…
Wait I’m confused. Which one is the real Helena Horton? Holena Herton sounded most like the whining little femmy.
York doesn’t need feminism.
York needs feminists.
Everywhere needs feminists.
I find it patronising that people seem to think I ‘need’ feminism. I don’t NEED anything, I’m a woman and I am fully capable of doing what I want, I’d like to see someone stop me. What I WANT is equality for women who aren’t in such a privileged place as me and everyone else at this university. Maybe we should concentrate on getting that and the rest will follow.
@Female
What you’re saying has a hidden assumption that you know exactly who is in need of feminism and who isn’t –
“What I WANT is equality for women who aren’t in such a privileged place as me and everyone else at this university”
Isn’t that patronising in itself that you think that you are better than others and decide whether they are ‘worthy’ of your support or not.
It’s a bit of a double-edged sword to on the one hand claim that YOU feel patronised by others trying to help you (or claiming that you don’t need help) and then with the same argument saying that you want to help others (and claiming that they do need help).
I just want to get a 2.1….
@??
I’m not claiming that I know ‘who is in need of feminism’ but I do know that there are women out there who do need support and that women at this university are in a privileged place. By privileged I simply meant that we don’t have lie awake at night worrying about inequality between the sexes.
I’m not saying that being privileged makes us any ‘better’, but what it does make us is better able to offer help those who can’t help themselves.
Women at this university can do something more meaningful than semantics or arguing, because inequality does exist and we can do something about it and prove that ‘feminism’ doesn’t have to mean ‘down with men’ (because this appears to be the general consensus, and this battle between femsoc and womcom isn’t helping the ugly face of feminism) but can mean ‘supporting women together’.