What is radical feminism?

[MysticSang'ha]

Often times we hear the term "radical" feminist as a smear tactic against the movement in general. Other times we will hear "radical" feminist to say that it's only some crazy lunatic fringe element, but that the obnoxiousness of "radical" feminists gives the entire movement a bad name. And other times, it's worn as a badge of honor in a way that claiming the "B"-word and the "C"-word is empowering because it is not being used in a derogatory fashion.

I have called myself a "whore" on many occasion, and partially because I was sick and tired of being defined by somebody else's measure of my value as a woman. I didn't know it that much, but my mother used to adopt "radical" feminism as her banner with the same intent. Instead of trying to distance herself from other feminists by saying they're too crude, too uppity, too butch, too ugly, too loud, too anything, she decided to take the approach of saying she was a radical feminist just so she didn't have to try to prove to the world that there is a nice and agreeable side of feminism.

I've talked with her about this forum. She reminded me that when we worked together on the E.R.A., I used to tease her by calling her a "radical". She joked about it too back then, apparently, but I don't remember much about it. It didn't come up until I was telling her about the Feminist Only forum and how the use of the word "radical" as a descriptor carried with it a negative connotation. That was when she related the story of my upbringing and my involvement with her activism.

So, here's what wikipedia has to say about the subject: Radical feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]
Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).

It seems that if we were to use the wiki entry as a starting point, I can see now how radical feminism has influenced my thinking by acknowledging an oppressive patriarchal paradigm. Where I'm unsure in my acknowledgement of radicalism is the other embolded part of the quote with "radical reordering of society." My question is what are we reordering society to become? What structure is the replacement? I'm sure the idea is not to replace dysfunction with yet another dysfunction. But I think I need to read more and talk more with other radical feminists to get a better idea of where they're coming from.

What does radical feminism mean to you?

 

[Curious George]

Radical feminism, like feminism in general, is an umbrella term. I think in todays society anything with the adjective radical is associated with negative connotations. In my mind, todays society has equated radical to extremist and extremist to lunatic, and lunatic to bad.

feminism in general, does and should look at the root causes of gender inequity and seek to remedy the problems which stem from such. Consequently, all feminism is radical. But that is.not the way most view or use the term. I am okay with a fluid definition which can vary based on the audience since I feel that the points I try to communicate are more important. Similar to the thread which discussed rebranding feminism. While I think we should all openly discuss issues like this that come up, I have a hard time thinking that semantics focuses on the major issues.

 

[DallasApple]

When I hear the term I definately think of hysterical lunatics that want to castrate all men and take over the earth..But that is because whenever I have listened in long enough that pretty much is what it seems many speakers mean who calls a woman that.Or at least enough people do.

Lots of times its not just the words "radical feminist" .Its cackling gaggle of radical feminist" "radical nazi feminist" "radical feminist destroying society"..."ball busting radical feminist" "evil radical feminist".

But yeah the thing is ..it IS radical change that needed/needs to happen but that doesn't mean its NEGATIVE. Like anything else. I can make "radical changes" in my diet that are GOOD for me.

 

[DallasApple]

And other times, it's worn as a badge of honor in a way that claiming the "B"-word and the "C"-word is empowering because it is not being used in a derogatory fashion.

I knew a woman in a Christian circle that took on the name "The contentious wife" because she got so sick and tired of that being thrown up at her (and other women)out of the Bible.You know the whole "women shut up and submit" deal? Otherwise you are a contentious wife which is the horror of a husbands life? Its something like better to live on the corner of the roof in the rain to live with a contentious wife?

So she named herself that .I thought it was hilarious.In an approving way.

 

[Alceste]

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines radical feminism this way:

A second approach, radical feminism, remains committed to getting at the root of male domination by understanding the source of power differentials, which some radical feminists, including Catharine MacKinnon, trace back to male sexuality and the notion that heterosexual intercourse enacts male domination over women. “Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission. If this is true, sexuality is the linchpin of gender inequality” (MacKinnon 1989,113). Radical feminists tend to see power as running one-way, from those with power over those who are being oppressed. As Amy Allen puts it, “Unlike liberal feminists, who view power as a positive social resource that ought to be fairly distributed, and feminist phenomenologists, who understand domination in terms of a tension between transcendence and immanence, radical feminists tend to understand power in terms of dyadic relations of dominance/subordination, often understood on analogy with the relationship between master and slave.” (See the section on radical feminist approaches in the entry on feminist perspectives on power.) Unlike the more reformist politics of liberal feminism, radical feminists have largely sought to reject the prevailing order altogether, sometimes advocating separatism (Daly 1985, 1990).

I can certainly see the problems in that approach. Some of my lesbian friends when I was younger were radical feminists - to them sex with men seemed outrageous. They could not understand why I would do such a thing voluntarily. And frequently.

As a woman who likes sex, I can not relate to the perception that "male sexuality" is inherently dominant. Not at all. I've never felt like I was not in control, not even playing with BDSM (safe words, etc), except when out of my mind with physical pleasure, and that I being "dominated" by pleasure, not by some other person simply because they have a penis.

Other statements like "rape is an act of violence by which all men cause all women to live in fear" (paraphrasing severely there, sorry) don't resonate with me. It sounds like complete gobblety gook. There are a lot of facets of the way our culture deals with sexual assault where patriarchal attitudes are evident, but nobody anywhere is going out raping so that "all men" can make "all women" live in fear. Whoever is doing the raping is doing it to make ONE victim live in fear and subordination for the duration of the assault, but the "who's who" isn't necessarily going to be a man and a woman.

That statement and others like it imply that men are basically rapists by nature, and that women are vulnerable by nature, and I reject that type of thinking completely.

As far as these ideas "making feminism look bad" is concerned, I think it actually does make feminism look bad, especially if you're a dude and you have absolutely no inclination to go around dominating and raping people.

For my own part, I don't think of "patriarchy" as a synonym for "men". Patriarchy is simply a social system - supported, defended and perpetuated by people of any gender - where men have greater liberty than women and a position of economic and political privilege. It's not something that "men" do "to women". It's something that men and women, together, do to themselves.

Granted, in the past, it was certainly maintained by economic coercion and violence. Vestiges of those ugly bygone days remain, but with economic independence and political access came an obligation for women to take responsibility for our own part in maintaining an unequal system.

And we have. We're working on it. It's getting more fair every day.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I agree with the description of radical feminism. To me the radical re-order would be the breaking down of gender roles and creating a gender and sexually fluid society, where there is not a concept for 'man' and 'woman' and especially men don't get to define womanhood and name woman even through mythology and religion.
In Radical feminism we believe there are many genders but use 'man' 'woman' because it's the only words we really have, and so we also want a radical change in language which I suppose would be more gender neutral and would give people the freedom to develop without any gender restraints.

I also mainly identify as radical because I believe prostitution is inherently part of patriarchy and exists because of socioeconomic, gender and racial inequality.

 

[DallasApple]

That statement and others like it imply that men are basically rapists by nature, and that women are vulnerable by nature, and I reject that type of thinking completely.

I don't believe men are rapist by nature but I believe spreading that idea around is what gives men who rape an excuse and helps creates a rape sympathizing culture.In the "what did she expect" kind of way.As well as our men young and old who would be more likely to kill a rapist defending a woman than rape have to walk around hearing that basically they have a monster somewhere inside them.That to me is disheartening to say the least.

I will say however ..on average women ARE more vulnerable by nature.Or lets say there are more women walking around that are more vulnerable to men that the other way around physically.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe men are rapist by nature but I believe spreading that idea around is what gives men who rape an excuse and helps creates a rape sympathizing culture.In the "what did she expect" kind of way.As well as our men young and old who would be more likely to kill a rapist defending a woman than rape have to walk around hearing that basically they have a monster somewhere inside them.That to me is disheartening to say the least.

I will say however ..on average women ARE more vulnerable by nature.Or lets say there are more women walking around that are more vulnerable to men that the other way around physically.

Sure, if we're looking at averages, men on average are more likely to rape and women on average are more likely to be raped. Women on average have a lower body mass than men and less testosterone (the aggression hormone).

It's a fine line we have to tread, though. We can acknowledge the facts without over-generalizing. "Men are statistically far more likely to commit sexual violence and women are far more likely to be victimized by it" =/= "all men use rape to dominate all women".

But yeah, it is disheartening that some segments of feminism seem to suggest that every Dr. Jeckyll has a Mr. Hyde lurking in his soul, ready to leap out and go on a raping spree. We ought to celebrate the good character, respectfulness and dignity of the majority of men while condemning the actions of a few bad apples.

 

[DallasApple]

But yeah, it is disheartening that some segments of feminism seem to suggest that every Dr. Jeckyll has a Mr. Hyde lurking in his soul, ready to leap out and go on a raping spree. We ought to celebrate the good character, respectfulness and dignity of the majority of men while condemning the actions of a few bad apples.

Exactly.It be like walking around knowing "by nature" you are a cold blooded murderer even though you detest murder have not murdered anyone.And you think murderers should be punished.

It's a fine line we have to tread, though. We can acknowledge the facts without over-generalizing. "Men are statistically far more likely to commit sexual violence and women are far more likely to be victimized by it" =/= "all men use rape to dominate all women".

I'm not a believer in the term "all" anything .Of course there are exceptions.Like we are all going to die.Unless something changes .A radical change.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree with the description of radical feminism. To me the radical re-order would be the breaking down of gender roles and creating a gender and sexually fluid society, where there is not a concept for 'man' and 'woman' and especially men don't get to define womanhood and name woman even through mythology and religion.
In Radical feminism we believe there are many genders but use 'man' 'woman' because it's the only words we really have, and so we also want a radical change in language which I suppose would be more gender neutral and would give people the freedom to develop without any gender restraints.

I also mainly identify as radical because I believe prostitution is inherently part of patriarchy and exists because of socioeconomic, gender and racial inequality.

I was hoping you'd chime in.

I have a friend who also has been encouraging me to sit down and read Dworkin (as you have also been encouraging me to), since she feels Ms. Dworkin has been misquoted and misrepresented. I'd read Marilyn French before and walked away from her work wondering how much worse things could look as a society. Especially since I read her work after I got married.

Branching off radical feminism, I'd also read two books which I think address the radical overhaul of an inherently oppressive social and cultural framework by introducing a religious and historical POV. Two that I've read that I submit might be considered radical feminist works:

The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth: Monica Sjoo, Barbara Mor
The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future: Riane Eisler

The first book I'd read a couple of times and dubbed it the feistiest book I'd ever read from a feminist perspective. Not that it's a bad thing, but I found it interesting that when I brought up some of the points of the book to a few friends, they'd tell me I sounded like "an angry black woman."

Which is another derogatory stereotype, IMO.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I was hoping you'd chime in.

I have a friend who also has been encouraging me to sit down and read Dworkin (as you have also been encouraging me to), since she feels Ms. Dworkin has been misquoted and misrepresented. I'd read Marilyn French before and walked away from her work wondering how much worse things could look as a society. Especially since I read her work after I got married.

Branching off radical feminism, I'd also read two books which I think address the radical overhaul of an inherently oppressive social and cultural framework by introducing a religious and historical POV. Two that I've read that I submit might be considered radical feminist works:

The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth: Monica Sjoo, Barbara Mor
The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future: Riane Eisler

The first book I'd read a couple of times and dubbed it the feistiest book I'd ever read from a feminist perspective. Not that it's a bad thing, but I found it interesting that when I brought up some of the points of the book to a few friends, they'd tell me I sounded like "an angry black woman."

Which is another derogatory stereotype, IMO.

I haven't read Marilyn French so I can't have an opinion.

But your friend is right Dworkin has been misrepresented many times. Her work speaks to me because of how she has challenged sexuality and views of prostitutition and rape in a male dominated society.
In my opinion she is a really good writer and even if you don't agree with her you may find yourself liking her as a writer.
Here is a quote I really like about how she has been misrepresented:
“But when most people think of Andrea Dworkin, they think of two things: overalls (her uniform) and the idea that all sex is rape. That was the notorious interpretation of Intercourse by many when it first came out in 1987, and as Dworkin put it in her preface nine years later, the book is “still being reviled in print by people who have never read it, reduced to slogans by journalists posing as critics or sages or deep thinkers, treated as if it were odious and hateful by every ******* who thinks that what will heal this violent world is more respect for dead white men.”
Ariel Levy quoting Andrea Dworkin in her preface to the twentieth anniversary edition of Intercourse.

I have read "when God was a woman," which I found really interesting but at the same time I'm skeptical about finding liberation in goddess worshiping societies.
Let's not forget some of these goddess worshipping societies had gods who raped other goddesses and came down to rape human women and for the most part they were patriarchal.
I don't see much point in trying to console ourselves with the past or mythical goddesses. Not that it isn't an interesting point of study but I don't see how it does much for our liberation. Goddesses are still idealistic representations of women.
And I don't want to be worshipped or idolised as a woman I want to be treated as a human being.

Yes, the whole "angry black female" thing is deogratory and another way to keep females in their place especially black females and afraid to say how they really feel for fear of being called "angry" "crazy" "too emotional." It's a "clever" social tactic of keeping females silent and against each other.

 

[Alceste]

I read when God was a woman too. It was interesting, but I was more interested in the history than the social commentary.