it's not Narnia, it's the Feminist Section!

Well I don't disagree with you - I just think it is an odd coincidence that it is women who do most of the shaving of legs, pubic regions, etc.

And it is something new. It is not something we used to do.

Shaving the female pubic area comes direct from porn anyway.

Are we to think that the vast majority of economic and political power is held by men because women just don't want these things?

Are we to think that the feminisation of poverty is because women choose to be poor?

Things like shaving our legs are not that big a deal. Things like who gets to rule the world and hog the material comfort are however. And they are part and parcel of the same thing.

See, I still struggle to see the alternative which is being proposed. Society is heteronormative, so I think yes, it's probably true that a lot of things women do to attract a mate, are based in what would help attracting a male mate. But then men do things which are supposedly attracting women.

Homosexual people, do try to attract same sex partners, no matter whether they are male or female. Whether that's by shaving legs, or being able to quote large chunks of Dworkin by memory depends on one's own taste, and what kind of mate I would like to attract. Yep, just going for physical bits is superficial (or just going for finances, prowess, or any other single issue), but it's ingrained in humans to want to attract mates - that's not a patriarchal construct, but just biology. Humans are social animals.

So, I think, that if someone starts shaving their legs or pubes, even if they actually like or don't care about hairy legs or pubes, because they feel obliged to and think it is expected of them, is not a good thing. However if they shave their legs and pubes because they really like it (and e.g. also really like their partner to do the same), then there's nothing wrong with it. It's the same thing as, say, pretending to like football in order to land a bloke as opposed to liking football and therefore preferring a bloke who likes it too.

I think that is very true Tunip. I don't think feminists think they are enlightened or cleverer or anything else.

If anything, lots of the feminists I know almost wish they hadn't started to see it. Lots of them talk about the impossibility of unseeing, but how they would sometimes like to be able to.

Personally I think being a feminist is really really hard. It is hard because you have to face up to the hatred and violence against women as a group. You have to face up to your low status, you have to face up to your oppression and even worse, you have to face up to the fact that you are complicit in all of that.

We are all complicit because it is impossible to escape the all pervading nature of patriarchy (even separatists can't manage it).

However there is a difference between being complicit and collaborating.

Blackcurrants, your goblin idea is not nonsense it is very illustrative - don't put yourself down woman! You have an excellent way with words and a way of taking abstract things and making them into little light-bulbs.

I very much agree with what you say about white supremacy. It takes a very honest individual to say 'ok I like to think that I'm not racist but I'm white so it seems virtually impossible that I have not been socialized to be racist to some degree and anyway I benefit from white privilege which is racism.'

Only with the honesty and humility to accept the above can one even begin to think about properly analysing white supremacy and subsequent black oppression (as a member fo the white privileged group I mean). And even then you will still probably act like a boorish buckethead half the time no matter how well meaning you might be.

I think the same goes for sexism and male supremacy/patriarchy.

I also think that this is a very very difficult thing for white males to do because they benefit from double privilege, and I suspect that privilege is synergistic. The more you have of it, the more oblivious you are to it. The more oblivious you are to unearned privilege, the harder it is for you see how it advantages you by disadvantaging others (and the less likely you are to relinquish it).

I think people often get put off because they think feminists are claiming a difference between 'all the other women who are affected by the patriarchy' and 'us clever feminists who aren't'.
Whereas in fact we're absolutely not; we all know we're part of the system too and escaping from conditioning is not as simple as reading a couple of feminist books.

I'm sorry, I completely blurred the distinction between 'conditioned' and 'socialized' - I'm feeling very sure of the difference but I totally agree that all of this ideology makes sense in the 'come the revolution' context of disagreeing with the whole system, not just tweaking at little imbalances.

aah, Beach you just did the hard thinking for me, thank you!

I was trying to articulate 'Not conditioned but socialized" - that's how I regard the AntifeministGoblinOnYourShoulder nonsense that I was using earlier. I am not inferior to anyone, but I was certainly socialized to pretend I was, to make men feel better. Even while being told I could be anything I wanted, etc etc etc.

How can I possibly make free choices in a patriarchal system?

It's an easy analogy for me to make after living in the US for so long, but I'm a naice middle class white lady who grew up with some non-white friends but mainly surrounded by white people and until I moved here and did some reading and thought about it and made some different friends and basically REALLY worked at it, I hadn't accepted just how socialized-to-be-racist I really am, nor how much I benefit (enormously) from white privilege.

Even nice people who aren't mean bigots benefit from the fact that society prefers it if you're white. Ditto male. Ditto heterosexual. Ditto rich.

I want to believe I'm a free agent but I know I'm not. I'm awash with contradictory influences, family, friends, marketing, education... and all that I think distinguishes me from someone who KNOWS that they are a free agent, is the knowledge that I'm not.
Doesn't make me 'better' - it's just that I took the red pill and not the blue one. Or whichever way around it is in the matrix film, I can't bloomin remember!

[in my defence, 7am, been up since 5, no tea yet. Off to make tea...]

I think Radical Feminism must be one of the most misunderstood political movements going. And I don't think it is a coincidence that that is the case.

WidowWadman you said the following which I think is interesting to examine;

But I've read a few times things which roughly paraphrased were "these women do it (dress feminine/like cum in their face/like BDSM/be a SAHM/paint themselves orange) only because they've been conditioned to do it by the patriarchy" as if being a woman makes you (before the radfem bolt of enlightenment hits you) incapable of independent thought and actually tastes of their own.

I think you are pretty well on the money with this. Except that it is not quite as straightforward (I appreciate that you were paraphrasing).

As I radical feminist, I would say that women and men are socialized to behave in certain ways, rather than conditioned.

And to say that, does not mean that we are not capable of independent thought. It means that we are influenced by the society in which we live - I don't think that is an outrageous statement to make. Look at how differently people behave now, to for example, Victorian times - we can clearly see how societal norms and paradigms affect a population's behaviour.

Radical feminists disagree with the current set up. In order to disagree with something in a politically organised way (feminism is a political movement after all), one first needs to analyse what one is disagreeing with. To do that one needs to develop analytical tools, thought processes, concepts and abstracts.

And this means examining the current set up through a female perspective and really scratching under the surface to see if a thing is a result of patriarchal thinking or not. To see if a thing is oppressive to women as a group or not.

And this is quite difficult to do. It is difficult because it means rejecting a lot of values and ideals which are familiar and feel secure and 'natural'. This is where Blackcurrants' Shakespeare analogy is brilliant.

Radical feminism is a political movement which challenges the current status quo. And it challenges it in its entirety. Radfems believe that there is nothing to be salvaged from patriarchy/male supremacy. They think the whole thing is wrong.

They think it is all wrong because their analysis of it, is that patriarchy is a social system based on the fetishization of submission and dominance - with women being the submissives and men being the dominants. In other words we are in a male supremacy with female oppression. Radical feminism does not work towards equal rights but towards liberation. There can be no equal rights in a meaningful way within male supremacy. Male supremacy must end for women to be able to achieve equality.

And that is kind of it really. But the above thinking leads one to reject the social constructs of femininity and masculinity and by logic, their manifestations.

Now of course this idea, from the position of the status quo, feels pretty extreme and 'out there'. And of course this position challenges our lifestyles, our values, our morals, our culture, our family set up, indeed our very identities. And that is pretty scary (well I think it is anyway and I'm a radical feminist).

But pure radical feminist thought does not want to tell anyone what to do. The objective, if you like, of radical feminism, is revolution (not necessarily in the way we think of it in patriarchal terms). Radicals often talk wryly of 'come the revolution, such and such will happen'.

Ideologically after the revolution (should it ever come to fruit) there will be no culture of submission and dominance. There will be no social constructs of masculinity and femininity (which are based on submission and dominance whilst simultaneously used to perpetuate and reinforce submission and dominance).

Most of the radical feminists I have met try not to judge women for their current behaviour in patriarchy - they concentrate on the behaviour of those in power, the men.

Yes, you will come across some scathing comments or sarcasm sometimes but I think it is borne out of frustration and also the fact that radical feminists are maligned and 'othered' - and that kind of gets to you sometimes.

We women, all do what we have to, to get by in the patriarchy, is the way most radical feminists see it.

And that might be shaving your legs, being drawn to BDSM, being a prostituted women or anything else. (All three of those examples come from the foundations of submission and domination however.)

I don't believe that is true. I think all of us are conditioned and none of us make free choices - men or women,.

Moreover, that point was made very clearly on one of the threads you're referring to.

I have never seen a feminist say men are more active and women are more passive. What I have seen, is feminists focusing more on women's lives than men's. But if you think about it, there is no reason why every time someone offers an opinion about women and women's choices, they have to also offer one about men. If I say that there's a social pressure on women to (to take your example) paint themselves orange - what would make you assume there isn't a social pressure on men to do the same, or to paint themselves purple, or whatever?

This is a point I think gets made quite a lot - people see a discussion that concentrates on women, and they say 'but you don't seem to think the same pressures apply to men, and they do!'. This may be true - but we don't always have to talk about it. We don't always have to understand any statement made about women, or any opinion put forward about women, as if it's only valid when it's compared with men's situation.

As to freedom of choice, lots of people would like to say they have it and there are no social pressures on them. They just happen, coincidentally, to fall in with conventions. I don't believe that is true. I don't think, by saying some of our choices are constrained and structured by society, I'm taking anything away from women or men except maybe that illusion that they were acting completely freely.

If I'm wrong, and other feminists are wrong, and we all do have perfectly free choice - why are you so worried by us saying these things? If everyone has free choice, my belief won't do you any harm.

"If we're worrying about "well I'm feminist but not feminist like that, because those feminists piss me off/put others off/aren't feminist enough" - well that's just dandy for the patriarchy, cos it means we aren't lobbying/marching/running for parliament/stickering posters/writing stern letters or raising feminist consciousness and feminist children"

But it's not the patriarchy which has invented the different streams? I'm uneasy with the idea of embracing a group with values which I definitely don't share, just because they've got some ideas which are similar to mine.

Thanks for your responses - I find them really interesting.

I think I haven't made myself quite clear with what I meant by "misogyny" in that context. Rejection of hyperfemininity is one thing - (personally I don't think it's a patriarchal construct only, even if some of it is borne out of it, it's a bit more complicated than that)

But I've read a few times things which roughly paraphrased were "these women do it (dress feminine/like cum in their face/like BDSM/be a SAHM/paint themselves orange) only because they've been conditioned to do it by the patriarchy" as if being a woman makes you (before the radfem bolt of enlightenment hits you) incapable of independent thought and actually tastes of their own. That doesn't sound overly respectful to me and more like that these women are per se passive and have things done to them. Men are described much more as active in the same paradigm, IYSWIM

Also, before I finally go to bed, Widow when I said "focus on division between feminists is a favourite misogynist tactic" I didn't mean that it's a misogynist thing that feminists do - I mean that it's a divide-and-conquer, pit-them-against-each-other-so-they-don't-have-the-energy-to-fight-the-power kinda tactic.

If we're worrying about "well I'm feminist but not feminist like that, because those feminists piss me off/put others off/aren't feminist enough" - well that's just dandy for the patriarchy, cos it means we aren't lobbying/marching/running for parliament/stickering posters/writing stern letters or raising feminist consciousness and feminist children. So hence my whole embrace of the radfems, even if they wouldn't want to embrace me back all the time. We might not agree about every thing, but we agree on most of it, and they've got my back against the real problem.
Sorta thing.

Look at the way media characterize conflict of any kind between powerful women: "catfight" or "Squabble" or whatever. No matter how heated PMQs gets, you never read that Cameron had a 'catfight' with Milliband, do you [tangent, sorry]. Bedtime for me. Thanks everyone for a fascinating thread today, I'm looking forward to checking in tomorrow.

And sorry that I've diverted it somewhat from the first few posts. I'd quite like some turkish delight, y'know...

I think that femininity and masculinity are both constructions of the patriarchy.

if you think about it, believing that femininity = femaleness or masculinity = maleness is just saying "Girls are like this and boys are like that."

I like a bit of femininity now and then. Depends on how much I can be bothered. But I don't feel that I have to be hyper-feminine all the time to prove that I am female and not some fake-woman. I am a woman every second of my life, no matter how feminine or unfeminine I look/behave. I've got the vag and uterus to prove it!

[not showing anyone emoticon]

WidowWadman, may I suggest you read Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth". That goes a long way to explaining how misogyny is interspersed with femininity.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't be feminist AND feminine (hell, I live in dresses...) It's the idea that the epitome of being a woman is being "feminine", a construct which is usual determined at various points through history by men.

It'd depend how you defined 'feminist'.

But if we're talking (as we were) about radical feminists, then yes, that's a basic tenet I am sure. So, I think vesuvia's point holds.

Does a feminist neccessarily have to subscribe to femininity being a misogynistic construct?

But is femininity the same thing as female-ness? As I understand it, feminists would say femininity is a misogynistic construct, wouldn't they?

vesuvia - I see your point about male "funfems". However I meant negative attitudes towards women who like/embrace (hyper)feminine traits

WidowWadman wrote - "Would it be possible to argue that even feminism as a whole isn't entirely free of misogyny? I mean the deriding of "funfems", which I guess is not something everyone who identifies as a radfem does, is not an invention by outsiders, is it?"

I think misogyny is more about hatred of any and every woman, needing no other reason than the target happens to be female.

Is calling someone a "fun" feminist hateful of females for being female? I wouldn't be surprised if there are also some male fun feminists. Your example seems to me more like a radfem's derisive dismissive comment based not on the sex of the target but on the political views that the target has chosen to express.

Blackcurrants your Shakespeare analogy is brilliant.

Thank you from a radical feminist.

I think I love you blackcurrants....

This should be the radfem/feminism argument everytime, I'm tempted to copy it into word!!

There are times when I don't want to engage with misogynists, I just want them to fuck off and shut up. I certainly don't feel as if I have a duty to soft-soap my arguments so they'll agree. Why?

Why would you want to argue that feminism isn't free of misogyny?

If you mean feminism as a political ideology - yes, by definition, it's opposed to misogyny. If you mean individuals, then yes, I'm sure misogynistic reactions and habits creep into people's behaviour from time to time - that's why misogyny is so powerful, because it is a hugely influential structure underlying much of our culture.

Gosh no, of course it's not the feminists who make misogynists misogynists. And feminists going away certainly wouldn't stop them from being misogynists. But I think that a misogynist - who often will just use extreme stereotypes to dismiss any feminist argument, are probably even less likely to engage in an argument when the radical is thrown at them.

I think in order to change people's way of thinking it's best to try and talk to them rather than at them. A lot of sexism is unthinking sexism, and once you point it out to a thoughtless sexist, they're usually horrified at the idea and that's where you get to challenge their thinking and behaviour.

At least that's what I extrapolate from my experiences with unthinking xenophobes (as opposed to the outright nasty ideological ones) Once you resort to namecalling, the discussion is over and you lost them.

It's just different ways of discourse. Look at this thread, too. When I've done my initial posting I got a lot of aggressive responses, which insinuated things that I hadn't said, and been accused several times of not wanting to discuss and engage. This basically just confirmed my prejudices about some types of feminist - whilst I find the debate I now have with you much more welcoming and thought-provoking.

"and foucs on division between feminists is a.favourite misogynist tactic."

Interesting point. Would it be possible to argue that even feminism as a whole isn't entirely free of misogyny? I mean the deriding of "funfems", which I guess is not something everyone who identifies as a radfem does, is not an invention by outsiders, is it? I've browsed through a few things on the radfemhub now, and I wasn't always sure whether it was real, or satire designed to discredit feminists. So how can looking down on "funfems" be squared with being truly feminist? (NB: This is not meant to troll, but a serious question.)

so what I am saying is: radical feminism is not an enemy. Sometimes it doesnt fit with me, sometimes I feel frustrated with being told that I am too.feminist by some and not feminist enough by others! but radical.feminism isnt really going to put people off, feminism alone does.that, and foucs on division between feminists is a.favourite misogynist tactic.

argh, reading with interest.

Also, as my students would say, 'haters gonna hate.' If there were no radfems.do you think the misogynists would stop being misogynists? I dont. I think 'moderate' feminists would be the next target.

As evidence for my assertion I present the presidential candidates for.the Republican party over here in the US, for whom opposition to legal abortion is a given, and who have now.declared that they want to ban contraception. Despite the fact that 99% of American women use it at some point in thier lives. Radical feminists didnt make these establishment political figures into.raging.sexists, they are fighting them.

Ah - see where we differ is that I think it shuts down the opportunity for discussion instead of opening it. But I see what you mean.