When (and why) did what used to be known as Feminism become labelled Radical Feminism?

afeministtheorydictionary.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/womanism/

Here's a working link Ruler.

I disagree with some other people's views e.g. the term capitalism being misapplied so it can fit a fake theory of women's oppression. I thought the educationalists round here were sticklers for accuracy. Apparently not.

"Just because you cannot understand why something exists"

Just because you can't understand why I'm disagreeing with something, doesn't mean that that disagreement has no basis. OK?

"Nyac - you are hideously dismissive of other people's views. I will not stop calling you out on it."

Thanks for admitting you're getting digs in though. Who was Kritiq calling paranoid.

?????????

Nyac - you are hideously dismissive of other people's views. I will not stop calling you out on it.

Just because you cannot understand why something exists, that doesn't make it invalid. Does that really need to be spelled out for you?

The paranoia thing is getting a bit tiresome.

You need to stop policing me GothAnne. You keep getting digs in e.g. "dogmatic", "reminds me". It's tiresome.

Marx wouldn't agree that capitalism started when the money supply was created so I don't know why the term gets a new meaning just because feminism is involved. If anybody is trying to stretch their theory into one size fits all, that's where it's happening.

Ruler - Actually Womanism doesn't have much to with recent discussion as you will see here: afeministtheorydictionary.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/womanism/

I'm not a Womanist, but I understand why some women choose to be.

Seeker - Very, because there is a whole wide world of female thought out there and narrowing it down and shutting out other voices - (see Nyac's sneering at the Marxist feminists) doesn't advance us, it limits us.

In my experience, on mumsnet, "radical feminism" is what is usually called "feminism" it's very depressing indeed.

Rulersmakebadlovers

"Interesting discussions, but slightly veering from the point in my OP.

Which was (and I was a bit wine-hazed when I wrote it) - why (and when) did what are seemingly pretty middle of the road feminist ideas become seen as radical ones?"

What I gather and it is in my limited knowledge, other poster will correct me if I'm wrong. The term 'radical' feminism was being used as far back as the 60's. I'll try and condense it as best I can.

After the WWII the American women were sent back to their kitchens, which had upset quite a few women. President Kennedy in 1961 established the Commission on the Status of Women which published radical reports on US women holding 2nd Class citizenship. Some of the women involved in the reports went on to form National Organization for Women (1966). It appears there were 2 strands forming :NOW joined with Professional Women's Caucus, Federally Employed Women and Women's Equity Action League.
At the same time another branch was being formed, under 30, some had attended various courses on women at uni others, participants and concerned observers of the social action projects of the 50's, 60's. The first group, reformists, were the political activists and the latter the radicals who were the educators. These women went to grassroot level, and brought together women (from the kitchen) into a situation of structured interaction which was created specifically for the purpose of altering their perceptions and conceptions of themselves and society. Women learned to see how social structures and attitudes had molded them from birth and limited their opportunities. At this time there was no ideology surrounding feminism, so I'm assuming the 'root' was the oppressed women whose lives they sought to influence ?

No, Nyac. I can see where Radical Feminism comes from. I can see why some women subscribe to it. Just like I can see why some women are Marxist feminists, womanists, yes, even sex positive feminists.

They are all theories of how to improve the lot of women on earth and I don't believe that only one theory has the monopoly on the truth, because again: lived realities vary.

In other words other people's One True Paths are fine and dandy, just not radical feminism which centers women.

Dogmatism must surely be in the eye of the beholder.

Marxist/socialist feminism is a perfectly valid and valuable strand of feminism. Thank you Takver and Mini for discussing it in depth.

Feminism springs from our lived realities, hence there will be different types/flavours of feminism.

I see no need for the dogmatic approach (and accompanying eye-rolling) some, particularly Nyac, are using here, as if radical feminism is the One True Path to liberation for women.

This reminds me of a previous discussion here, when some posters who barely knew what Womanism was declared it as pointless and divisive.

I disagree with this definition:

"I would say that a lot of women who don't consider themselves to be feminists at all are often closer to radical feminism than to liberal feminism. A lot of the everyday concerns of many women, about poverty, the value of their unpaid work, the treatment of their children, support of other women who are in difficult circumstances are issues of radical feminism. Liberal feminism sits more comfortably with women who have found ways of individually getting on within the system. That is why its ideals get a lot of focus in women undergraduates and women starting out in the professions, because they are at the time in their lives and of a class position where many of the concerns of women are less likely to have happened to them. Of course there are some feminist issues that have a huge impact on them, and those are often the ones all feminists tend to unite over as a common goal. "

I self-identify as a liberal feminist. To me that means that I think my position is better than my mother's, that her position was better than her mother's, and so forth at least back to the start of the twentieth century). I think that there is a good chance that my daughters' position, and that of other women in their generation, will be better than mine, but that there is a danger that complacency will lead/is currently leading to backsliding. The issues that you mention (poverty, perceived value of work, etc.) are issues that are important to me along with the position of women globally (civil rights, economic position, women's health issues, the position of women in cobflict situations), objectification and pornification of women. I don't identify as a radical feminist because I don't believe that the patriarchy is going to be dismantled (although it can be chipped away at) and I don't even think that talking about that as a potential outcome is a good use of intellectual or emotional energy. I believe that change will be incremental and achieving genuine equality will take generations. On a side issue, I can also see that society's gendered expectations are weighing more heavily on my son than on my daughters and question the assertion that any man has automatically benefitted from the patriarchy.

I don't believe that we have had a third wave,I think there has been a lull, with younger women enjoying the hard won freedoms without paying too much attention to the contradictions in their behaviour.

They might have penciled something on the side of the cave

Women were more agile hunters when not pregnant.

I think feminism during the 2nd wave was mostly radical, lots of thinking, politicking and discussion, activism and writing. I think we are still waiting for the third wave because liberal feminism is too individualistic and not political enough to really move things on.

NO it's to do with the accumulation of land and wealth once we became settled upon the land.

Nomadic peoples hundreds of years ago actually didn't rape and expect to have sex at the whim of man because they actually had to ensure they kept the population down and women were more valued for their hunting than their ability to give birth.

I think we're operating on different definitions.

But anyway, it isn't coinage that oppresses women, it's men.

There's no reason why a symbolic system of exchange would lead to the oppression of women, it's men wanting to dominate women that did that.

Yes they do exchange women for cattle, I have said as much!

Capitalism is about the ownership of the means of production but it is also about the exchange value of goods being linked to money/gold. You simply can not overthrow capitalism without finding different a mode of exchange.

I'm not radical, ratty would probably sum me up better