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

oppression and tyranny are based on male violence. If you want to show me how those can be replicated without the use of male violence

because that can not be replicated. It is male violence. That can be agreed surely. However, if we allow men to seethe on the boundaries of society without any actual change to their way of thinking, we would be in a situation of perpetual revolution, actually not unlike now.

women lash out and hit more often than men, this is a fact. men do more damage of course, i wouldnt argue that, but yes women do it to when it comes to violence dittany, of course they do. one ex of mine was a violent fruitcake, i was glad to get rid of her before i got a blackeye or bruised balls so dont talk about male violence as though women are all soo sweet and nice.

I am not ignoring young women, as well you already know that I am making the point that "patriarchy" or capitalism and our current form of democracy is not good for men either. The sooner we can raise their consciousness of these issues the sooner we can break down the power that is limiting all creativity and at the moment all arguments against the status quo.

I agree with you about male supremacy dittany but if in our final analysis we conclude that it is only driven by basic biological differences what hope have we got of overcoming it. The only way of neutering male power would be to literally neuter men.

I want a world where there's no violence. No bloody wars, no mass killing of people, no use of violence to control other people, no fear of other human beings.

And in your heart, you are absolutely sure that any society formed once the patriarchy has been dismantled won't create

'a political system that tyrannises over certain groups, punishing them for their existence and making their lives impossible, all the while exploiting them and stealing from them'

That is the point that I'm not so certain about.

I don't want a society run by women. I want a world where everyone is equal and treated with respect, has the same life chances, the same access to drinking water, food, warmth, shelter, the same safety and security not to live in fear of violence or starvation or death. I would like to see women treated as fully human but for that to happen men would have to be too. I have read some Daly in relation to the family when I was studying social work, very glad we we didn't have to read all of it

Or maybe young women just don't matter that much I purposfully said young men, rather than young women.

They are interrelated because both are caused by the injustices of political and economic policy.

' it's very odd to hear about male violence and dominance being replaced by somethign apparently worse'

Not worse, different.

'If past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour then women as a class are not violent nor politically dominating'

Women for the most part have not been free to make choices like that, having been oppressed. Past behaviour has been shaped by the circumstances and opportunities available to them. It is hard to predict what a society run by women would look like, or the choices that it would make as there are so many variables.

I am going to say something contentious here, so I may as well just say it. I like men. So no I don't want to live in a women only space.

I hate the power dynamics within the society and the world in which we live. I hate the fact that women in Africa watch their children die and the fact that young men in the uk are leaving school with no hope of a decent future. The two concerns to me are of equal importance and they are interrelated.

How could I want to live in a society that didn't care about half of its members?

Daly said ' "I don't think about men. I really don't care about them.'

Why would you dread living in a small community of just women, Mini? I can imagine it being a very pleasant environment, I've only known a couple of 'women's houses' but I didn't see anything dreadful at all about them.

Beyond God the Father, by Mary Daly?

No I haven't. But I would want to consider any future society as inclusive, rather than replacing the dominance of men with that of women.

'She argued against sexual equality, believing that women ought to govern men; Daly advocated a reversal of sociopolitical power between the sexes.

In an interview with What Is Enlightenment? magazine, Daly said, "I don't think about men. I really don't care about them. I'm concerned with women's capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. Not that they've disappeared, but they've been made subliminal. I'm concerned with women enlarging our capacities, actualizing them. So that takes all my energy."

Later in the interview, she said, "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.'

You need a good stream of enthusiastic young visitors, they can be relied on for mugwashing and ad hoc childcare . . .

More seriously, I don't see why small communities of women would be under siege - I would expect mutual support in dealing with the wider world.

I've had a similar experience living/working in mixed sex groups with an explicitly non hierarchical, consensus based ethos, Ethel.

A bit different in that they weren't specifically about challenging the patriarchy (environmental focus) but still being somewhere where equality was expected as a norm is quite different from being out in wider society.

Its why I like the concept of autonomous zones - making our own spaces in society outside of patriarchal, hierarchical norms that operate elsewhere.

(And yes, no doubt the concept of the temporary autonomous zones came from a m/c white man, though I can't recall who exactly, but I still think it a good one that can be taken and used.)

My main worry would be that small communities of women would still be under siege from the outside.