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

You don't think oppression can be done in other ways than through male violence?
Exclusion, shunning, conform or be cut off?
I can't give examples of what oppression in a world that has had male violence eradicated would look like. I'm just reasonably sure that some form of it would take place.
I find it hard to see utopia, or paradise or whatever term one chooses to use for a perfect state of existence, happening when humans are all fully involved.

Physically violent?
Or controlling dissent in other ways?
Or encouraging debate and disagreement in order to prove the rightness of their arguments through non-violent means?

Disagreement is a healthy and necessary thing, it is how those in power deal with disagreement that can be a tool for oppression.

I agree, Fallen. It's part of human (all creatures'?) nature to seek domination over others of its kind. The means of domination are varied and often ugly. Patriarchy has systematised the domination of half the species over the other half by gender, which I consider unreasonable. I do not imagine that ending this paradigm will eliminate all domination and oppression from human life at all, much as I would like to.

This is interesting ... is THIS the foundation of 'radicalism' in feminism? A belief that eliminating oppression-by-gender will eliminate all oppression from our societies?

Is that how my post reads?
It's not meant to. I truly believe that ending male violence and oppression would be a remarkable and wonderful thing to achieve. I think that the struggle would then be to ensure that what replaced it was infinitely better, and that a different fight against other, newer forms of oppression would have to occur.
I'm not envisioning some sort of Brave New World based on the Two Ronnies sketches of the 70s.

'Every single oppressive system was created by and is upheld by male violence.'

I'm not denying that at all. I am saying that if and when male dominance and violence ends, other new forms of oppression will take their place. Possibly engendered and sustained by women, or by women and men together.
The focus of the oppression will probably change, and the methods with which an individual or a community are suppressed will also alter.
But there will be individuals at the bottom of the heap, being crushed.

'"Sorry, I don't buy the idea that after the revolution, whether it's a feminist one, a marxist one or any flavour, that all oppression will magically melt away."

I agree with KRITTIQ, I don't think that the only ways to oppress an individual are through male violence and I can't see oppression ending.
Changing in method and focus yes, but not ending.
Not until humans have a completely different attitude to each other and no need to dominate or categorise as us and other in any way. Which given the level of infighting at all stages in any movement of any description is unlikely.

why (and when) did what are seemingly pretty middle of the road feminist ideas become seen as radical ones?

I dunno. It often seems to me that anybody with a feminist viewpoint that goes further than claiming the right to equal pay while wearing stripper heels is now 'radical'. Over the past month I've read blog posts by self-styled "radical feminists" including a woman who gives, ahem, Tantric massages to men while rubbing her naked boobs on their chests and a woman who appears genuinely to believe women will never be equal until all males are subjected to hormonal alteration. I was looking for credible/understandable aims to radical feminism, which differ from the aims of average feminism. Unless you count mandatory chemical castration, which I don't, I didn't find any.

Not saying I now know everything about what "radical feminism means today". But I'm wondering whether, in a climate of (false) security and (true) awareness about women's equality issues, any strong feminist is now called radical. Maybe we think we've moved far enough forwards now, the Overton window has shifted into the area labelled Radical Feminism. I think that would be a mistake, obviously ... Is this what you were thinking, too?

It gets on my nerves, tbh. With the adoption of a possibly useless qualifier, we've divided feminism in ways it doesn't need to be divided. Every argument about what 'radical' means is a wasted opportunity to share equally valid ideas about how to set about achieving feminists' mutual objectives. There's still a warehouse full of those to meet before we have the luxury of splitting hairs.

Am are of waffling. Will go back to lurking.

Good to have you back dittany although I knew who you were because your posts are always so clear which I love

Rulers - I think it is because more people call themselves a feminist in a mainstream way - want equal rights, no discrimination etc...but do not subscribe to any particular subset philosophy.

Do you really think there are beliefs and proposals that were supported by more people but are now seen as radical, or is it that there are more people who are general feminists, so this dilutes any one version?

Are there specific beliefs you think used to be more widely supported by grneral feminists but are now only held by radicals?

Welcome back, Dittany! :)

and sorry, yeah, was half drifting in and out of sleep when I posted that - re-read it... But that's what I was trying to get at. Sorry, not done very eloquently.

Ah, dittany did you mean that you were Nyac? I thought you meant you were Rulers. Um. Well, clearly I don't recognise your posting style...

Thank you, Rulers/dittany, for demonstrating my point so eloquently. Actually, yes, I do actually think that my very bright, rugby-playing daughter (brought up in a family of bright women, some of whom play rugby) will find it a lot easier to fit into society than my sensitive, liking to play with Barbies, wanting to wear brightly coloured satin, son. I am also aware that that's probably brcause my children as a whole are ASTONISHINGLY privileged on a global scale so my daughters won't have to deal with many of the issues thst affect 90% of women on the planet.

That doesn't mean that I think men or boys in general are the most harmed these days. They blatantly aren't. It doesn't mean that I think that women dominate in group discussions. They blatantly don't. It means, precisely, that I am concerned for my son -- MINE. The one you know fuck-all about other than that he has a penis. But I can post an entire post about feminism and mention right at the end about how I am concerned for him and don't think that the patriarchy is doing him any favours and it apparently means that you can ignore everything else I wrote, zero in on that and ask whether I am 'doing the "women dominate in group discussions" thing' (I mean, really, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? And I don't normally swear. I'm concerned about a renewed hyper-polarisation of gender roles and you jump to THAT?)

My concern about radical feminISM was laid out in the part of my post that you decided to ignore. My concern about some (but, you know, sometimes on here it seems like the majority) of radical feminISTS, which I touched on briefly right at the end of my post, is that all anyone has to do is express any measure of concern for any single individual in possession of a Y chromosome to be accused of being a "what about the menz" apologist, be accused of lots of atuff they never said and have anything else they say ignored. Two, maybe three posts later (I'm not scrolling up again now just to count) you kindly removed any possibility of anyone's suggesting that I was paranoid amd imagining that last bit.

You know, it would be possible if someone mentions their son and you are suspicious that they are a closet MRA apologist to say something like "Really? Are you worried about him in particular, or is this a more general concern about men and boys?". But, hey, why bother when you can jump straight to saying "BS" and then (oh, the irony) go back to wondering why more women aren't interested in feminism?