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

Stars, totally agree. NYAC is consistently calm and measured in her posts and is consistently attacked. I suspect it is because she seems to have a very thorough knowledge of radical feminism and its analysis and thus is seen by some posters as the voice of radical feminism.

Other posters like myself who believe in radical feminism, still have a lot to learn and sometimes it shows.

Stars - the problem is, which differences should those be?

Too often putting aside our differences means pretending we're all the same, and too often that "same" is the dominant class within feminism, e. White, middle class, able bodied straight etc.

Then you come to the same problem as in other movements that the dominant voices dictate what is on the agenda and other concerns get swept under the carpet, or told "not now, first we need to do x".

That's why, IMHO, we must have an understanding of insectionality/different axis of oppression rather then just calling for unity.

I mean, what brand of feminism allows repeatedly attacking and attempting to silence women; or in the case of this thread, ONE woman?

Bit sick of this; Why does Nyac get so much grief? The report button seems to go into overdrive as soon as she posts; I can't be the only person who's noticed this.

And Kritiq, your post about the mugs, then subsequently naming Nyac was out of order. Seriously. It reads like a personal attack, with underhand tactics.

The problem is, Nyac if capitalism is going to go down too, what are you going to replace it with? Do radfems have a really good grounding of what it's flaws are and a clear idea of what should replace it? I ask because otherwise you will end up with a situation of perpetual revolution, both class and sex struggle. Ditto back to square one.

"Oh, and before someone says something, NO it wasn't Nyac. I don't know Nyac."

Just stop it. Please keep my name off of posts like that. Why would you even bring me in?

Sorry rulers. I think I gave my best answer to your question upthread and I don't have anything to add, so I'll get off the thread.

This is a deeply stupid sidetracking argument as well, and I think that Kritiq just got a dig in about mugs, so I'd better go. Although maybe we'll get the "paranoia" comment again after me saying that.

I mean, a lot of it, I think, was the patriarchy's attempts to pit us against each other; they painted feminism as extremist, and to avoid getting labelled as such, different strands of feminism got watered down. The patriarchy fucking won, when we started seeing different strands of feminism as the enemy.

Time we united, put aside our differences, and stopped tip-toeing round the patriarchy to avoid offending them.

Oh, and before someone says something, NO it wasn't Nyac. I don't know Nyac.

Actually Rulers, I didn't really understand what your opening post was about. It was quite cryptic, imho.

Oh I thought you were saying I was oppressing Mini, not yourself GothAnne. You flatter yourself that I'd even be thinking about you. A world where radical feminism had prevailed would be one which was free of male violence, which underpins all oppressive systems, so nobody would be oppressing anyone. And radical feminists wouldn't be running it because once male supremacy is destroyed radical feminists won't need to exist either. We can do other things. This is a fight for the end of oppression not a fight like men have in their revolutions to gain power for themselves (see the communists and French revolutionaries for example).

The fourth wave is already happening mini, and its' a radical feminist revolution not a marxist one, although I expect capitalism will go down too.

Rulers, I get what you mean. Have been mentally trying to find the answer. I can't though.

It strikes me as ironic that certain posters see "Radical Feminism" and seem to think "here's my target".

Rad Feminism used to scare the shit out of me. Until the regulars took the time to explain it to me. I'm a bit sick of the strawman arguments against Rad Feminism being trotted out, over and over again

Goth, your last post reminded me of a slogan I thought of getting on a tee shirt 20 years ago when I was very active in feminist organisations in London.

"Why is it that some feminists expect other feminists to wash their mugs for them."

. . . and smiling as I remember who always seemed to leave their mugs behind . . .

Nice silencing tactic, there, Mini...

Nyac, I respect your opinions immensely but you are starting to sound a little bit upset, we are all entitled to have different opinions. Trust me the third wave will be a backlash to this economic system, you either join the fight and make certain that what comes out of it benefits women or you close your ears and say lalalalalalala it doesn't fit with radfem. Are all men driven to evil acts or are all people shaped by a complex dialectic between them and the society in which they live and our shared history.

I never said you oppressed me, you flatter yourself greatly to think that you could.

What I said is that I doubt that a world run by rad fems would be free from oppression. Animal Farm springs to mind.

P.S. Oppression doesn't mean disagreeing with someone on the internet.

If you read Capital, you will find that chapter one "Capitlaist production, Commodities and money, starts with commodities, not with money, but it goes on to explain the exchange value of commodities under the system of money as means of exchange, the root of the problem, not the ownership of the means of production.

I can't remember the opening line but it's something like this: The wealth of societies in which capitalist mode of production prevails, is itself an immense accumulation of commodities.

Engles studied ancient civilisations and wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in which he asserted that women became unequal as we developed the capitalist mode of exchange (note not production)

Sorry to derail.

What on earth gives anybody the right to redefine the term capitalism, so they can claim it dates back to the time when talents were the size of Argos catatolgues and it really did mean something to bury them in a field. If only Marx had been organising the workers back then, the means of production would have been seized and everybody would have carried on farming the land in their agrarian economies and women would still have been oppressed, because oppression of women has nothing to do with the organisation of money and value, and everythign to do with male dominance and male supremacy. Economic terms do have actual meanings. Or does it just not matter when we're talking about women and our experiences. Any old thing can mean any old thing.

I think some women dislike radical feminism because it challenges male entitlement and male privilege and it's unapologetic about that.

Nyac - who on earth gives you the right to declare it fake?

That's why some women dislike rad feminism, in a rad fem world, there'd still be opression, it would just women doing it.

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

eyerolling at self for crap C+P on phone skills