How do Radfems propose to tear down the patriarchy?

In a feminist gathering about 10 years ago, a very wise woman suggested there were parallels between feminism as a movement and some religious movements. Radical Feminists were akin to the "visionaries", the mystics, those who could see the ideal of heaven (i.e. post-patriarchal world,) but were perhaps less focussed on "temporal" matters or how to achieve the ideal. Other feminists were more like the "missionaries," who used that vision of the ideal to convert others to feminist beliefs while taking practical, if small steps towards that ideal.

So with her example, Christian missionaries spread the gospel at the same time as they built schools, houses and clinics for the poor. Feminists of the "missionary" were involved in both consciousness raising and activities like lobbying for changes in the law, getting public funds for domestic violence refuges, fighting for equal pay, etc.

Okay, it's a fairly simplistic analogy, but does illustrate in a way why both strands of feminism are important (and just as there were different denominations of Christian missionaries, there are different strands of feminism like liberal, socialist, anarcha, intersectional, etc.) for the achievement of social justice.

I get what you are saying, hully, and I understand why you want to argue for polite engagement, because it does matter a lot. I agree if you're in a position of knowledge and talking to someone who wants to learn from you, you're powerful.

I just don't believe it's an exactly polarized power balance the way you're saying. And maybe it is a problem with the word 'power'.

It's just ... you could equally say that, if someone says 'I like to look pretty, my choice, what's the big deal', that person actually has quite a lot of power. They have the implicit backing of the patriarchy. They have the power that is assumed from the fact they claim freedom of choice. And IMO it is quite powerful to argue that a concern other people worry about, doesn't affect you.

And then, whose power is reduced by this sort of statement? Well, it's other women who may not feel that looking pretty works like this for them, other women who maybe do feel it's a big deal.

So, I'm not so sure the power dynamic is as simple as you make out.

Sorry, but I just think that's glib, TBH.

I don't believe knowledge necessarily equals power - especially not when it is knowledge of an oppressive system from the inside of that system. I think actually women are often punished for having knowledge, or for expressing it.

You've got to remember that truism isn't intended to describe women's experience at all.

I do agree you can be polite and mindful without watering down, that is true.

Sure, I get that hully.

It is just problematic that a lot of the time when discussing feminism, both 'sides' think the other side has the power and is threatening them with it. I suspect this is inevitable because it's a conflict over a power structure that we live in - we can't step outside and onto neutral ground.

So all we can really do is put points across as clearly as possible. Watering it down doesn't work, and neither IMO does trying to work out which 'side' has more power in the argument.

Cross-posted ... hully, to an extent I get what you're saying, but then again, all the carefully thought-out position isn't going to protect me or anyone else against the realities of the situation we're theorizing about.

It's not like being a feminist gives you freedom from rape or DV, we know.

Oh, yes, I agree!

I think we can do a lot and as you say, the work you describe is worthwhile in itself.

I just think that hully's original question - which is interesting - also kind of demonstrates one of the big problems with discussing feminism.

Lots of people don't accept 'the patriarchy' as a meaningful concept, or deny it has real power over them. Rad fems are very sure the patriarchy is a real structure and has huge power over us. It seems almost the wrong way around, to assume rad fems will be able to see how to get rid of it easily - they're more likely to see the struggle in the toughest terms.

I always wonder more, when people say they don't really believe the patriarchy exists, or they make all their choices freely ... how so? And, if you're in that lucky position, why don't you do more to help women who are not? (Thinking a lot here about RL acquaintances who identify as feminists, believe they have freedom of choice in our current society, and yet see it as the rad fems' job to fight for freedom of choice for other oppressed women).

Agree LRD. But looking at other social change movements it is clear that major change does come from a small group of active people. Tricky to do yes, impossible no.

And the things we do aimed at tearing down the patriarchy help women and girls in the here and now. RadFems have set up DV shelters, rape crisis support centres, projects to help women escape forced marriage, etc. This work is worthwhile in itself.

eats - well, exactly. if most women don't even see the patriarchy, tearing it down is going to be more tricky!

I'm saying, it shouldn't come as a surprise that radical feminists (who, however you define it, must be a smallish group) haven't torn down the patriarchy from the outside: if we could all stand outside the patriarchy, flexing our muscles and enjoying perfect freedom to rip apart anything we chose, it would not be the patriarchy!

LRD- Why would we have done it by now. Most women don't think there is a patriarchy or really a need for feminism. And actually if all women everywhere withdrew from men over night, we could stop the patriarchy. But of course that won't happen. What will happen is that a sizeable minority of women and some men as allies, will make the change.

Its like racism 50 years ago. Most people didn't see a problem and were pretty racist. A sizeable minority thought this was wrong and set out to change it. Although there is still racism in the UK, things have improved tremendously.

Thing is Hully - I am upset by anti-woman sentiment, by racist, misogynistic and disablist language.

I genuinely don't think calling people on things - as in literally, 'You need to look at your language/I'm calling you on xxx/Please don't use that' - is aggressive.

It's short, simple and clear. Not every request needs an essay justifying its existence.

Sorry this Bunny is not signing up!!

Surely if rad fems had a complete, practical solution we would have ... erm ... done it by now!

I think it's probably a bit like we're all in the middle of a dark maze at nighttime, and some people are trying to get out while others think we're too lost and want to sit tight and stay warm. So we're wandering around in the dark and bumping into things, and saying ouch a lot. But eventually, we might get out.

I don't see how anyone could tear down the patriarchy 'from the outside' because patriarchy is a term describing the social structure we live under. We don't know what the 'outside' is like and it'd be immensely arrogant to think we did. So the tearing down has to come from inside and has to involve a bit of bumping around in the dark.

(Clear, me, like the mud.)

Posters should be able to call what they see as opinions and viewpoints as being non-feminist, without it being taken as a declaration of Real and non-Real feminism.

Someone defending prostitution as unproblematic and great (simplification), should be called out on it. Those who use misogynistic, racist or disablist language should be called on it. That is a central point of feminism and the women's movement.

The point Hully is when someone points that out, they get told they are bullying. Feminism, of any variety, means something

There are certain opinions/viewpoints (not people) which aren't feminist though - aren't feminist of any stripe and colour. No point pretending that everything anyone says is feminist.

Whatever gets the job done. To be honest, I think any feminism or anyone that puts women at the centre of attention is so threatening in real life that distinctions aren't important.

I think what the two threads have shown, and this is really positive, is that the real obstacle to feminist debate (note: not action or activism, but just chat on the board) is a refusal to focus on women - either due to focusing on men or focusing on individual experience. We've not really had any of that in these threads and they've rolled along very well.

And to be fair to the radical feminist posters that we have here, the label has often been self-applied in an effort to clarify that it doesn't mean 'extreme man-hating baby-killers' (I exaggerate: slightly). Also, why shouldn't they be proud of their movement? I'm very proud to be a feminist.

I'll stop going off-topic now and concentrate on devising entertaining ways of ripping down the patriarchy.