How do Radfems propose to tear down the patriarchy?

madwoman - I know what you mean actually. Because I have said I am a RadFem, sometimes some posters seem to think that I, or any other RadFem posters, should defend and explain everything any RadFem has ever said - either here, online or in print. Expecting those who sign up to a particular branch of feminism, whatever that branch of feminism is, only exacerbates any divisions.

I only define myself as a liberal on here. In rl no one gives two hoots, and I couldn't honestly envisage a discussion where two feminists would argue about it - there might conceivably be a discussion over which would be most effective in terms of equality, but I doubt the terms rad or lib would enter the discussion.

Tbh, I can't answer. I'd do both. No idea which is the 'right' answer in terms of a stereotypical liberal response.

It is interesting that there is such an expected level of consensus. And such analysis of what constitutes one or the other. It feels very judgemental. (I know that's not the intention, I just find it odd that such group think is thought to be the answer to the perceived problem. Surely it makes more sense to run with the many feminisms thing? Rather than to try to group together the like minded so that they can be neatly boxed?)

I spend my whole life trying not to be judged as a woman. It feels v odd to be scrutinised to see if I represent a further minority, or which box I should be shoehorned into. I only identify as a liberal on mn. I am a feminist. I have no idea what group think liberals are supposed to engage in.

I know it's happening the other way too. (x is a radfem and sleeps with aman, everyone - and sometimes said in patronizing tones)

I don't like this 'exactly how and why are we all different?' focus that has swept fwr. It's even more divisive than being called an mra, but I do understand the impetus to use it as a unifying force. It just feels, I dunno, a bit, divisive. Kinda contrary to stated intent.

I know that I'm posting on two threads which are all about the differences between rad and libs. so really, what did I expect? I dunno.

Time for me to back off and ponder awhile, I think.

Sorry wasn't meaning to imply I was quoting you. Simply referring to the idea. The villagers were talking about a particular child for example and saying that man is 50% father, he is 25%, etc. And the % was based on how often he was sleeping with the woman. Just interesting.

Well yes, of course you could do/support both :) But I would think that the one you thought was more important or would have the most impact would say whereabouts you lie on the scale. I would hazard a guess that most liberal feminists would feel the legislation is needed because individuals buying/selling/making music aren't going to have a big enough impact on it's own, and the radical feminists would say legislation is no good on it's own and potentially not needed when the action part comes into it's own.

I don't know, well, I always thought I was a liberal feminist until I learned more about radical feminism and it made sense to me, so maybe more people identify with it than they realise. And perhaps I'm falling back on legislation as a bit of a "libfem stereotype" - perhaps there are other ways that liberal feminists would approach that particular issue, for example. How would you define the difference, or define yourself as liberal?

To answer an earlier point, I think that radical feminists tend to be anti-capitalism because if you look at how capitalism works it becomes apparent that women are disadvantaged/devalued under capitalism systematically and so as a system it has to go.

But I do remember watching this documentary about a place where the people did not know that only 1 man could be the father of 1 baby. They believed a baby could have many fathers.

I didn't say pair bond per se, there is a good biological reason why in many societies it takes a village to raise a child :)

Its interesting the argument that we are biologically compelled to pair bond. I don't know if we are. But I do remember watching this documentary about a place where the people did not know that only 1 man could be the father of 1 baby. They believed a baby could have many fathers.

And so the women ususally slept with a number of men, partly because it meant there were more men who would take care of and provide for their children. I wish I could remember where it was?

They are right that of course woman can choose. Unless they are forced to marry, etc, they do have this choice. Whether most women will make this choice is a different issue. And since some RadFems don't choose this for themselves, it is unlikely that most women will choose this.

Himalaya - you just have sex until you conceive, surely? Then go back to whatever non-penetrative sex you were having before. I'm not suggesting that we have a brain transplant and forget everything that we know about human biology. We just re-arrange things so that PIV is not the central form of sex.

And we don't have concealed ovulation if we decide to share that information with someone else.

If we'd all grown up in a society in which this happened, we'd think it was perfectly normal.

And I for one don't buy that we are 'biologically' compelled to bond with men. Well, we might be - but I don't understand how we comprehend that biological fact OUTSIDE of a society that rewards pair bonding as normative.

whatme- Some RadFems argue that all women can choose either to be lesbians or separatists/spinsters

I'm sure they do. I think they are barking ignoring billenia of human evolution.

Rofl Bertie.
But in response, this liberal would be doing both. I'd legislate against the one, and buy and support the other. Not sure why the second one would be a radical option, though, rather than a basic feminist choice?

That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with everything boiling down to legislation, if I'm honest. (potentially that makes me an even crapper liberal than I thought) I'm actually entirely passionate about free speech etc, and can't think of anything worse than a completely law bound and totalitarian state where your every move is dictated...

I don't think it's in the realm of science fiction to imagine a world in which PIV sex only occurs between two people who have decided to procreate.

Religions have been trying that one for millenia, it typically works for some extreme sect or the other but its never really taken off.

The Shakers are the ones that amuse/amaze me the most - no sex at all. Predictable result - no more Shakers.

Victor -

I think you are putting the cart before the horse there. How can people have PIV in order to procreate unless they know how that works and when that is - which is surely down to culture- sex education, counting days, testing mucus, peeing on sticks etc...?

Human beings have concealed ovulation which means that recreational sex isn't cultural, it is biological.

whatme- Some RadFems argue that all women can choose either to be lesbians or separatists/spinsters. So no, women do not have to partner men. But it seems to be a hot debate in RadFem circles. The RadFem equivalent of transgender threads here

Oh FGS you've all been discussing madly while I've been typing away! Now I'll have to go and catch up

If I am wrong in this please correct me, but this is how I understand things to be using an example of the popular music industry.

A liberal feminist approach would be to bring in legislation banning misogynist lyrics and videos which objectified women - this would likely have a more immediate effect and would definitely curtail the amount of offensive material which is around on radio, TV etc. However, artists could still be misogynistic etc they just wouldn't be allowed to release music which expressed this. There may still be an "underground" movement of music/videos which are objectifying and sexist. One side effect of having non-sexist music around in the mainstream though might be that it would normalise less sexist thoughts and attitudes, which would of course be a positive thing.

The radical approach would be to make more of an effort to listen to and buy music made by women, to raise its place in the charts; perhaps to set up or be part of a female-positive music label, magazine, studio or radio station; to create music (as a woman) which is empowering, etc, and the intended overall effect of this would be to raise the profile of music which doesn't conform to a sexist stereotype and so reduce the power of the sexist/misogynist/objectifying music until it becomes little more than a niche (for douchebags ) - of course the downside of this kind of approach is that it may never happen, and/or that it's a lot slower, but if change is happening all over society then we may see a kind of snowball effect where attitudes are changing and actions are changing as a result of this, so it picks up and actually people who never would have identified with being a feminist, let alone a radical one, think "I prefer this music because it doesn't have all that sexist crap in".

I think the difficulty of the discussion in general (not my little example) is that surely it's impossible to state how something as massive as "tearing down the patriarchy" would work in principle. What we can do is share theories on how to "bring down" each smaller obstacle in turn, and that's where the radical vs liberal approach comes in, I think. For me it's important to be thorough and to aim to change thoughts and attitudes first and hope the actions come about as a result of that, rather than forcing actions to change and hoping attitudes change as a result of that, or holding the view that it's actions which are important and an individual's thoughts are irrelevant to the issue. That is how I understand the difference, anyway, but I do admit I find radical feminist theory hard to follow at times or difficult to see how certain actions will have an effect. Perhaps it's all about the snowball!

I guess as long as the majority of people are attracted primarily to people of the opposite sex then there will be a bit of gendering.

IMO that is the fatal flaw in any RadFem solution I've seen, in that (most) women are designed to form bonds and breed with men as an incredibly deep biological imperative.

The bonobos are also highly gay, a fact used to suggest that it can be socially bonding and useful, and that homosexuality is much more widespread and prevalent in the animal kingdom than previously thought.

I think its more accurate to say they are highly bisexual, rather than "gay" per se, I wouldn't use it as an argument that homosexuality is more widespread..

I don't think it's in the realm of science fiction to imagine a world in which PIV sex only occurs between two people who have decided to procreate.

There's plenty of sex that doesn't involve a P going anywhere near a V. Particularly so for women. We only find it central to sexual expression because our society says so. And our society is patriarchal.

Someone upthread said that eliminating PIV has been associated with castration. Obviously I don't advocate that. But I am very interested in why chemical castration is beyond the pale, but the deaths in childbirth, the incontinence, the illnesses, the risk of forced birth are somehow a 'normal' offshoot of heterosexual sex that just has to be accepted.

Wherever there is harm, it seems to be that women should take it.

I want to be a bonobo too, certainly beats TV and cars anyday
I'm interested in this idea that withdrawing labour and reproduction, raising consciousness and creating women's spaces will bring about the end of patriarchy. Surely it will just create another point of tension. As for genderside and castration that is little better than patriarchy.

I'm also perplexed about the anti-capitalism. I know that socialist feminism and radical feminism grew out of the third wave, many theorists sharing ideas and developing new analysis, however I am still stumped as to how women will eat if they withdraw their services and stop competing in the jobs market, working alongside men, consuming and spending. I see anarcho-syndicates springing up, I see the occupy movement and I see some brilliant activity in the universities in regards socialist economics springing up but I don't see radical feminists furthering those causes because it isn't women centred. Yet an end to capitalism will cause a massive space to open up where women's politics can really start to take root and start to shape a different kind of society.

I agree with your general take on sex trades and sexuality, Leith. But, after forcing myself to have a thorough read of the specialised review websites, I've got a far harsher opinion of men who use prostitutes. Of course there are lots of reasons why people use prostitutes: some more sad than bad; many misguidedly misogynist more than malicious. But a preponderance, it seems, take extra pleasure in using women callously :(

Hello, Fallen :) Coulda written your post at 19:58!

glasgowwean: Likewise I doubbt I worded my post very well. I was bradly prempting your post in that I do not see that radicle fems offer a way other than to punish the punters of abolishing prostitution. Whilst I think stronger crimanal action needs taken particularly on the traffickers, plus more work on raisomg the expectations of girls/women, increasing access to education and employment. I think we need to address one of the human factors that both women and men are tempted to have sex with people they should not, men who use prostitutes do so for many reasons I do not accept the view that it is about the invasion of a womens body, nor is it about exerting control. The punter wants to orgasm. Rapists invade womens bodies, rape is not about sex but power and control.

What needs addressed and maybe it is in the gender debate, is the desire to have sex which is seen as taboo. Sorrry ran out of energy.

I know I've probably misunderstood what the message was, but one a different thread I was told that my attitude was blaming the victim, that women should not be expected to challenge unacceptable behaviour in a relationship, that the onus was entirely on the man to change and that women would never obtain power and control unless the patriarcy volunteered to give it up.
I got a bit confused as to why the majority of men would choose to give up a position that gave them everything just for the general good. Especially if it wasn't demanded of them.

What garlicbutt said.
It wasn't universal by any means, but I too am shocked by how much has been lost from the advances that we made, especially with regards to gender stereotyping of children, and the current focus on body modification and conformity.

This has been a really good thread.

Huxley might have got rid of the "barbarism" of pregnancy in BNW, but he certianly didn't get rid of class.

Anyhoo.............given the majority of women will not wish to separate from men or withdraw labour, how do radfems propose to bring this about?

Or do they think through the power of mumsnet and the odd march they will overcome biology? Is there a plan to convert the remaning 99% of women to this way of thinking?

lovely post, madwoman