Radical feminism - what's that all about then?

Oh, I see! Yes, that makes perfect sense.

I am trying very hard to get some feminism (of any kind, really) into HE, btw.

LRD, you have answered your own question theory will never date as long as it can be tested by analysis, and shown to hold up to that interrogation. Theory, is a hypothesis really or like a fact that must be tested, not applied. Analysis is applying interrogation to something and seeing what its constituted of. If you apply a theory to a problem, you can always shape that analysis to support the theory, many marxists are accused of this so instead you use the problem to test the theory!

And yes HE has always been uncomfortable with radical feminism. Women were hived off into different depts applying feminist analysis in lots of areas. However radical feminist theory does not supply the backbone of humanities courses because it just isn't accepted. That's my feeling anyway.

For me radical feminism is about how you think about women's oppression and potential liberation: an unflinching recognition of how deeply the patriarchy sees us as mere things, tools, instruments for its use. It isn't about what one does or doesn't do, but how one sees things as part of a pattern.
For me (and I know this is not strictly correct, but for me) it isn't so much about the primacy of female oppression, in the sense of being the one that happened first relative to all other oppressions. It is about the depth and completeness of that oppression now, and actually about how men - most men, even though they deny it and think they think otherwise, I am talking about actual men now, not just "the patriarchy" but men - think that women are for their use. That this is what women are for - to do things for men.

This is why I get the red mist rage about the trivialising of housework and the fact that women get lumped with it. It isn't as bad as FGM or rape in war or the many other kinds of outrageous violence that men inflict on women. But it is so deeply accepted that it makes me want to throw things and smash things. It makes domestic appliances of women, and everyone just nods and tuts and rolls their eyes and goes "they don't see dirt, do they?"

Radical feminism is a deeply held belief in the humanity of women, as non-instruments but as souls; and a simultaneous clear-eyed understanding that patriarchal structures do not see us that way, but as things to be used

Ooh, I got an 'exactly'!

mini - YY, I think that's definitely true, it's from the ground up. And I think HE has never been at all comfortable with it.

I guess with the theory, what I do notice is how often someone will say something that really clarifies things for me, and they'll tell me it's from a theorist. And I did read a bit of theory recently after the New Statesman series on feminist theory, and it was good. OTOH I read some things that have dated, but that's natural.

What's the difference between theory and analysis (if that's not a daft question)?

I agree with pretty much all that's been said so far, although I am also sceptical of the activism/theory distinction - I think there is a lot of theory in radical feminism, but there is an expectation that we will put that theory into practice rather than just talking about it. I think that's where people struggle with radfem as it can lead to quite an uncomfortable relationship with the world.

I think I've become more radicalised in the last few years and I find it quite tough and draining, because the more you open your eyes to it the more you realise how misogyny is everywhere. It can feel like a constant battle. So you're faced with the tough decision to either accept things the way they are and live your life or to rail against everything and be weighed down by anger. Of course, the ideal is a balance between the two, but that can be tough to achieve. It's a case of picking your battles, which can seem like capitulation on some fronts.

Yes I think its very democratic and non-elitist. I don't think radical feminism has been co-opted into the institutions of HE, reworked, and spewed back at us. It might be that for me, I see it as very much a movement from the ground up. But then the more I think about it, its maybe something to do with the 70s. You had things like the Birmingham school of critical theory spring up, a move towards recovering female writers, critiquing lit in terms of gender etc, perhaps it is more to do with the way in which women went into the institutions and spread around the depts applying feminist analysis in new ways. So I'm not certain. Whereas I am inclined to think that socialist/marxist feminist whilst still being activists, tend towards your politics, philosophy and sociology, never really attempting to use theory in other areas. Even I struggle with theory and quite frankly I read radical feminist analysis and think, wow, now doesn't that make sense! But then I would draw a distinction between theory and analysis.

And I think the third wave responds to this by seeing women being in control of their sexuality as the most important thing. Yet we're not, and it's male violence that reminds us we're not. You can make changes to women's relationship with sex (eg., by criminalizing marital rape or whatever) but it doesn't get us all that far.

Exactly.

Watching with interest.

Oh, sure, I know it's impossible ... but some people do more than others. I am definitely not a hermit!

I'm interested in your number 1, because I always feel as if radical feminism is very theoretical. I am not sure that is a good thing. But then, I think a lot of the theory is disseminated just the way we're doing it here, or by word of mouth, so it's fairly democratic rather than being handed down from on high, so maybe it's closer to activism anyway?

lurking

LRD, it is impossible not to live and work within the existing structure, it just is. Unless you want to be a hermit I think its possible to antagonise the existing structure from within. There are contradictions that create spaces in which struggle can take place. Each radical demand is eventually subsumed into the structure, such as changes to the law and such like, but sometimes we have to then accept or antagonise the law of unintended consequences, and so it goes on...

1. What does radical feminism mean to you?
   Activism over theory

2. What aspects of feminist theory would you attribute to radical feminism?
   Critique of male violence, prostitution and porn, gender binary positions, PIV, rape etc,..

3. What makes someone a radical feminist?
   The belief that sex and gender shape all discourse, social relations and individual lived experience. Belief that patriarchy is the force behind history and continued subordination of women.

4. What makes radical feminism different from other strands of feminism?
   1,2,3 I'm not a radical feminist because I don't subscribe to no;3 but I find much to agree on in terms of 1 and 2

Oh, I'm with you. I agree about being female centric. And about recognising male violence. I think that may be the key thing, actually -

I'm not great at theory, but it seems to me that a lot of second wave/70s writers focus on sex/sexuality in ways that maybe have less to say now? Since then we have had some changes - marital rape criminalized, more awareness of sexual abuse and emotional abuse in relationships, the pill becoming more normalised. And I think the third wave responds to this by seeing women being in control of their sexuality as the most important thing. Yet we're not, and it's male violence that reminds us we're not. You can make changes to women's relationship with sex (eg., by criminalizing marital rape or whatever) but it doesn't get us all that far.

I guess I am a bad radfem in that I do often work in existing structures - I'm married, I teach in HE, I do a fair bit of performing femininity. But I'd like to see those structures change.

I'll jump in with some fairly shallow thoughts if that's ok.

1. That the patriarchy (ie., oppression of women on a structural, not merely individual, level) is the root problem we have to deal with. That doesn't mean other kinds of analysis (class analysis etc.) are irrelevant, but that there is no-one who is unaffected by the patriarchy.

2. Dunno, would be interested what others thing. Do you mean which kinds of ideas or which kinds of writers?

3. Believing that women are systematically oppressed and believing this is wrong. Optional extra: trying to do something about it! Not sure you can be a radfem without trying to do something, but it doesn't have to be giving up your job to campaign for women's rights.

4. It explains the root causes of women's oppression, and IMO it is a coherent way of thinking that can be applied to any situation. It's not pick-and-mix. So you always have to think, what is the power structure in this situation, and how is it positioning women? My feeling is that other kinds of feminism have more of an element of case-by-case decision, and see some people and some activities as being unaffected by patriarchy.