Prof. Stock says she is not a radical feminist - what is feminism if not radical?

[Jamdown123]

Hi All,

I listened to the LBC interview with KS. I the interview she says she is not a radical feminist (when explaining the term TERF). I'm just wondering, is 'radical' feminist the todays' version of 'feminist' 15 years ago? I remember when I was in my early 20s and I would say I was feminist, which I found I had to do very often to declare myself when people started saying stupid sexist things! - people would slightly recoil. Is that what 'radical' feminism is now?

I can't really see what feminism is without radicalism, unless you are saying you want oppression of women to end, but you want it to end within a sexist system and you are happy to just inch along for centuries, as you really don't want to upset any apple carts?!

I'm just confused. Caught some feelings when she said that to be honest - why reject us radicals, Kath???!!!

Perhaps she was pointing out that holding certain views, for example that people cannot change sex and wanting to retain single sex services, facilities and sports isn’t necessarily an indictor that someone is ‘radical’?

@Dozer

Perhaps she was pointing out that holding certain views, for example that people cannot change sex and wanting to retain single sex services, facilities and sports isn’t necessarily an indictor that someone is ‘radical’?

Oh, maybe? That's not how I read it but what I read didn't seem to make a lot of sense!

Lol @ OP. Really?

So you say you don't know what radical feminism is. Ask for explaination from posters.

Then decide probably means whatever you considered feminist to mean couple decades ago.

Then you say come on we're all radical feminist woohoo makes no sense not to be!

That was bold! Seeing as... Not had answers what it means yet...

!!

Oh also doing anything OTHER than overturning millennia of patriarchy presumably globally and totally (enforcing???) a new world order...

Is pointless inching along and also trying to dismantle masters house with his own tools... Ha! Useless! Fuck that!

But hold on...

OP instead of engaging with posters has finally realised that could just Google it (not thought of that before asked here?) and has somehow managed to come up with what must have been waayyy down results, or what googled was... Peculiar.

Because what they found was the classic, still popular, MRA/ angry man's go to...

That the sort of feminists that make so many people very uncomfortable indeed, and really they should just stop talking and go away

Are .. Damaged, angry, obsessed, irrational man haters who blame everything on men always.

Hmm.

Are you still keen on being a radical feminist now read that info you found?

Incidentally, you'll have to cut your hair into a short unattractive style, wear dungarees, shout at men a lot, burn your bras, throw all makeup away, stop removing all body hair, and of course become either a lesbian, stop having sex altogether and consider living in all all women commune on a remote Scottish island.

Sound good?

I haven't misread that life at stake bit wrong have I?

Reading it again, I'm not sure I even get what it's saying.

I took it that radical feminists have experienced particularly bad things at hands of men/ patriarchy.

So stock saying not a radical feminist means she hasn't been so oppressed she has been in first hand up close and personal could be murdered position.

Because if she had been grossly oppressed with serious likelihood would end up dead,

She would naturally be a radical feminist.

Yes that's it I think.

Leading to > radical Feminists as a group contain a large % of women who have been seriously abused, essentially.

Is that about it OP?

If so, my previous post re what need to do, stands.

If not, let me know what I've misunderstood.

And I'm interested why you would decide to label yourself as something when you state you don't actually know what it means!

@CheeseMmmm

Someone has upset you. I'm not sure it's me.

I didn't Google anything, I copied and pasted what another poster wrote.

I'm not a man-hater. I'm a black woman very much allied with black men in trying to overturn white supremacy. I'm arm in arms, I have made male people with my own body, nursed them at my breast and raise them with joy and love in my heart. Its true I don't know many white men personally, but I don't hate any even if many of those in positions of power do some pretty hateful things and have demonstrated hate for me and my kind.

I wasn't asking for a definition of radical feminism. I was questioning what kind of feminism could possibly not be radical.

Ultimately, you have misunderstood. And importantly I make no assumptions about KS. I have been curious about her, which I'm allowed to do.

Among my black feminist circles there's very little talk of radical or other feminism because not much of this shit is not working for us anyway, so our position generally is overturn the whole shebang, like that same one I paraphrased. But then perhaps you're black and there are bits you'd like to keep because this is working for you. I don't know. I also don't know that many women who just jump on others who are asking questions and make huge assumptions, but hey ho, this is the internet and one can't expect much respect here, I guess.

Lastly, please ease off. I'm not here for that.

Thanks

southallblacksisters.org.uk/

Might be of interest not sure where you live.

I'll be back later.

Incidentally a person who does not want to label themselves a radical feminist does not = happy with some aspects of male supremacy/ patriarchal structures etc.

You don't know what my position is, or 'kath's'.

@Jamdown123

So, I've read.

Its a position someone who has not been so oppressed by inequality that their very life is at stake, can have quite easily. I don't know whether this is true of KS.

Where on the thread did you read that? I missed it, might help to understand the context around it.

I'm obviously missing something on this thread not sure. Couldn't see which poster that quote came from.

Kathleen Stock is not a radical feminist, but she is still a feminist. I am not a radical feminist but I am still a feminist.

Radical feminism has a specific meaning and is a branch of feminism, other branches are available.

Oh sorry OP not going comprehension today. Misread again, link not relevant to what you posted.

Apologies.

[quote JustSpeculation]Hi, OP. Here's your answer:

kathleenstock.com/not-your-feminist/[/quote]
Thanks for the link - v interesting and I agree with her that gatekeeping feminism as a term is dull and unhelpful.

Did anyone else watch the brilliant talk KS gave to the Cambridge Radical Feminist Network earlier this year, in which she argued that gendered behaviour and interests are not necessarily something we should seek to abolish?

I grew up in the Borough of Ealing, so v aware of SBS.

My perspective is very simple, probably not complex enough for academics and other erudite people, I just think sexism and patriarchal influences have corrupted every part of life, social and likely personal. So which parts wouldn't we touch if we wanted to rid ourselves of it? My own life is a sad mess of gender norms and I struggle everyday with that, so exhausting. Being a mum makes it so frikkin difficult. So many god forsaken rabbit holes. So I fail, but my ideal, aim goal is still a radical overhaul.

I feel similarly about racism and white supremacy. Those are the two main oppression that impact me, interspersed with class. Age will come (is here??!!)

I think there is a point in all feminism if the broad aims are recognisable, but I truly don't understand why any feminist would stop short of being radical. This is why I wondered whether the term radical feminism has becone something so aversive feminists are shunning it.

I think I should have said stop short of claiming radicalism.

@JoanOgden

I didn't, very interested to hear her position on that! Can you recall main tenets?

@Jamdown123

So, I've read.

Its a position someone who has not been so oppressed by inequality that their very life is at stake, can have quite easily. I don't know whether this is true of KS.

It probably is true. Whatever personal difficulties Stock has had in life, she doesn't come from an oppressed background, I think.

She won't label herself, and nail herself to a named doctrinal position as she sees this as restrictive and as limiting free enquiry. She has referred to herself as an "Aristotelian", and the strong impression I have is that by this she means she is in favour of reason, of practical, empirical study, and probably sees politics as a matter of policy making through debate in a free society rather than a matter of class struggle. She has put a lot of personal effort into that debate.

She's more concerned with what she wants than with her position. That is, she'll take a position in a particular argument based on her analysis of the arguments involved. But she's not interested in labelling herself as an x,y or z and then defending that position because she thinks such an approach doesn't really get you anywhere useful.

Some of what she wants is pretty radical, some isn't. But it's all sensible and thoroughly thought through. It is not in any way a luxury position.

I'm a fan.

[quote Jamdown123]@JoanOgden

I didn't, very interested to hear her position on that! Can you recall main tenets?[/quote]
It's online, here:

Do watch it and let us know what you think!

In her book she calls herself a fact-based feminist. Her feminism is based on facts rather than being, I guess, ideologically driven.

I expect there are lots of women who support a hotch-potch of feminist ideals but who don't sit firmly in any particular camp.
Would I like to see a total overhaul of society in line with rad-fem principles? Ideally yes. Do I think it will ever happen? Not in my life-time for sure. Probably not ever. Why? Because men are bigger and stronger and more powerful and most of them don't share those aims, nor are they likely to be persuaded it is in their best interests to do so. So what do I want? The best that can be achieved for women, however it can be achieved.
Can't we just fight cause by cause, the best way we can?

@Jamdown123

I grew up in the Borough of Ealing, so v aware of SBS.

My perspective is very simple, probably not complex enough for academics and other erudite people, I just think sexism and patriarchal influences have corrupted every part of life, social and likely personal. So which parts wouldn't we touch if we wanted to rid ourselves of it? My own life is a sad mess of gender norms and I struggle everyday with that, so exhausting. Being a mum makes it so frikkin difficult. So many god forsaken rabbit holes. So I fail, but my ideal, aim goal is still a radical overhaul.

I feel similarly about racism and white supremacy. Those are the two main oppression that impact me, interspersed with class. Age will come (is here??!!)

I think there is a point in all feminism if the broad aims are recognisable, but I truly don't understand why any feminist would stop short of being radical. This is why I wondered whether the term radical feminism has becone something so aversive feminists are shunning it.

Two things I'd say about this, which maybe comes to the same thing:

One is that radical feminism isn't exactly about "taking it all down," it's about the place you start to change things. You might decide, from that, that it will mean taking it all down, but not all rad fems do.

The idea is that the oppression of women starts or comes out of our female reproductive role. That's the "root" so rad fem ideas come out of that.

But in addition, it also tends to take an approach that sees gender - and a very unique version of the idea of gender that is different from what a sociologist would say - is the means of that oppression and must be destroyed. It tends to be very marxist in it's approach and so interprets the relation of the sexes as a class struggle. Also common but not universal is a tendency to downplay the extent to which sex or reproductive role may affect male and female biology and psychology in ways that are not socially constructed. There can be some extreme ways some people who start from a rad fem perspective try and overcome the problem of reproductive role - some have advocated removing as much childbearing and rearing from women as possible, you can see some of this in certain arguments used for access to contraception and abortion. And another approach some have suggested in male-female separatism. Both of those are more unusual approaches but they are examples of people beginning from the starting point of the "root" being reproductive role.

But there are all kinds of reasons someone might not think it was, not even desirable, but possible, to go that far. In the same way that someone might think abolishing the laws of physics isn't a useful approach for avoiding car crashes. Reproductive role might be really important, but what if gender is more complex than the typical rad fem idea? What if it can't be abolished or doing it would create other problems? What if the patriarchy is just a meaningless abstraction that doesn't touch on what really affects real women? What if marxist class categories are false, or simply can't be applied in a meaningful way to biological categories?

If reproductive role really is the reason for the systemic position of women across cultures and time, chances are that even if we wiped out any of them, new cultures with the same problems would arise. There is also the very real possibility that we'd be wiping out all kinds of structures that protect women.

Really helpful to have these responses, thanks.

Feminism doesn't need to be radical. The idea that 50% (51%) of the population deserve the same rights and privileges as the other 50% (49%) shouldn't be a radical notion, therefore it doesn't necessitate a radical attitude.

However, these things are a sliding scale, and where our passions lie, there does our potential to radicalised them. In all aspects of our lives.

Hello OP I apologise for being arsey.

Misunderstood where you are coming from. Bit trigger happy we get so many posters who are coming from a place they are not straightforward about.

'she argued that gendered behaviour and interests are not necessarily something we should seek to abolish?'

The problem is that so many behaviours, preferences, abilities etc are adhered to and imposed on one sex or another.

Embedded in society, imposed from birth, massively reinforced, and with enforcement constantly, from generally unnoticed, to extreme.

The things themselves generally are not an issue.

Eg

Everyone is more or less emotional, expresses their emotion in different ways etc.

Currently society (sex role IE gender role) says eg

Boys are more logical than emotional. Rational rather than driven by feelings.
Boys don't cry.
Women's emotions often cloud their reason.
Etc.

The problem is not whether you are someone who cries more or less readily, or the varying degrees of emotional reaction to certain things, or that different people think and react in a variety of different ways, and differently to different things.

It's that the reactions etc that humans can have are divvied up between men are like this and women are like that.
When in fact of course plenty of men cry some at the drop of a hat, and plenty of women don't very to much at all.

Everyone is different. Take away the insistence that it's men this women that, let everyone be as they are.

Ditto clothes, interests, everything.

The behaviours etc don't need to go. The boxes do.

(Bar things pressed onto society that are not helpful for anyone, whatever their sex).

In feminism it's a v long term well understood use of gender to mean sex role.

Not behaviours or anything.

Phrase sex is the reason for our oppression, gender is the tool is a well known and good summary.

The word sex being replaced with gender widely from maybe 90s, has led to a lot of confusion.

And now gender is also used to mean gender ID - even more confusion.

For feminists generally at least in the past, and still for many.

The phrase gendered clothes means the way clothes are split into man things v woman things (in male female sense).

Not that the actual clothes styles etc (again with exceptions!) need to be abolished. And everyone has to wear shapeless grey sacks (as is often stated and ridiculed).

@CheeseMmmm

In feminism it's a v long term well understood use of gender to mean sex role.

Not behaviours or anything.

Phrase sex is the reason for our oppression, gender is the tool is a well known and good summary.

The word sex being replaced with gender widely from maybe 90s, has led to a lot of confusion.

And now gender is also used to mean gender ID - even more confusion.

For feminists generally at least in the past, and still for many.

The phrase gendered clothes means the way clothes are split into man things v woman things (in male female sense).

Not that the actual clothes styles etc (again with exceptions!) need to be abolished. And everyone has to wear shapeless grey sacks (as is often stated and ridiculed).

If you are talking about what I said, you are describing something different.

Feminists tend to say gender is something like sex roles, or sometimes sex stereotypes, which are constructed and exist in order to oppress women. They are not naturally occurring out of reproductive role (usually, some might argue) and they are never positive.

The anthopological definition would be any kind of social or cultural customs, beliefs, practices, or traditions, that are attached to a particular sex. They may come into existence for any number of reasons including ones related to reproductive roles, the reasons may be good or bad, and their effect may be positive, negative, both, or neither.