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???!!!

@CheeseMmmm

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.

Not at all,

I thought you might think that because I'm not a regular poster on here. I do read a lot, but I mostly post questions because others are more well read than me, I'll definitely allow that! I learn much on here.

I really want to listen to KS on those sex differences, because I'm still living in the space created by Dr Fine around 10 years ago, with her book Delusions of Gender (sexnotgender.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fine_cordelia_delusions-of-gender.pdf).

At the very same time, I am quick to embrace science that says females are more astute than males even in the womb (the female strategy being largely to develop organs, the male to grow as large as possible) and how that benefits females in times of trouble and premature birth, for example. So I'm a huge hypocrite. But mainly, along with Cordelia Fine, I'm not buying most kind of 'accept our differences' (especially when it comes to the workings of the brain) arguments, because exceptions to those rules will always abound, and mostly they concentrate on Western communities, and that's not really my perspective.

But if Prof KS is someone who believes in universal truths / facts until they can be disproven (so that kind of empiricism, then it makes sense how she arrives at those positions). I'm in the age of respecting it all. just it's not my feminism!

I only have my thinking really.
I've read a bit not loads.
I've been to mainstream feminist conferences and a couple radical feminist.
I noticed and was confused by, disliked the obvious differences in societal imposition of girls this boys that when I was maybe 5, feels like always. And I carried on noticing, getting pissed off about it all, and 4 decades later I still do!

There's been a lot of threads lately about women, feminism, labels.

Thing is there's no handbooks. No one source saying this is the agreed approach.

Feminism is used to mean two different things as well.
Feminism is a political/ philosophical/ sociological etc area of thought, theory, study. The history the texts, new ideas, etc. It's like I dunno studying political systems, theories of economics etc. On these boards it's examples, discussion, it's mainly thinking learning talking ideas etc.

Some action of course, threads re marches, charities, write to mp etc.
But mainly talking about things from a feminist POV.

Then there's feminist activism/ women's rights activism. The doing part.
Marching, raising awareness. Setting up/ supporting women directly eg volunteering, donating. Lobbying MPs, MPs who raise women's issues in parliament, on TV. Etc etc.

Tbc

Loads of women girls (sometimes men boys) do things including massive things. To help, support, push for change, draw attention to things where they want better for women/girls.

Stacks wouldn't consider themselves, call themselves feminists.

Some of them will actively try to improve things for women/girls, or a particular thing that they feel strongly about. Who don't like feminism/ feminists at all. Might even be outspoken about that.

They could have any political position or none. Be from any background/be anyone.

Eg just example.
Take the recent horrific extreme crimes in the news, against women/girls, that for a few weeks were just constant.

Women/girls being targeted by men while out and about. Variously abducted, imprisoned, sexually violated tortured, murdered.

How many women don't want it to stop?
Naturally loads of women are appalled, horrified, frustrated, angry etc.

Some marched. Some organised/ attended vigils. Police forces received masses of complaints from women. MPs will have been contacted. Ridiculous 'advice' from met was met with anger and derision by stacks of women yes a lot sm but still public still directly to police.

That's about Women's rights, about stacks of women across society taking action. Women's rights activism.

Labels are handy a lot sure. With feminism it's stating something about you. Maybe what type of views you are likely to hold.

But actions mean more than labels here.

Judging if Feminist, what type, assuming opinions, etc.
It's imo divisive and a waste of time.
It has natural place in feminism - the talking thinking part. And to join a group who will be fairly like-minded.

Anyway that's my view.

'How many women don't want it to stop?'

Oops, should have said after- hardly any.

OP given you read a lot try dworkin.

radfem.org/dworkin/

My interpretation of it is that KS sees herself more as a pragmatist rather than strictly following one school of feminism, be it rad fem or lib fem or whatever.

@CheeseMmmm

I only have my thinking really. I've read a bit not loads. I've been to mainstream feminist conferences and a couple radical feminist. I noticed and was confused by, disliked the obvious differences in societal imposition of girls this boys that when I was maybe 5, feels like always. And I carried on noticing, getting pissed off about it all, and 4 decades later I still do!

Ah, yes. I'm very similar. At age 3 apparently my uncle 'ordered' my aunt to get him a drink or something. I piped up 'why should she do that just because she's a woman? ' as my mum had been telling me boys and girls can do anything, black, white, anything. So from then it appears I was feminist and my entire family knew me as such, so it became an identity. It's not been an easy road, I even think my current relationship is falling apart because of it (having a sense of self worth, value and meaning as a woman in a relationship with a man is a stony path to tread). So I'm all paid up and my card is definitely active. I've done my fair share of the seminal texts, but that was admittedly mostly uni years and the few after. Dworkin included.

I actually think raising my children is one of the most invested feminist roles I've taken on. It's SOOOOOO hard!

I quite like KS, have been appalled at what she's gone through. I also think women like me have been screwed over far too much. For centuries. Given I have traced my roots back to the enslavement of African people I can hardly believe I'm here, plantations just being rape and torture camps of men, women and children with a bit of cotton and sugar production on the side (I can never understand the pride of Empire, it honestly confuses me).

So when I hear women who say they are feminists also say there are some parts of the system they'd keep, I wonder what parts of this rotten structure that might be! No part in of our culture should go untouched until women do not fear for their daughters because they are, black women don't fear for their children because they are black, mums of homosexual individuals don't need to worry their children will be beaten in the streets. Life, social life, is not done on a rational plane. It's lived through actions/behaviours, emotions along with thoughts, but actually emotions and feelings are the most powerful of all of these. I haven't listened to KS but wonder whether emotion will feature in her argument?

But yes, I now understand 'radical' in this context means something quite specific, and that particular doctrine KS does not adhere to, which is fair enough.

Should say because they are female.

The thing about some feminists saying parts like to keep, is that a comment on the thread I missed, or from somewhere else?

Interested in context etc and what type of views those who say that have in general.

Eg it's a given that those who have headed up in a baffling direction, stating they are Feminists and then focusing mainly on progressing male interests (usually sex related) have zero interest in fighting male oppression of women girls whatsoever!

One of the aspects of the more vocal transgender orgs and activists allies etc that makes me so angry is their shameless theft and repurposing of theories, arguments, even slogans of loads of rights movements. Often directing them back at the groups who came up with them, often destroying the concepts in the process.

Relating to your post-

The very useful very important concept of intersectionality.

That was an accessible, considered, important set of arguments.

That most people are poor at thinking of things that are outside their experience, their personal situation. Things not personal are just out of mind.

That there are loads of axes of oppression. And focusing on whatever is most important to you is aok obviously.

That the more characteristics a person has that are of a group oppressed, the more shit they get. The barriers from each add up, making overcoming them increasingly hard/ effectively impossible.

Important and not difficult to understand the headline point.

Taken, bastardised into oppression Olympics, used all the time in an accusatory way to individuals/ 'types'grouped with names that irl just got backs up.

Result.

Intersectionality derided, original concept steamrolled over.

Used to provoke division, anger, to insult and dismiss certain views / people. And (dangerous) to feed resentment in groups who, if they kick back, are in the position to really make it hurt.

Rather than increasing understanding, remembering to consider those who aren't same boat as you, reduce disagreements etc.

That's one example of many, I thought of it when read your post.

Yes,

I can say that I've heard many black women, including myself, who have felt disappointed by the insistence that ant-intersectionality and anti-'woke' messaging on this board. It excludes us. It's beyond comprehension at times. I don't really care if the term has been 'hi-jacked', ignore that and move on, because otherwise this board does become nastily white.

It does feel like some posters on here don't care about that, avd it's why on black mumsnet fur example, there have been threads about feeling othered on here. There are far more women in the world with brien skin than white. But you couldn't really tell from this board. Feminism isn't just for white women after all.

Just try your best to make sense of fyrsr paragraph. I git a phone call in the middle of writing!!!

I don't think is helpful. I agree that radical feminism is ultimately root feminism, but it's also considered to be a set of particular beliefs around various things and how to tackle women's liberation. Even within radical feminism, women disagree on strategies and have differing analyses.
What is in little doubt is that Kathleen Stock is a feminist who genuinely stands for women in the best way she knows how. She's worked incredibly hard at exposing the misogyny of gender ideology at considerable personal expense.
I don't think that criticising her because she doesn't 'identify' as a part of a particular group is at all helpful.
I'm sure there are things that Stock and I would disagree on. That's the nature of it. 'Good' feminism is not a homogenous mass, nor are women, but Stock is clearly strongly principled and her voice has had a massively positive impact. I very much respect her for that.

I agree with OP. But it's more complex than that. There are times when categories intersect and also times that they don't. Crenshaw shows persuasively when they do intersect. Vey clearly, very plainly. But intersectionality is not a total explainer of everything, and it is often misused, and maliciously so, to erase categories. Denying that women are oppressed when they are "white cishet" is an example of this. Instead of shining a light on oppression, the concept is being used to hide it.

I know OP isn't saying this, but the debate is full of it, from Twitter to academic journals, and going through Guardian articles on the way.

Agreed. However, it also doesn't look good when 'white cishet' (not my kind of term, but I'll use as you did) people discard with all the value it has for others, it doesn't make them appear at all welcoming or inclusive. And without inclusivity their feminism is bullshit, to paraphrase. It's who black feminists call themselves that. White feminists can often come across as thinking its really all about them.

When I come on here and see women cheering on something written in the daily mail I quite literally swutch off. When people defend a white 'feminist' accused of repeated racism on twitter, even after she's fined (was it settled, I forget) I start to worry this board is racist. And I really don't think I'm strange or weird in that respect. I think it logically follows.

If your enemues are using something that is off use to you against you, outwit them and take back ownership. Just destroying the thing actually seems quite typical of those men who are stupid, to me! And who wants to be one of those?!

So many typos even I despair.

Hello jamdown

It's all v tricky, I mean obviously.

This board (sex and gender) I'm sure you know was created fairly recently due to complaints about the single feminism chat board that existed being pretty much full of threads about sex/gender.

This board was created in order to have one area where this contraversial topic was discussed, leaving the chat board for all other feminist threads.

There has been a change yes. I don't think everyone agrees with that but I have definitely noticed it.

The reason why, is because of the freedom generally to discuss this topic on the English speaking net, especially back when this board was created.

Reddit, the comments sections of news sites, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and others. Essentially all the main sites with large numbers of users. Were actively removing comments, banning posters, deleting boards etc which were about or even related to the stance that sex was important etc.

MN was a place where, within rules, the conversations/ thoughts/ ideas/ news etc around the topic could happen as at, pretty much.

I'm sure everyone know that it's often mentioned by orgs/individuals etc who are supportive of the gender > sex view. And so it gradually became a site known for hosting the sex > gender view to people in other countries esp USA, Canada. And here in UK as well known for allowing this discussion.

Tbc

I know what you mean about teh daily mail. But nothing is an unalloyed crucible of evil, not even the DM. Still, use a long spoon when you sup with the devil, and all that.

I want to say two things. The first is that I think no one has to agree totally with everyone else, or even like everyone else. You just have to have enough in common to do business, and I think it's a complex process. Look out for areas of common interest rather than just focusing on what makes us all different. That's why I'm not Radical with a capital R. Radicals with a big R tend to focus only on what's wrong with other people, and ignore ways in which they can work together. Being radical on specific issues is just fine, but not Radical.

The second is that if you haven't read Stock's book, do so. It's a good read, and you'll find she agrees with a lot of what you've said here. Particularly in the last (I think!) chapter.

When it comes to (on this site generally women) having huge concerns about the impact on female people of such important things- losing our words, losing our single sex everything, news stories and stats being distorted etc.

That's not a thing for just some types of women to be concerned about. It's about women full stop. Whoever and wherever they are, whatever their situation. And those who are concerned enough to what to talk discuss etc are also a very broad group.

In short we have posters from UK also Canada USA maybe other places.
Some are not Feminists, some do not like feminism.
While Feminists tend to have a left wing political view, this issue is important to women with a range of political beliefs.
Ditto a load of other beliefs etc.

Therefore, this particular board is simply not as most would assume. Mainly dyed in the wool lefty old school feminists.

And some don't like that and that's obviously fair enough.

But on this one topic, how can it be any other way? This impacts ALL women and girls in a fundamental manner, and the issues for us are critically important.

So there's that. For a start.

Also on general I would say that this site as a whole has a huge number of posters.

On the main boards it's I would say going to be fairly representative of the current positions in society generally.

I personally find it interesting (if currently depressing!) to follow the changes in general.

The whole tide has been shifting in the last 5-8 years or so IMO.

I see many many more posts classical right wing stance (you made your bed lie in it), more anti immigration sentiment, more hostility towards France and others, more racism etc. These posts always were here but there are many more now.

I think there are reasons for this plenty of reasons but too long to post here. Concerns about having enough money for fast rising bills is one for example.

It's pretty grim to see for those who are lefty types, it is what it is though. I prefer to know what up against.

Also I would say that MN has been dunno if still is. A site that was for years populated disproportionately by women with higher incomes than average, women with degree level education, England/south east/london locations. Like I say not sure if changed.

On the location and white focus on the boards. There's the fact that population is v high in those areas so there will be a skew, and that black population in UK is v small, I imagine that still in plenty villages towns etc around the place it's still whiter than white. People as per intersectionality point, humans in general are bad at thinking outside their own situation/experience.

I know what you mean about teh daily mail. But nothing is an unalloyed crucible of evil, not even the DM. Still, use a long spoon when you sup with the devil, and all that.

But what exactly is "supping with the devil" in this context? When people link to Daily Mail articles on here they're generally not doing it to express a blanket endorsement of the newspaper. They will have simply seen an individual news article that they think is relevant to FWR and want to share it. They are not selling their soul to Associated Newspapers.

And the reason that the Daily Mail gets linked to quite often on the 'sex and gender' board is that most other news outlets simply won't run a news story if runs counter to current trans orthodoxy or presents a trans person in a bad light. So a lot of the time if you want to link to a story on that topic there's no choice but to link to the Daily Mail as they're the only ones reporting on it.

If we're to have a rule, "you can't link to the Daily Mail or you're not inclusive", then that would put women here in an invidious position of having to avoid drawing attention to news stories they think are important in order to be inclusive.

Thanks @CheeseMmmm, I didn't know the history of the board and the splitting off. It does make sense.

@NotDavidTennant

I know what you mean about teh daily mail. But nothing is an unalloyed crucible of evil, not even the DM. Still, use a long spoon when you sup with the devil, and all that.

But what exactly is "supping with the devil" in this context? When people link to Daily Mail articles on here they're generally not doing it to express a blanket endorsement of the newspaper. They will have simply seen an individual news article that they think is relevant to FWR and want to share it. They are not selling their soul to Associated Newspapers.

And the reason that the Daily Mail gets linked to quite often on the 'sex and gender' board is that most other news outlets simply won't run a news story if runs counter to current trans orthodoxy or presents a trans person in a bad light. So a lot of the time if you want to link to a story on that topic there's no choice but to link to the Daily Mail as they're the only ones reporting on it.

If we're to have a rule, "you can't link to the Daily Mail or you're not inclusive", then that would put women here in an invidious position of having to avoid drawing attention to news stories they think are important in order to be inclusive.

Yeah, I don't quite get this either.

The DM runs some pretty click-bait things, but then I think the Guardian does too, just a different audience in mind. And neither really represent my own political or economic views, though both sometimes have columnists that I feel a kinship with. Both sometimes have had really good award-winning journalism. The DM has occasionally been on the forefront of important stories, I'm not sure I remember when the Guardian last did that.

It's the popular paper in the UK among women. And they've made a point of pursuing stories of interest to women as a matter of editorial policy.

It's big flaw is reliability issues, which is annoying, but it's not true of all of their output.