Are any of you radical feminists?

[Jazzicatz]

I would consider myself a radical feminist. I was told yesterday that the logical conclusion to radical feminism is lesbianism and seperatism! I am not in agreement, but would love to know your opinions.

Thank you for your kind words. it is reassuring to know that at least some male academics see the importance of feminism!

I'm afraid it will be a hard tactical battle in many departments if you're the 'feminist', and a lot of casual sexism will get thrown your way (if you're lucky, if not it will get hidden). But there will always be colleagues around (male and female) who are appalled at and seek to rein in their colleagues shittiness, and I do think things are changing. Best of luck, and above all keep thinking and working (even the most stupid sexist respects scholarship and REF momey...)

I can see that, I am deeply saddened by it to be honest but not wholly surprised. Why should academia be any different from any other walk of life? I hope that I can continue modules that reflect a feminist approach and develop more, however, the sad thing for me is the resistance not only from students, but also staff!

Men passed that bill because they had no choice.

It became impossible to argue that women could fight for their country but not vote.

There were no women MPs in Britain until after the Representation of the People Act 1918, which gave voting rights to only some women. Therefore, women were not in a position to introduce the legislation. I'm not convinced that this wider context is something men should be exceptionally proud of.

British women only obtained the right to vote, on the same terms as men, due to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928.

Women benefitted from that law but it wasn't introduced exclusively or even primarily for the benefit of women. The Conservative government thought it would be a way of increasing their vote count to maintain power. However, the Conservatives lost the next election to Labour despite winning more votes.

My previous post should start :

There were no women MPs in Britain until after the Qualification of Women Act 1918, which gave voting rights to only some women.

Much of the Patriarchy's objective of maintaining the status quo of male dominance over women is achieved merely by allowing the laziness of an unquestioning population to continue. It doesn't take a conspiracy to let lazy unquestioning people continue to live the way they have always lived.

Even if the Patriarchy doesn't do a hand's turn, it's still winning because no change is victory for them.

"Hopefully"

If it's a desirable outcome, shouldn't we be a bit more proactive in bringing it about, rather than sitting passively on the sidelines, "hoping"?

No no Treats, all we need to do is wait.

If we're patient, if present trends continue, the make up of our parliament, which is supposed to represent us, will be 50% female in 400 years time.

Some people are so bloody impatient...

And also, it's not very feminine or ladylike to do anything more active than hope.

Yes but the sentence is one of your's, shriekingharpy. All of us make assumptions about each other's posts, based on what we know about each others' views because we've told each other what we think. How very post-modern of you to imagine that we could approach each post as if the poster has no history.

Are the assumptions wrong then? Do you believe that there is something more we need to do than just hope?

LOL I wasn't assuming you were laydeelike SH, was just saying that anything women would have to do to effect change - like get angry, protest, take direct action etc. - is by definition unladylike.

But I'm sure you are a proper laydee.