I'm disassociating from 'radical'

[garlicbutter]

Not really expecting anything here (though this board often surprises me!) but I woke up with a fierce urge to write this post, so may as well go with it.

Self-declared radical feminists used to scare me - and piss me off. They were the ones who sneered at my friends & me for wearing fashionable clothes and makeup. Most of them seemed a hell of a lot quicker to anger than to rational debate. I wasn't that bothered - I was doing plenty for feminist causes, makeup notwithstanding. I just didn't call myself "radical".

A few decades along, I noticed everyone was saying "I'm not a feminist but ..." all over again. There was stuff going on in the media that I considered retrograde for women, and some spokeswomen seemed to be touting pornification and surrender as feminist values. By contemporary standards, it seemed, I was radical!

So I did a bit of reading, and asked on here, and it turns out I'm a rad fem. But it rankles. This is why: Either you're a feminist or you aren't. Either you strive for real gender equality or you don't. There's no need for the 'radical', it's a tautology.

The radical thing is also beginning to strike me as a sorority (not a sisterhood). It feels like the kind of society that's good for teenagers: an us-against-the-world, nobody-truly-understands, same-thinking, catchphrase-sharing, sycophantic sect. Unless we are teenagers, we should have grown up by now and reached out to the world we live in (and wish to change.)

So I'm a feminist, no adjectives required.

This isn't meant as a challenge or anything, but I wanted to post it since so many visitors come away from this board scratching their heads about radical feminism. I'm not saying I know a whole lot about it - I've not studied Feminst Theory or sociology - but I am a long-time feminist activist. Here's my take on it.

Why is this thread an attack on Dittany? Not something OP mentiioned...

If we are talking overbearing feminist theorists vs women who want to learn and introduce feminism to there lives....

"You're entitled to pay no heed, of course. But that exemplifies my problem with this 'discussion' forum."

Me thinking you're full of it GB, doesn't exemplify anything except the fact that I think you're full of it. Can I refer you back up thread to my six steps to overthrowing the patriarchy.

I have to agree with SGM. I do not represent this forum, my responses belong to me. They aren't shared, they aren't anybody else's responsibility.

No, it wasn't an attack on Dittany. It never was meant to be. My thread got railroaded.
Thanks for the hint, SGM

When I read the original post I guessed where this discussion was headed. It seems to me that for some reason poeple here on these message boards equate radical feminism with one person. I did to start with but I have read far more than I have posted and over time learnt a lot.

It seems to me that when I woman speaks her mind, she is seen as rude and aggressive. When a man speaks his mind, he is being assertive. If a woman is seen to not be able to compromise, she is somehow denying her biology! If a man doesn't compromise he's right!

I don't think it's scary in here, it's lively and challenging and actually I might never have realised that women will never have equality unless we are radical, radical in idealogy but also in the way we express our disaproval of violence against women.

I for one had focussed for so long on the equality of opportunity and equal pay issue I had lost sight of the reasons why men try to dominate and oppress women, unless we tackle the root causes of inequality, no amount of equal pay rights will give us freedom.

Hmm, well I haven't shared your delusions about the source of the problems for quite some time, Bathsheba, though I used to. I do take your point about being more aggressively assertive ... but don't want to waste half my life in a shouting match! I already wasted the first half having those with various men!

It's interesting that you said: If a woman is seen to not be able to compromise, she is somehow denying her biology! If a man doesn't compromise he's right!

I would say that the uncompromising one, regardless of gender, is trying to bully the other. Usually the bully will then go on to say that, if the target refuses to adopt similarly patriarchal tactics, the target hasn't got a leg to stand on and the bully must be right. If you choose to see that as assertation that s/he is right, it's up to you but at least you're aware of what you're witnessing.

I am capable of pushing a point relentlessly home, but I don't expect to have to do that in a dedicated environment where all the debaters (barring the odd troll) are of fundamentally similar persuasions.

It pisses me off massively that most suggestions of feminist DISCUSSION get instantly reduced to a caricature of 'fluffy' vs - what? 'real'? 'hard'? unfluffy?

Discussion, as I understand it, means listening, responding, arguing persuasively - in other words, debate. I'm recycling my original point here, and I'm not going to keep on doing it. This thread has served mainly to ratify my points (2) about why I shan't be calling myself radical any more, even though my politics are radical by all apparent definitions.

There are plenty of discussions on here. All the time.

A "discussion" that starts off by slagging off a particular group of feminists isn't a discussion, it's a slagging off thread.

The difference is clear to most people.

Just before I go to bed, I'll relentlessly pursue this quite reasonable question, Katie - or, in your one terms, you still haven't answered my question of [not long ago]:

What you would recommend as an alternative approach to handle the 'slut'->'asking for it' problem?

I'm hearing a lot of justified anger about the root causes of such. Am HONESTLY interested in your proposed strategies for solution!

Will check back in morning :)

I said on the other thread - you stand up to it and you point out the sexism and misogyny of calling women and girls names like that. The more people who do it the better. Oh one other that I didn't mention - you don't call other women sl*ts or any of those kind of names.

Thanks for reminding me though GB, because there were a few questions on that other thread (which apparently has nothing to do with this thread) that you never answered:

You seem to think slt is a valid concept, is that right? Hence using it in this sentence "unless it's very simply that posters who hate "slut" aren't sluts" What does slt mean there?

What words do you use for sexually active people with lots of partners. You seem to be arguing for a name for them here: "Surely you do recognise the concept of varying sexual behaviours? Are there no terms you might use to depict a person, of any gender, who has a lot of sex with a lot of different people? Or terms with which to compare them with another person of far greater selectivity and a different take on their sexuality?"

Actually I'd love to know more about different feminist perspectives and ideologies. However I felt uncomfortable reading the OP esp this

The radical thing is also beginning to strike me as a sorority (not a sisterhood). It feels like the kind of society that's good for teenagers: an us-against-the-world, nobody-truly-understands, same-thinking, catchphrase-sharing, sycophantic sect. Unless we are teenagers, we should have grown up by now and reached out to the world we live in (and wish to change.)

It feels like the kind of society that's good for teenagers: I love teenagers, as a young person I truely believed that I and my generation would change the world. I was inspired with great ideas and fired up. Pitty most teenagers these days seem woefully unaware of their surroundings let alone have any inckling that women are actually probably less equal now than they were 10 minutes ago! So no I haven't found any teenagers on the feminist boards of MN.

catchphrase-sharing, well I guess some of the more informed here have been reading the same books so that's easy to understand.

Sychophantic, well obviously it's lovely if people who have shared views can back each other up and show that they agree. Maybe though, on this I might agree with OP, that it could make some people feel unwelcome or derided.

Well, I kind of disagree that teenagers have 'lost' that, QB. Their issues aren't the same as yours, or mine (I'm assuming you aren't 56 - if I'm wrong, let's just go for 'ours'). But they care just as much, and with the same cliquey passion, as anyone who's very recently discovered it's a big & scary world out there.

Some people discover the bigness & scariness later on in life, and with that comes an awareness that we can all make a difference. I think that, when you find this in adulthood, you've already learned that what you do & say & think does affect the world around you. So your commitment is just as strong but it might not look so to your teenaged kids - because you have more knowledge of the machinations operating around you, so you might be more strategic in your attitudes, etc (not just another thread, another forum!!) Anyway, ykwim most likely.

Katie, you're querying my posts by your own rigid values without countenacing my pov - and quoting selectively. You said or implied that [a] you consider the word 'slut' as a sexual attack, and [b] you think it beneath you to discuss other people's sexual proclivities. Since I'd already written that I [a] I call myself a slut, in the 'poor housekeeper' sense, and [b] I see nothing wrong with being either a slut (in any sense) or a gossip - there's no discussion to be had, is there?

That conversation left me with the impression (correctly or not) that you find me rather common, and that you have no wish to talk about social expectations of women except to decry them all. You tell me where the dialogue should go from here?

I must add, having been unable to sleep yet again, that "standing up to it and pointing out the sexism and misogyny of calling women and girls names like that" is what I saw those Canadian women doing. They got discussions going all over the world, didn't they? I don't know what you do, Katie, to get people all over the place questioning their sexist assumptions - I imagine you do quite a lot - but I still don't see how putting down every public attempt to raise awareness, which doesn't meet your specifications, helps the cause in general terms.

What SGM said. With bells on.

At the risk of sounding sychophantic (I hate this word) I agree almost word for word with SGM.

esp in relation to this reclaiming the word slut . A lot of people don't stop to think about things in any depth, it seems to give men the right to call women sluts.

I wonder what you all indentify yourselves as, would others agree with you?

So for instance my politics= I'm primarily a marxist socialist but I am also a feminist and most of my views about the root causes of harm to women centre around this struggle over reproduction and sex and the fact that men have always sought to dominate and control women through enslavement which is in large part down to their biological desire to control the one thing they can't- reproduction. So what am I ? I would say I am a radical feminist.

People don't fit neatly into certain definitions. I'm probably a better marxist than I am feminist

I don't mind if people disagree with me, they might think I'm a piss poor excuse for a feminist but I would like to think that I'll learn and develop through discussion with others!

I don't actually think that there is a party line, but I think that because this is important to all of us, you feel it more when (lots) of people disagree with you.. when in other corners of MN you just wouldn't care. Also here there are a lot of posters, that are intelligent, assertive, inspirational and so you care what they think about you.

Having said that, I think your politics will always be reflected in your approach to feminism and I am probably not as marxist/socialist as others (ironically as this is my upbringing!).

I also think that because all of this is so personal to our day to day lives, that whilst most of the time theory and life can align perfectly well, sometimes they don't. I do kind of mean the 'slut' discussion but also others.. actually I agree with the vast majority of what dittany and SGM have to say on the matter.. but it still leaves a gap for me, between my actual existance and feminist discussion - and I geniunely don't believe it is 'you are just confirming and don't realise it', there is something else there and I have not found a way to articulate it yet.

I think these 'gaps' are important and need to be debated robustly otherwise we don't make progress and also helps us (me) clarify our thoughts and positions.

I actually think that using the term 'radical' on here is a rather handy way not to exclude people.
If it is clear that someone's feminist beliefs aren't as radical as those held by a majority, it is surely better to say 'oh well that would be because you're a liberal feminist and there are a lot of radicals on here' rather than let it be implied that the less radical poster isn't a proper feminist, or even isn't a feminist at all. Calling oneself a radical is a way to acknowledge the right to the term 'feminist' of those with whom one does not always agree.
The use of labels distinguishing different types of feminist draws attention to the diversity of feminism far more effectively than a label-less zone would.