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.

I just browsed through this thread briefly and it seems garlicbutter's being torn a new one for something on that slutwalk thread?

did she actually say she agrees with calling people sluts? I didnt see that. correct me if I'm wrong. don't like to see people being attacked irl /forums

Is it possible to be a feminist without believing the playing field is not level between men and women? I would have thought that feminism of any flavour inherently accepts the facts of patriarchy, whether you use that word or not. Perhaps I've misunderstood what's meant by 'radical' and 'roots' - if it means trying to change a social structure which favours men over women, then surely all feminists are radical?

I don't think you can be a feminist if you think the playing field is level, but there are more and less radical ideas about how to level it - a classic example would be the difference between thinking it is enough to open all jobs to women without changing any of the underlying structures, and thinking more radical reform of the workplace is needed.

I said people can call themselves what they like, Sue :) I don't believe words have fixed meanings (I said I call myself a slut, in its previous sense of 'slatternly'.) In my life, I aim to challenge and change pejorative meanings. I cannot despise the word itself for a meaning attributed to it by woman-haters.

A woman-hater can call me the most respectful word in the dictionary but, if s/he uses it with venom, the pejorative meaning will be clear all the same. The problem lies in the attitude, not the word.

I could have put that more succinctly, sorry - hope it made some sense!

Once you highlight that, Sybil, it becomes obvious. Happens all the time in AIBU. Plainly there are different approaches regarding what to do about it, for example I disagree 'radically' with the majority of this board's regulars over some aspects of the sex industries. That makes me a feminist with differently radical opinions, it doesn't make one feminist more radical than the other.

Feminism means the playing field is not level and it should be. The reason it isn't level is male entitlement. Our societies are universally biased towards the entitled male. Feminism can't get anywhere without changing that. Thus, in my view, ALL feminism is radical.

Okay, I like to stand up for people if I think there being e-bullied LOL

Agreed garlic butter, I think that all change demanded by any type of feminist is infact pretty fundamental and radical.

The challenge is that there are multiple labels to define different types of feminism as described succinctly by Sybil, which is useful in defining the diversity of thought in feminism. I guess the issue for me is if your thinking is nicely aligned with one school of thought, be it radical or liberal etc feminism it makes perfect sense.

However, when it does not (which is true in my case)... it can get frustrating as the debates can start to be about the relative merits about different types of feminism and the implications of that, as opposed to what the original point in discussion is about.

KK, snowmama, I guess some of my attitudes align with those who call themselves radical and some with the liberals. As with party politics, though, I don't feel obliged to alter my perceptions to fit exactly with one 'side' or another - this is life and life is messy.

Perhaps it's because I'm a floater (?) that I feel excluded/derided by members of one self-defined faction. IMO there can never be one true answer to any of life's big problems (or small ones, eh).

Thank you, Sue!

Can I just ask whether wanting gender blindness was a liberal or radical thing?

I also think that mens rights should be given parity with womens i.e. staying at home, child benefit.

I have to say this doesn't feel like an especially safe place to ask questions, but I am intrested in feminism

I think that is exactly that, I do know what you mean about feeling excluded - but as you say life is messy.

I actually have manage in every aspect of my life managed to be unable to fit into any category - so had not really thought about it in the context of feminism explicitly... but it is important that we all keep chatting about different ideas, and actually work out ways to disagree robustly but safely if that makes any sense at all!

Prolesworth if feminism is the counter to violent oppression of women - won't men always be at a physical advantage in purely blunt numbers?

Sybil, going back to your post yesterday afternoon:

In my teens and twenties, women who called themselves radical feminists were very personally unpleasant to my friends and me, because they disapproved of our self-presentation. That led me to conclude I couldn't be a 'radical' feminist.

I didn't bother labelling myself for some considerable time after that. Then, around the beginning of this century, I observed the developments I mentioned and realised that popular feminism seemed to be missing the point. Upon engaging more with these changes, I relaised that I am, indeed, radical compared to this popluar interpretation of equality.

Working from that, I came here (and, briefly, some other places) to test out my thinking, and to exchange views, with other feminists whose feminism looks a bit hard-line compared with the glossified fudgery being promulagted in mainstream media. My experiences at this point led to my decision to disassociate.

I thought the above was clear enough in my OP, but hope I've done better this tiem.

Sorry I mean more able to do more harm due to genetic size and muscle difference

I don't mean radical to mean extreme at all, but I don't in all honesty know that the radical feminist proposition to change is.

When you say Prolesworth that the truth being the violent oppression of women, then I am in 100% agreement. However, once we start to talk about what actions should be taken to change things - then I suspect I would be very quickly told I am in fact not a radical feminist (i.e. policy reform, behaivoural change programs, reforms/overthrow of capitalism etc).

Timeforabiscuit I think it's about attitude nowadays. It's one thing to have the size and strength to be able to dominate someone else, but it's quite another to have the desire to do so.
Being big and tough doesn't have to mean being potentially violent. It's the mindset that makes the difference IMO.

Yes, my feeling exactly, snowmama! I see too little action planned for radical change - and, imo, too much contempt for those who do take action. I can't for the life of me see how Horlick's pushing for boardroom parity is anti-feminist. In feminism, there are small battles to be fought everywhere, all the time - and the big ones are issues of POWER imbalance in the fields of politics, finance, militia and judiciary.

Feminism needs big names to mobilise the big changes.

Has ANYONE said Horlick pushing for boardroom parity is anti-feminist? Surely what is anti-feminist is her saying she is not a feminist. I remember a feeling when it was discussed that her actions belied her words, not that her actions weren't feminist.

That is a very interesting example, because Horlicks push for boardroom parity is profoundly feminist even if other actions/things she says deems her 'un-feminist' by others. Better than waiting for the CEO to have a daughter which is currently apparently the biggest driver for more women being encouraged onto the boardroom in organisations (I think that is from the Davis Report - but I may have misquoted!).

Yes, it is profoundly feminist :) Good for her. Didn't know that about the CEO's daughter! Blimey, if we wait for all the male power-holders to find their own way to a feminst idea, we'll be waiting a bloody long time ...

Prolesworth, here comes an anecdote. In 1990 I raised funds for an important women's project in another country. I went to meet the woman who initiated it; I was and am a big fan of her work. After the usual greetings, the first thing she did was criticse me for wearing makeup. I tried to discuss it with her; her attitude amounted to "men will make certain assumptions about you because of your conformity to the patriarchal beauty ideal." Now, I don't give a flying fuck what assumptions anti-feminist men make about me; I was shocked that she does.

On issues like this I frequently clash, hard, with others here. There's no point to resurrecting the whole matter just now but ... I've consistently failed to show how & why I feel that feminists who dislike 'slutty' dress, slutty language or slutty behaviour are promoting partiarchal values. It just seems obvious to me. I understand the opposite arguments but, on balance, I think they hold less water than women's grabbing whatever freedoms they wish to grab - and, come to that, using male preconceptions to get more freedoms, if it works.

Am about to tie myself in knots again so I'm going for a walk in the sunshine.

Sorry if i'm posting in the wrong place or hijacking - please suggest somewhere else .

If you do take violence against women as the root (radical) of feminism - and if colloquially we say that a third of all reported violence is domestic ( of which again colloquially 75% will be male on female in a partnership)

The issue of violence is only looking at a third of the picture - when a third would be night time economy violence and another third is child on child violence.

So if you were looking to reduce violence against women/girls would just the feminism avenue be adequate?

Garlic Butter do you mean that it's ok for women to manipulate men?

I have often joked that men need managing but you are seriously putting forward this idea. So are you suggesting women should subscribe to certain male ideas about how we look and behave in order for them to turn a blind eye to any freedom we may have. Sounds like manipulation and doesn't seem honest to me. It's also a short term solution and is allied to the harm that liberalist ideas are having to society as a whole, in terms of porn culture, lap dance clubs, drug taking etc. It also rellies on the goodwill of men to allow those freedoms.