When (and why) did what used to be known as Feminism become labelled Radical Feminism?

[RulersMakeBadLovers]

A very incisive feminist pointed this out to me the other day.

S'all very interesting (MN should have a chin-stroking emoticon)

Hello?

Does anyone get what I was meaning in my OP or am I pissing in the wind?

Nice silencing tactic, there, Mini...

Goth, your last post reminded me of a slogan I thought of getting on a tee shirt 20 years ago when I was very active in feminist organisations in London.

"Why is it that some feminists expect other feminists to wash their mugs for them."

. . . and smiling as I remember who always seemed to leave their mugs behind . . .

Rulers, I get what you mean. Have been mentally trying to find the answer. I can't though.

It strikes me as ironic that certain posters see "Radical Feminism" and seem to think "here's my target".

Rad Feminism used to scare the shit out of me. Until the regulars took the time to explain it to me. I'm a bit sick of the strawman arguments against Rad Feminism being trotted out, over and over again

Oh I thought you were saying I was oppressing Mini, not yourself GothAnne. You flatter yourself that I'd even be thinking about you. A world where radical feminism had prevailed would be one which was free of male violence, which underpins all oppressive systems, so nobody would be oppressing anyone. And radical feminists wouldn't be running it because once male supremacy is destroyed radical feminists won't need to exist either. We can do other things. This is a fight for the end of oppression not a fight like men have in their revolutions to gain power for themselves (see the communists and French revolutionaries for example).

The fourth wave is already happening mini, and its' a radical feminist revolution not a marxist one, although I expect capitalism will go down too.

Oh, and before someone says something, NO it wasn't Nyac. I don't know Nyac.

Actually Rulers, I didn't really understand what your opening post was about. It was quite cryptic, imho.

I mean, a lot of it, I think, was the patriarchy's attempts to pit us against each other; they painted feminism as extremist, and to avoid getting labelled as such, different strands of feminism got watered down. The patriarchy fucking won, when we started seeing different strands of feminism as the enemy.

Time we united, put aside our differences, and stopped tip-toeing round the patriarchy to avoid offending them.

Sorry rulers. I think I gave my best answer to your question upthread and I don't have anything to add, so I'll get off the thread.

This is a deeply stupid sidetracking argument as well, and I think that Kritiq just got a dig in about mugs, so I'd better go. Although maybe we'll get the "paranoia" comment again after me saying that.

"Oh, and before someone says something, NO it wasn't Nyac. I don't know Nyac."

Just stop it. Please keep my name off of posts like that. Why would you even bring me in?

The problem is, Nyac if capitalism is going to go down too, what are you going to replace it with? Do radfems have a really good grounding of what it's flaws are and a clear idea of what should replace it? I ask because otherwise you will end up with a situation of perpetual revolution, both class and sex struggle. Ditto back to square one.

I mean, what brand of feminism allows repeatedly attacking and attempting to silence women; or in the case of this thread, ONE woman?

Bit sick of this; Why does Nyac get so much grief? The report button seems to go into overdrive as soon as she posts; I can't be the only person who's noticed this.

And Kritiq, your post about the mugs, then subsequently naming Nyac was out of order. Seriously. It reads like a personal attack, with underhand tactics.

Stars - the problem is, which differences should those be?

Too often putting aside our differences means pretending we're all the same, and too often that "same" is the dominant class within feminism, e. White, middle class, able bodied straight etc.

Then you come to the same problem as in other movements that the dominant voices dictate what is on the agenda and other concerns get swept under the carpet, or told "not now, first we need to do x".

That's why, IMHO, we must have an understanding of insectionality/different axis of oppression rather then just calling for unity.

I wonder if my question was a bit "of its time and in my place". I remember a period in the early-mid 90s when it seemed like feminism was mainstream, when protests against VAT on sanitary products were a no-brainer, when rape in marriage was the law catching up with more sensible thinking, when equality battles were based in reality rather than a strange sense of already being there (yet the evidence around us telling us we're not).

I find it odd on MN that whenever a feminist idea is put forward, there is another self-identified feminist behind that poster saying but, but, but, disagreeing vociferously and declaiming it as radfem. Being a radfem is not an insult, and putting forward what were previously non-controversial feminist povs is not necessarily rad fem, nor beyond the pale. I find it odd being identified as a a horrible person because of some of my core beliefs. I am just pro-woman. Not anti-man (as some would be wont to paint me).

Stars, totally agree. NYAC is consistently calm and measured in her posts and is consistently attacked. I suspect it is because she seems to have a very thorough knowledge of radical feminism and its analysis and thus is seen by some posters as the voice of radical feminism.

Other posters like myself who believe in radical feminism, still have a lot to learn and sometimes it shows.

Hehe at straight women dominating feminism. It doesn't bother me one jot, but predominantly straight is not what I encounter in my forays around the fem world. Yes, it may be predominantly white in this country, but that is a reflection of demographics. I bet a dime to a dollar that most rad fems are reading blogs and absorbing news and agitating etc from outwith our sainted isle. It's the default fems that you should be aiming at.

Rulers - did you read the link I posted on Womanism? Race is about more then demographics.

Gah, because I wanted to be absolutely clear that no one thought you personally had expected me personally to wash your mug, for pity's sake.

It was an illustration that back then, there were some feminists who were often seen as authorities on feminism, de facto leaders of collectives, who didn't seem particularly interested in engaging with other feminists as equals -hence the mugs left for others to wash after meetings.

Sorry, I don't buy the idea that after the revolution, whether it's a feminist one, a marxist one or any flavour, that all oppression will magically melt away.

Stars, I've been putting the point across since I joined here that feminist have a far better chance of success if we value each other, recognise that many feminists are at different points on their journey and they're more likely to get on board if we engage with rather than patronise and put them down. Uniting to work towards common goals has got to be a better way than prescribing what we should all do and think and sniping with each other all the time. That's doing the work of patriarchy for them, for free, and with relish.

So really, there's not alot of point of me sticking around here. The culture seems to be one of conformity - wagons in a circle, if they're not 100% with us, they're against us. Disappointing, as there have been moments where I've learned alot from engaging with others here, and have sensed that at times my contributions have been valued by some. But the slap downs of those who don't conform mean there ain't much space left for the dialogue stuff, sadly.

Night all, good luck in your future endeavours.

EBAL, agree there. I think it's the fact Nyac is so calm, usually, that the slightest hint of emotion has people jumping to the "OMGZ you iz hysterical!" response.

GothAnne, it seems you assume that every Rad Fem is a white, straight woman... Why is that?

And again, my points go misinterpreted...

TBH, I don't care if someone's lib fem, rad fem etc... I'm a rad fem, best friend is a marxist feminist, and every other fem I know borders on lib-fem. Doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to me.

My point is, we don't all need to agree on 100% of points; hell, there's even times I'll disagree with Nyac, or something I said just half an hour ago. My point is the mudslinging between the spectrums of feminism needs to stop. Otherwise we'll never overthrow the patriarchy. We'll be too busy fighting each other.

Perhaps stopping targeted attacks on users who are fighting on the side of women would be a good place to start. And that means no more mass reporting of Nyac's posts. And no more silencing tactics or underhand comments. Because it's a little infuriating.

Generally whenever people claim it's all about the patriarchy and don't consider other oppressions, it's generally because they are not affected by those oppressions.

Like KRITIQ, I don't think that just being women only is enough to undo racist/classist/ ableist conditioning within society.

There has been reams written about feminism per se (not just rad feminism) failing to be representative and that it tends to be dominated by women with the most privileges.

Which would show we need more women from the other oppressions joining the fight? How do we know where they're being oppressed if they don't join us and tell us what they need to fight?

Intriguing that you assume that, because I'm fighting the patriarchy, I'm not limited by anything other than the patriarchy...

Unconsciously, you've revealed what I'm getting at.

They have to find you.
They have to explain their lives and oppressions to you.
They have to join you.

Straight away, you've put all the onus on them. Hardly an equal power dynamic.

Instead, I would suggested trying to read about and educate yourself on these struggles, then try to reach out from there.