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)

If the shunning and exclusion also covered resources and living, like the Apartheid regime in SA, that would be oppressive. Likewise the thought control and suppression of ideas that are seen to be against the state as in some dictatorships.
In Brave New World, they used genetic engineering and drugs to control the population.

Wiki defines oppression as:
'Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.'

This is all really interesting to read. Dittany, what sort of social set up would you imagine our society might take if male violence were removed? Do you think that it would be recognisably similar (ie representative democracy, most people employed in hierarchical organisations), or do you think that there would be a wider transformation of society alongside the dismantling of patriarchal systems? And if so, how would you see production/employment relations etc being managed?

The answer 'I don't know' is perfectly fair enough, but I'd be interested if you do have a view on how things might change - or not.

There's no reason for sytems of misogyny, racism, homophobia, ablism, classism to exist. We could organise ourselves without them I agree and believe this is entirely possible but for one thing capitalism.

It is very clear within feminism itself that a lot a feminist thinking is dominated by middle class white intellectuals. The experience of sexism itself differs between classes and races. The root of the problem is economics. The life experiences of working class black men can be likened to the experience of poor white women, they share more in common in terms of what oppression they face than a white upper class women and a poor white single mother. The issue is class, race and sex, not sex alone.

Yes, I would be interested in the Radfem ideas on post revolutionary organisation of labour and production, what sort of economic and political system might come out of an end to male domination. I think basically we probably all want the same outcomes.

What would such a society do with dissenters and those that opposed some of the ideas they had?
What if the new society was as fragmented at feminism currently seems to be, would there be room for all to co-exist or would the laws reflect what the majority saw as the best way forwards?

"a lot a feminist thinking is dominated by middle class white intellectuals"

I'm not sure that's the case except in the same way that most 'thinking' that gets published is dominated by m/c/w/intellectuals, if that makes sense.

Ie, there is lots of feminist thinking going on by other women, but their thoughts aren't publicly available in the same way as say a feminist academic who also writes for the media?

'I think you're still in the patriarchal thought box Fallen. '

Probably. I'll wait and see what happens when it falls.

The FT did a profile of a female elderly Egyptian femininst a couple of weeks agol. She isn't white.

women need to control the means of reproduction, not production. That's what male supremacy is about, controlling women's ability to create the human race absolutely, agree.

Some people now assert that marxism is dominated by working class white men, as in the unions. In the past the unions have fought to elevate working class men and to improve their labour power and in doing so has sidelined women. I recognise that but again that is down to those in power misinterpreting something so it only benefits them.

I don't think change happens just because of violent revolution, although that is certainly part of what is needed at times. I do think the most important thing is changing peoples perceptions, raising awareness and challenging people to think differently, that is something that radical feminists have been very effective with. It is the consciousness raising and changing of opinions that will ensure that in a new society there is fewer dissenters.

in a new society there is are fewer dissenters. So tired I can't think straight.

'Waiting and seeing is fairly pointless.'

I've called myself a feminist for decades, challenged and questioned all the way along the road. One of the feminists from way back in the mid 70s who campaigned for many of the changes that have been effected so far. But it's not worth my while getting upset about statements like

'I think you're still in the patriarchal thought box Fallen'

She's entitled to her opinion, I don't feel like a defensive rant ATM.
I'll wait and see whether the post-patriarcy world is tolerant, inclusive, based on equality and not oppressive, and if my current doubts are unfounded.

I like the idea of small communities (Anarcho-socialist) but the idea of living in small communities of just women fills me with as much dread as living in a society dominated by male supremacy. I would rather engage with the "enemy" ( not that men are always the enemy) and ensure that they too evolve and contribute to a fairer system.

Communes work small scale, like communism.
I've never seen it managed on a country-wide level without the original ideas becoming distorted.

My main worry would be that small communities of women would still be under siege from the outside.

I've had a similar experience living/working in mixed sex groups with an explicitly non hierarchical, consensus based ethos, Ethel.

A bit different in that they weren't specifically about challenging the patriarchy (environmental focus) but still being somewhere where equality was expected as a norm is quite different from being out in wider society.

Its why I like the concept of autonomous zones - making our own spaces in society outside of patriarchal, hierarchical norms that operate elsewhere.

(And yes, no doubt the concept of the temporary autonomous zones came from a m/c white man, though I can't recall who exactly, but I still think it a good one that can be taken and used.)

You need a good stream of enthusiastic young visitors, they can be relied on for mugwashing and ad hoc childcare . . .

More seriously, I don't see why small communities of women would be under siege - I would expect mutual support in dealing with the wider world.

Beyond God the Father, by Mary Daly?

No I haven't. But I would want to consider any future society as inclusive, rather than replacing the dominance of men with that of women.

'She argued against sexual equality, believing that women ought to govern men; Daly advocated a reversal of sociopolitical power between the sexes.

In an interview with What Is Enlightenment? magazine, Daly said, "I don't think about men. I really don't care about them. I'm concerned with women's capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. Not that they've disappeared, but they've been made subliminal. I'm concerned with women enlarging our capacities, actualizing them. So that takes all my energy."

Later in the interview, she said, "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.'

Why would you dread living in a small community of just women, Mini? I can imagine it being a very pleasant environment, I've only known a couple of 'women's houses' but I didn't see anything dreadful at all about them.