How do Radfems propose to tear down the patriarchy?

[Hullygully]

Just that. Interested to know how.

Separation is one, non-violent method. A complete withdrawal of women from men. Women do the vast majority of the work, keeping men rich. So we take it away.

I think it is about creating women's spaces and a culture of women, so that we come from a starting point of support and our own cultural goals, rather than adapting someone else's system.

On a practical level, some rights have been won by changing the law, but some things that have been made by better for women were done through self organisation. Women went out and set up women's refuges for themselves.

Is it a permanent separation, or temporarily imposed until awareness kicks in? I can see that this might take generations to happen, but would rad fems want re-integration once a fair and equitable society was established? Or is it accepted wisdom that re-integration would just see men adopt their old ways again?

I don't know if I'd be giving a rad fem answer here, or if it is more of an anarchist answer. I would say that some separation is a process that would change at some future point, but some areas should be permanently about people's rights to determine the areas they are actually involved with. So a culture around pregnancy, for example, would always be something that is determined by a culture of women. In much the same way that in an anarchist society it is up to textile workers to make decisions about their workplace, and so on.

I've often wondered this aswell.

What happens if the majority of women don't want to separate from men?

Would radfems be ready to impose the separation on women who dissent? If not what comes before the separation in order to take the majority of women along with the separation?

Also if radfems put womens needs and wants above all others, what do the radfems think will be the response of others, men, children etc.

Refusing to reproduce and raise men?

I also wonder about babies and children. Are male children handed over to the male community at a fixed point in their lives? If so, when?

Then feminism would carry on in the same way it does now, with different women contributing in the way that they find themselves most suited to, some through building a women's culture, some through campaigning for certain legal changes, some through creating cultural change by breaking down boundaries and so on. And many women will do a combination of these things.

And I don't think it involves entirely separating from men in every sphere of life for most radical feminists; most radical feminists just devote some time to women's spaces and culture where that is possible.

If separtion is not lieraral how would women be supported to disabay the laws and social norms that they are fightting yo overturn. Where will the money and the legal support come from?

So radfems then caramel are only one part of the solution?

I think we're wandering into the territory of a dystopian novel, rather than the reality of women who are involved in some sort of separatism. Lots of different groups of people have some kind of separatist area of their political struggles.

I am new to Radical Feminism, so might not get this right. But I thought that RadFems thought that the patriarchy will be removed by a range of things that attack it at its root. This includes putting energy into women and girls, campaigning on issues that affect women, setting up projects/work that meet the needs of women - basically political actions and campaign work to put the needs of women and girls first.

In terms of what afterwards. This would be a society where gender didn't exist i.e. male and female roles. Sex would still exist, so there would still need to be things set up to support for example pregnant women. But where sex i.e. our bodies were not an issue, then everyone would be treated as individuals, rather than men or women.

namechangeguy - Yes all baby boys will be shot at 8 years of age.

(joke)

No of course that wouldn't happen with patriarchy ending. Why should it?

eats, I can't see how that differs from what Libs want and do

In the history of feminism, radical feminism has been only one part of changing society. I can't really speculate on the future because a. I'm not really an expert on feminist theory and I'm sure other people would discuss radical feminism and what it stands for in a more accurate and informative way and b. a lot of change in society and what we will all be facing is going to come from environmental and economic problems facing the world and that will change the feminist response, in my opinion. I suspect that response will be more radical because the changes required in a future society are going to have to be radical in general, not just in terms of women's liberation.

Liberals are trying just to change within the system, rather than change the whole system.

I think part of the issue here on mn is that radfem supporters have sometimes been less willing to seek to work and acknowledge that other forms of feminism are valid responses which is why this thread and others has come about in part imo?

Whilst acknowledging that all political and social movements have a hard core element, they also to some extent get the name of extremist and pureist.This can lead to amisunderstanding of views.

And Hully, a lot of the practical actions may not differ. Both radical feminists and liberal feminists do campaign and volunteer on the same things.

No they're not, they want to change the whole system but work from within. Radfems want to tear it all down from the outside, that's what I've been told. Hence the query as to the means of tearing down.

"less willing to seek to work and acknowledge that other forms of feminism are valid responses"
Lurker - everyone on MN thinks their view is right. Why do you think RadFems should say to others - yes I know your opinion is not the same as mine, but that is a valid response??

Hully - sorry, yes you are right

Well, domestic violence refuges started out as outside of the system. They were separatist and set up by women's efforts from women's resources and work, not by the state. I would say the theory behind that is radical feminism, but many liberal feminists would have contributed to that work.

In much the same way, I will not support an MP who opposes gay marriage because I consider it to be an ethical feminist issue, but it is not actually a radical feminist concern because it is an institution of the state. But I still feel and obligation to support the work of liberal feminists, and in general feminists do support each other's work.

I can only speak for myself, but taking prostitution as a single example, I want to tear that down. By that I mean eliminate it entirely.

A liberal position (I think), would be prepared to negotiate for workers' rights, working conditions, etc.

Victor - That is a really good example!