How do Radfems propose to tear down the patriarchy?

[Hullygully]

Just that. Interested to know how.

Well yes, of course you could do/support both :) But I would think that the one you thought was more important or would have the most impact would say whereabouts you lie on the scale. I would hazard a guess that most liberal feminists would feel the legislation is needed because individuals buying/selling/making music aren't going to have a big enough impact on it's own, and the radical feminists would say legislation is no good on it's own and potentially not needed when the action part comes into it's own.

I don't know, well, I always thought I was a liberal feminist until I learned more about radical feminism and it made sense to me, so maybe more people identify with it than they realise. And perhaps I'm falling back on legislation as a bit of a "libfem stereotype" - perhaps there are other ways that liberal feminists would approach that particular issue, for example. How would you define the difference, or define yourself as liberal?

To answer an earlier point, I think that radical feminists tend to be anti-capitalism because if you look at how capitalism works it becomes apparent that women are disadvantaged/devalued under capitalism systematically and so as a system it has to go.

Sorry wasn't meaning to imply I was quoting you. Simply referring to the idea. The villagers were talking about a particular child for example and saying that man is 50% father, he is 25%, etc. And the % was based on how often he was sleeping with the woman. Just interesting.

I only define myself as a liberal on here. In rl no one gives two hoots, and I couldn't honestly envisage a discussion where two feminists would argue about it - there might conceivably be a discussion over which would be most effective in terms of equality, but I doubt the terms rad or lib would enter the discussion.

Tbh, I can't answer. I'd do both. No idea which is the 'right' answer in terms of a stereotypical liberal response.

It is interesting that there is such an expected level of consensus. And such analysis of what constitutes one or the other. It feels very judgemental. (I know that's not the intention, I just find it odd that such group think is thought to be the answer to the perceived problem. Surely it makes more sense to run with the many feminisms thing? Rather than to try to group together the like minded so that they can be neatly boxed?)

I spend my whole life trying not to be judged as a woman. It feels v odd to be scrutinised to see if I represent a further minority, or which box I should be shoehorned into. I only identify as a liberal on mn. I am a feminist. I have no idea what group think liberals are supposed to engage in.

I know it's happening the other way too. (x is a radfem and sleeps with aman, everyone - and sometimes said in patronizing tones)

I don't like this 'exactly how and why are we all different?' focus that has swept fwr. It's even more divisive than being called an mra, but I do understand the impetus to use it as a unifying force. It just feels, I dunno, a bit, divisive. Kinda contrary to stated intent.

I know that I'm posting on two threads which are all about the differences between rad and libs. so really, what did I expect? I dunno.

Time for me to back off and ponder awhile, I think.

madwoman - I know what you mean actually. Because I have said I am a RadFem, sometimes some posters seem to think that I, or any other RadFem posters, should defend and explain everything any RadFem has ever said - either here, online or in print. Expecting those who sign up to a particular branch of feminism, whatever that branch of feminism is, only exacerbates any divisions.

Whatever gets the job done. To be honest, I think any feminism or anyone that puts women at the centre of attention is so threatening in real life that distinctions aren't important.

I think what the two threads have shown, and this is really positive, is that the real obstacle to feminist debate (note: not action or activism, but just chat on the board) is a refusal to focus on women - either due to focusing on men or focusing on individual experience. We've not really had any of that in these threads and they've rolled along very well.

And to be fair to the radical feminist posters that we have here, the label has often been self-applied in an effort to clarify that it doesn't mean 'extreme man-hating baby-killers' (I exaggerate: slightly). Also, why shouldn't they be proud of their movement? I'm very proud to be a feminist.

I'll stop going off-topic now and concentrate on devising entertaining ways of ripping down the patriarchy.

We do need both and indeed all efforts and strategies.

What we don't need is infighting about whose is best and who is and isn't a Real Feminist...!

There are certain opinions/viewpoints (not people) which aren't feminist though - aren't feminist of any stripe and colour. No point pretending that everything anyone says is feminist.

No, of course not! What would be the point?

The point Hully is when someone points that out, they get told they are bullying. Feminism, of any variety, means something

Posters should be able to call what they see as opinions and viewpoints as being non-feminist, without it being taken as a declaration of Real and non-Real feminism.

Someone defending prostitution as unproblematic and great (simplification), should be called out on it. Those who use misogynistic, racist or disablist language should be called on it. That is a central point of feminism and the women's movement.

"called out on it" upsets people. It is perceived as aggressive and raises hackles, in real life and on here.

A polite engagement pointing out why they might like to think again is both more productive and avoids all the dull old bullying cries.

I really think this is the nub

Surely if rad fems had a complete, practical solution we would have ... erm ... done it by now!

I think it's probably a bit like we're all in the middle of a dark maze at nighttime, and some people are trying to get out while others think we're too lost and want to sit tight and stay warm. So we're wandering around in the dark and bumping into things, and saying ouch a lot. But eventually, we might get out.

I don't see how anyone could tear down the patriarchy 'from the outside' because patriarchy is a term describing the social structure we live under. We don't know what the 'outside' is like and it'd be immensely arrogant to think we did. So the tearing down has to come from inside and has to involve a bit of bumping around in the dark.

(Clear, me, like the mud.)

Since men are often much easier to talk too, much nicer and much less cliquey than women, I don't think I'd do very well at this.

Sorry this Bunny is not signing up!!

Oh dear Bunny.

Well, never mind.

Perhaps one day you might discover you have more in common with women than you feel right now. Or not.

Thing is Hully - I am upset by anti-woman sentiment, by racist, misogynistic and disablist language.

I genuinely don't think calling people on things - as in literally, 'You need to look at your language/I'm calling you on xxx/Please don't use that' - is aggressive.

It's short, simple and clear. Not every request needs an essay justifying its existence.

LRD- Why would we have done it by now. Most women don't think there is a patriarchy or really a need for feminism. And actually if all women everywhere withdrew from men over night, we could stop the patriarchy. But of course that won't happen. What will happen is that a sizeable minority of women and some men as allies, will make the change.

Its like racism 50 years ago. Most people didn't see a problem and were pretty racist. A sizeable minority thought this was wrong and set out to change it. Although there is still racism in the UK, things have improved tremendously.

eats - well, exactly. if most women don't even see the patriarchy, tearing it down is going to be more tricky!

I'm saying, it shouldn't come as a surprise that radical feminists (who, however you define it, must be a smallish group) haven't torn down the patriarchy from the outside: if we could all stand outside the patriarchy, flexing our muscles and enjoying perfect freedom to rip apart anything we chose, it would not be the patriarchy!

Agree LRD. But looking at other social change movements it is clear that major change does come from a small group of active people. Tricky to do yes, impossible no.

And the things we do aimed at tearing down the patriarchy help women and girls in the here and now. RadFems have set up DV shelters, rape crisis support centres, projects to help women escape forced marriage, etc. This work is worthwhile in itself.

Yes, I see that Victor, but it IS part of the problem.

Your response is then about YOUR feelings rather than the issue at hand and how best to tackle it, introduce understanding and make progress. Do you see what I mean?

And as you are the one with the knowledge and the well-thought out, carefully arrived at position, you are really the one with the power. If you respond with the short, sharp shock, it puts backs up and makes people unable and unwilling to listen with an open heart and mind and perhaps change. It sets up confrontation, it doesn't promote progress.

Oh, yes, I agree!

I think we can do a lot and as you say, the work you describe is worthwhile in itself.

I just think that hully's original question - which is interesting - also kind of demonstrates one of the big problems with discussing feminism.

Lots of people don't accept 'the patriarchy' as a meaningful concept, or deny it has real power over them. Rad fems are very sure the patriarchy is a real structure and has huge power over us. It seems almost the wrong way around, to assume rad fems will be able to see how to get rid of it easily - they're more likely to see the struggle in the toughest terms.

I always wonder more, when people say they don't really believe the patriarchy exists, or they make all their choices freely ... how so? And, if you're in that lucky position, why don't you do more to help women who are not? (Thinking a lot here about RL acquaintances who identify as feminists, believe they have freedom of choice in our current society, and yet see it as the rad fems' job to fight for freedom of choice for other oppressed women).

Cross-posted ... hully, to an extent I get what you're saying, but then again, all the carefully thought-out position isn't going to protect me or anyone else against the realities of the situation we're theorizing about.

It's not like being a feminist gives you freedom from rape or DV, we know.

No, lrd, but I am simply talking about how to communicate on these boards and in rl in th emost effective manner whilst holding the end result clearly in mind.

Sure, I get that hully.

It is just problematic that a lot of the time when discussing feminism, both 'sides' think the other side has the power and is threatening them with it. I suspect this is inevitable because it's a conflict over a power structure that we live in - we can't step outside and onto neutral ground.

So all we can really do is put points across as clearly as possible. Watering it down doesn't work, and neither IMO does trying to work out which 'side' has more power in the argument.

knowledge is power.

If you have more knowledge you have more power (imo)

Being polite and mindful doesn't = "watering down" (imo)