How do Radfems propose to tear down the patriarchy?

[Hullygully]

Just that. Interested to know how.

Can I just ask........by patriarchy, are we really saying "society, which is, amongst other things, male-centric"? Or is it more than that?

You could say females are trained in selflessness and quietness maybe.

LRD - I agree that whether you call it that or not, I do think the perspective of Radical Feminism where it is okay to say no porn is not acceptable - or other activity - is very helpful. So many women do feel pressurised by the "choice" agenda to either accept things they are really not happy with, or not to voice their disquiet because of a fear of being disapproved of. Boundaries are good.

I know I bang on about this, but I think there is a real issue with conflating politeness and courtesy with subservience and unassertiveness.

One can be extrememly clear and assertive whilst remaining polite and courteous, indeed it is much more effective, imo.

Can I just add that I'm highly encouraged by the effects of legislation and education that I'm seeing among young people? In my yoof, I don't think I ever heard a young woman say "Get your hands off me!" or "That's harassment, stop it!" or even "You're assaulting me" ... all of which I have heard under-25s in real life say.

Awareness. That's the thing :)

Hully: I think there is a real issue with conflating politeness and courtesy with subservience and unassertiveness. One can be extrememly clear and assertive whilst remaining polite and courteous, indeed it is much more effective, imo.

YY!

catgirl - Yes male centric - in terms of the law, media, institutions, etc. that view and treat women as second class citizens

thanks garlic! I know I am a bit obsessive about it, but it really could stop all the aggro. Maybe. Some of it. Perhaps...

Hang on, hang on.

I am all for courteousness and harmony. But let's think about what's at stake here.

We are talking about sustained male violence leading to systemic oppression of women. Look at some of the threads dying a death while we all chat away in here (and I include myself in this). Gendercide. FGM. Rape survivors. Actual women suffering actual harm. Death in millions of cases.

Misogynistic language, racist slurs, rape myths and disablism do not happen in a vacuum -they ACTIVELY PERPETUATE a society in which sustained, hideous violence against women is minimised and ignored.

Why should this stand? Why should we put up with it? I might ask for peace and harmony but we could do with a little understanding in the other direction too - that women could be cut a little slack when they refuse to entertain patriarchal language and institutions.

It all comes down to the most effective way to stop it. As above ^^

How does you (or anyone) getting angry and telling off a woman who wanders onto FWR help her or the cause?

All it does is give you/whoever a little outlet for a bit. Eyes on the prize, I say.

And I am a woman, and one who hates those things too, but i know that me feeling my rage and then expressing it to a poster helps nothing.

garlic - no, it doesn't sound rude at all! The reason I qualified what I was saying but saying other people may do the same thing without radical feminism is because I am sure they do. I think radical feminism has a whole lot of positives and this is just one, which isn't exclusive too it ... but, it made a big impression on me, so I mentioned it.

hully - depends. I think politeness is constructed in a very gendered way. A traditionally 'polite' man holds a door open; a traditionally 'polite' woman laughs at his jokes.

I would prefer respect, but we may get into semantics with this one.

Right ho. Thanks Eats

In that case, I think it will be pretty hard to "tear down" society. Society always exists. It evolves and it can change but you can't really "tear it down" I don't think. I suppose you can enact fast, radical change, like a revolution etc, but that's pretty rare and requires either the will of the masses or the will of the powerful.

I don't think radical feminism has either of those atm, so I think trying to change society whilst recognising is the way for me. I appreciate you can withdraw from society (to a point) or even create your own separatist societies, but I am not convinced that improves your power

If you could only change one thinkg about society and either make is not male-centric or not capitalist / consumerist, which one would you go for?

... but I'm going to get into semantics anyhow.

hully, I was thinking how 'courtesy' is derived from the court, ie., the ruling circle. It's not an accident that the bit of society where the ruling classes live, where the patriarchy shows its power most obviously, is the bit that gives its name to 'courtesy'.

On a purely practical note, it is surely quite clear that while being rude pisses people off, so do lots of other things. Communication isn't unproblematic. You (and I) probably prefer one style, but to others it'll come across as less honest, or harder to follow, or entitled, or patronizing. There's no one right way to talk and the only contexts that pretend there is, are IMO ones where traditionally some people are silenced because they don't or can't follow the conventions.

The thought of changing things for women without changing consumerism is terrifying because globally, we have to change consumerism or huge disasters will happen.

The thought of changing consumerism without changing things for women is terrifying because we have only had our rights for a tiny amount of time in the UK, and if there was a radical change in society, we could end up losing those rights and end up like certain other countries where women are much more oppressed.

If consumerism is a product of the patriarchy, we will change both!

I think we have to be really careful with stuff like "relational" modes (was it on this thread or the other one where someone used this word?), and catching more flies with honey blah blah, because implicit in all that is that we are offering the other side the choice as to whether or not to work with us, and the nicer we are, the more likely they are to; which is exactly the status quo, innit? Some women get some perks under patriarchy when some men are feeling inclined to dish them out. Same difference. And it is all based on being privileged enough to hang around near the sort of men who are inclined to listen, even to entertain the idea of having an equal relationship with a woman. There are many who don't. I don't live with them or work with them, well, lucky me.

"Relational" particularly bothered me, because people who can choose to don't have relationships with people they don't like. It's another bloody popularity contest. I don't want to be paid £x per hour because I have chatted pleasantly with the boss enough for him to know me well enough to sympathise with me, almost as much as he does with Nigel, who is also a nice chap, and he is paid £x per hour; I want it because it is my right, and you have no legitimate way of withholding it from me, even if you hate me and find me annoying.

Labour achieved a lot in the 20C by going on strike. The response to this in many cases was violence. The establishment sent brutes with fists and boots and batons out to quash the uppity proles. But many battles were won. Similarly, we have read many times on here that when women withhold their labour (or bodies) from abusive men, violence is the result. And yet we have read lots of inspiring personal stories of women who non-consensually, unnegotiatedly, got away from the violence, physically removed themselves without permission, and lived on in freedom.

What is the point of negotiating? What can you win by negotiating with a system like the one we have? We should be refusing.

Some of you are missing what 'negotiation' and 'assertiveness' really mean. They are both actions of strength. In a nutshell, the objective of both is to get what you want without making the other feel destroyed.

Assertiveness

yy garlic

Also there is a difference between striking and taking action against "society" and being angry with an individual woman who's wandered on to FWR!

(completely lost)

I know about assertiveness, but negotiating is something you do with someone who has equal rights to the thing you are negotiating over.

"If you want to read the colour supplement first, can I have the business section please?" is an example of negotiating over a newspaper. That's fair enough because no one has special rights to it, no one deserves what they want more than the other, and even if you read your second-favourite section first and your favourite section second, well, no real harm done.

This is not a comparable situation to "hey, friend! please could you not rape me, if it's not too much trouble? Maybe beat me and kill me after I've had a chance to watch the news? Ok, I know you like the window closed, and I like it open, so let's close it and in return maybe don't cut off my genitalia?"

garlic, I think it''s not possible to say what is an 'action of strength' without taking into account the context in which that action takes place.

Also, if we are asserting ourselves against the patriarchy, why is it bad to want the patriarchy to be destroyed?

I think this relates to the point about action against a system being different from action against an individual. hully is right they're different.

Hullygully, I didn't realise you were talking about an individual woman wandering onto FWR. I was more thinking about the situations where people seemed to be saying that we should negotiate with the patriarchy to get what we want. But I don't think we have won, (even though it is good if individuals have better lives) -but the status quo is essentially unchanged if we only have bodily integrity and control over our own labour if we have negotiated it, which has been the case throughout history (there has always been the odd woman who has "negotiated" special privileges)

By the way I do agree with being polite in general.

vezzie, I think it all got mixed up, which is fine, ebbs and flowings and such!