The difference between liberal and radical feminism

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

This short video explains the basic difference between liberal and radical feminism.

"Um, and only radicals would escort him out of the building? okaaaaaaay."
After roasting him of course

"I agree that liberals would be more likely to engage and educate though, rather than evict immediately."

Absolutely, and I'm not going to say that this is wrong, but it definately means that he will have successfully derailed the agenda to 'what about men'.

"My apparently long term failing as a feminist is wanting to gather as many people to the cause as possible, whether they be women, men or trans."

I'm not accusing you of failing, or judging you, but I have personally found the presence of men uncomfortable within feminist organising. It is something experiential rather than theoretical that made this the case for me. If you are able to think, speak and act perfectly at ease with men in your midst - then good for you. Some of us find their presence intrusive, dominating and voyeuristic, or at best - superfluous. Particularly organising around porn culture, etc, where they simply don't know quite how it feels to be born female into this degrading torrent of woman-hating.

Anyway, I have no beef with liberal feminists organising (in fact I have often stood side by side with liberals in many an action- most even), as long as they don't try to stop radical feminists from organising - which is of course rare-more the case of liberals siding with transactivists who want to silence and prevent radicals meeting.

Happy birthday to your little one!

• with a minor clarification.

You are going to get opinionated derailers in every walk of life. An opinionated trans derailer should of course be dealt with/ removed if they are attempting to 'prevent' organizing or stifle debate

I think the issue with the 'prevention of organising' is entirely different to not being comfortable speaking with an audience that includes men, or trans, at a personal level. Completely different. The one (prevention) wouldn't be accommodated by any feminist, liberal or not. The other is less clear cut, and one where I would encourage discussion and debate, rather than silence it.

And 'superfluous' is an odd concept when you are trying to break down and remake society. Surely no one is superfluous?

Right. It's not even 8.30 and I've iced cupcakes. I even had to ice them pink as the only cases I had were brown with pink flowers, and the blue icing looked truly unappetizing! The limits of my domestic goddessery are now exhausted though, and I need caffeine.

"I think the issue with the 'prevention of organising' is entirely different to not being comfortable speaking with an audience that includes men, or trans, at a personal level. Completely different. The one (prevention) wouldn't be accommodated by any feminist, liberal or not. The other is less clear cut, and one where I would encourage discussion and debate, rather than silence it."

By 'prevention' I'm talking about the actual legal challenges to women-only meetings (including rape victims) and campaigns of intimidation to prevent them. Many feminists side with transactivists and actively insist that all meetings should include people born male (if they believe they are women and self-identify as such). This actually destroys the kind of 'magic circle' of radical feminist organising and is literally a manifestation of feminists taking part in the prevention of organising. The discomfort of having born-males present is central to wanting to organise without them....Or am I missing your point?

"And 'superfluous' is an odd concept when you are trying to break down and remake society. Surely no one is superfluous?"
In theory, yes. There are sweet men who don't actually dominate or make it all about them, but even their presence is inhibiting. And if their contribution is pretty superflous its not on balance worth having them in the room. Men can play role within the movement, but I think spaces without them are important and worth protecting too.

Yep, you are. The point is that no one wants to prevent debate - they want to widen it. So the legal challenge would be a last ditch attempt to widen the debate.

I have no beef with all female discussion. I just think that in order to actually change society, you have to involve all the stakeholders. So any prior prep magic circle stuff is great, but it is the first step before wider participation. My issue is that no one seems to have any vision past the magic circle bit. (that's not to say that extremely valuable and practical supports for the status quo don't come out of the magic circle bit, just that it's not destroying the patriarchy stuff.)

I think we just know lots of different men. I don't recognize either the ranting derailing activist, or the wishy washy sweet version. I'm pretty used to articulate and sensible folk of either sex debating issues surrounding feminism at conferences. The majority are women, but there are usually a handful of men who contribute thoughtfully and don't inhibit discussion. These aren't rape survivor's meetings, though. Different kettle of fish.

I'm completely willing to be convinced that there is a definitive agenda towards social change that exists in the radical sphere. I see a lot of extremely valuable work, especially in the VAW arena, but I'm a bit woolly on the existence of actual social change aspects of radicalism. This is probably ignorance on my part. Perhaps a clear agenda exists that precludes half of society that I am unaware of. In which case, great. Let's crack on.

"My issue is that no one seems to have any vision past the magic circle bit."

Ouch! I think that's a bit unfair! If you are legally prevented from having the magic circle (or the first step), how can you focus on wider participation?

"I'm a bit woolly on the existence of actual social change aspects of radicalism"

Rape crisis centres and womens refuges and the recognition of the spectrum of 'violence against women' for a start. Much of the language of feminist thought currently expressed has roots in radical feminism. Sorry, I feel a wee bit defensive that you could be so disparaging about an incredibly powerful and socially transformative movement, but as you say you are a bit woolly on it - so I should let it go.

Rape crisis centres and refuges are extraordinarily valuable, and I'm not minimizing the work that goes on to patch up the ravages caused by the status quo at all. (I would add that they aren't specifically limited to radical feminism, I know plenty of liberals that volunteer and campaign in that arena). As I said before, I have no desire to denigrate that aspect, and it's a tragedy that such institutions are needed.

But that's an entirely different thing to promotion of social change.

I wouldn't legislate against single sex meeting. but I would question the validity of such for a later social change agenda. Like I said, chicken and egg.

I really do have to get my birthday head on, now.

It was through radical feminist consciousness raising that the pattern of male violence against women became clear.

That is 'magic circle' stuff, not something that happens by having conversations with men!

"I wouldn't legislate against single sex meeting. but I would question the validity of such for a later social change agenda"

Also 'ending violence against women and girls' is a pretty massive, global, social change agenda. Its a radical one, and although liberals have jumped on the bandwagon- not that I object to the comradeship, it is radical feminist in origin and mainly pushed ahead by women's organisations!

Is that all it's about, food? Claiming it as a radical 'win' in origin instead of a feminist one?

Small solace? Who are you fighting? Don't waste your energy fighting me. I'm not fighting back. We're on the same side.

"Is that all it's about, food? Claiming it as a radical 'win' in origin instead of a feminist one? Small solace? Who are you fighting? Don't waste your energy fighting me. I'm not fighting back. We're on the same side."

Good grief! I was refuting your claim that radicals don't have a social change agenda and your questioning of the validity of radical feminist organising!

I've not said anything combative and you have been insultingly dismissive of the huge radical feminist contribution towards social change.

I think we are just having a disagreement about what 'social change' is in a feminist context, and I was looking for more more fundamental change - ie the removal of the patriarchy, complete revolution of social order towards equality.

And you were talking about their being recognition of VAW, and improvement of facilities for women and children damaged by the status quo - which is indeed social change of a degree. We are talking about different things.

So, apols for any discord in comms. We are obviously violently agreeing.

Regarding "I think we are just having a disagreement about what 'social change' is in a feminist context, and I was looking for more more fundamental change - ie the removal of the patriarchy, complete revolution of social order towards equality."

I am confused. Could you please set out the fundemental social changes that liberal feminists are organising to achieve that radical feminists have no part in? I am baffled by the lines you are drawing.

I'm trying to erase lines, food unit.

Why on earth would I want to be drawn into more division?

Cupcakes everywhere, here.

No worries. I don't want division - but I feel very protective about radical feminism and the importance of women-only space to share, raise-consciousness and organise as feminists, even if others feel its not for them. For a minute there it seemed you were suggesting it was all about 'weaving yoghurt' and redundant as a force for change.

Hope the cupcakes went down well.

God, no. Just disappointed that the focus seems to be always on 'difference' and not shared experience and goals - and more so on here than anywhere in rl.

I'm more heartened by rl this week - we have a great picture of the mayor and male members of council taking part in the local 'walk a mile in her shoes' event. I don't like the shoes aspect particularly (as I'm a bit of a clogs girl myself) but I love that it is a largely male event for both VAW fund and consciousness raising, and is well supported.

Although I don't mind a bit of lentil-weaving of a Friday afternoon...

I feel very protective of single sex space. Regardless of sex.

Does that make me a Radfem or a panderer to patriarchy (as was said to me when I supported my dad's club's efforts to remain Male Only)?

"I feel very protective of single sex space. Regardless of sex. Does that make me a Radfem or a panderer to patriarchy (as was said to me when I supported my dad's club's efforts to remain Male Only)?"

Well... If it is a political space for purposes of empowerment and organising, it can only be for those who need to organise to end their class oppression. Otherwise it is simply upholding the status quo- allowing the powerful class to meet to increase and organise their own power to control and oppress the less powerful class (and not have to account for it). That's why there is no call for 'white-only' meetings (which happen accidently all the time amongst the powerful) but there is definite value in having meetings that exclude the oppressor (exclude white people).

There's a different reason for wanting same-sex public toilets: On an equal level men and women usually prefer not to have to use toilets/urinals with strangers of the opposite sex wandering in (eg washing out her mooncup or shaking his dry is more comfortable with others who have the same reproductive organs around) and then for women there is the additional 'protection from perves and rapists' factor/sex class/reproductive vulnerability element too.

Men can organise to help women though, such as the White Ribbon Campaign (men who seek to end male violence against women) I believe the 'Walk a Mile in Her Shoes' action that madwomanintheattic spoke of above is one of theirs (although they don't exclude women, it wouldn't make political sense to).

So why does your dad's club need to be male? Is it because historically women were indoors grafting over meanial household chores, leaving the men free to go out and have a pint with the other men who share the luxury of free time, or was there some other reason they came to exclude women?

What I'm driving at is that because women and men aren't equal, the call for same-sex space mirrors this inequality inversely.

So do you just advocate Female Only same sex spaces?

"So do you just advocate Female Only same sex spaces?"

If you read what I said above I gave a pretty exhaustive answer. In the case of public toilets or hospital wards or testicular cancer support groups etc, male sex only spaces are fine since they are not politically suspect.

Oh right, so you deem male only social spaces "politically suspect"? Who do you think should be the arbiter of this?

Also, please qualify "politically suspect".

"Oh right, so you deem male only social spaces "politically suspect"?"

No, I also deem 'white only', 'able-bodied only', 'heterosexual only', 'upper class only', etc spaces politically suspect too.

"Who do you think should be the arbiter of this?"

It would be great to have this properly clarified in the equality act, because this is implied, but people still don't seem to get it.

"Also, please qualify "politically suspect"."

Well you have to ask why? Ask your dad why he wants to exclude women, let me know, and I'll tell you why that is politically suspect.

I know why my dad and the members of his club wish to keep it men only. They enjoy it. They like to play their games, gossip, sing, discuss the news and the price of groceries together. They do not feel the need to look attractive or modify their language in the club, which they would do if there were women members.

My mother's house of an evening is where politics happen.