Radical Feminism

[Grennie]

I see so many myths about radical feminism. So what does radical feminism mean to you?

The DGR site is great. It explains the radical feminist position in a reasonable way.

There is this blog that lists radical feminist blogs. But the actual blogs are of variable quality. Some are very good, and some are not.

radfemcentral.blogspot.co.uk/

So for example, Bev Jo's blog is featured on there. Bev Jo is really a lesbian separatist. A lot of her views are not radical feminist IMO.

Rad fems do not support the lie that there are happy hookers etc (they cannot look an exited woman in the eye) or that men can "become" women (and so they are vilified for being transphobic but there is a lot of sense there if you are not too easily offended- can't be arsed to open that can of worms). But mainly I think that rad feminism is feminism proper because it rejects all this patriarchy conforming man pleasing behaviour that liberal feminism likes to call "empowering" and liberal feminism spends a lot of time saying "check your privilege" which derails from the real issue that women are considered objects and 2nd class people.

Also want to say that I personally am pretty relaxed about people identifying/presenting as they wish. I have no issues whatsoever with anyone who steps outside the box of what is considered normal or usual in our society. I wouldn't dream in a million years of being mean to a woman / man who used to be the opposite sex (not trans / cis - just people) and really the idea of calling someone by male words when they have made it clear they are female, for example, is just awful. And patriarchal. Who is it who really gives gay / not macho / trans kids hell in school? And in work? It's blokes isn't it. It's most definitely not feminists.

I had an enlightening time on a course at work recently about equality type laws. There was a mix of male / female and white / non white. Everyone got exactly what they were talking about straight off apart from the white men. Most of them also got it after a while, apart from one. I looked around and thought, well ALL the women get it, including the young graduate ones, all of the non white men get it. Just the white men struggled with one refusing to accept anything at all. It was illuminating, really. I got a lot out of it including explaining to two very earnest young white chaps why actually saying X and doing Y might make women feel uncomfortable

I identify as a radical feminist in that I want to tackle the root cause of the structural inequality that women experience. I also believe that sex and gender are two different things.

Although I have identified as a feminist since I was a girl (pre-teens), thanks to being raised to think about these issues by my mother, my position has certainly shifted as I've got older (now 41). In my 20s I was definitely more of a "fun" / lib fem with a dash of (bleurgh) "sex positivism". Now I look back on that position and see it for what it was - an insecure young woman wanting her feminism to be acceptable to the men around her.

Now I am wiser and old enough not to be concerned with gaining approval from men for my beliefs

I also miss Dittany (but I'm pleased to see you back SM).

I actually think that there is more confusion nowadays as to what liberal feminism represents. I suspect a lot of people think that liberal feminism is "everything that is not radical" - which of course is false.

For example classic liberal feminism objects to prostitution on the same grounds as radical feminism - that it is a sexist and gendered institution which acts as and reinforces barriers to gender equality/freedom.

Also classic liberal feminists are IME troubled by patriarchal gender values as expressed by queering and or transgender politics. That is not to say that they are unsympathetic to the plight of individuals, rather that, similar to radical feminists, they are concerned that there is an additional (male defined) aspect being added to the (male defined) social construct of what a "woman" is considered to be in male dominated society, and that this addition is neither representative of an actual female perspective, nor helpful to women - quite the contrary, it is restrictive and highly conservative.

I may just be out of the loop of classical liberal feminism, but it appears to me that it has been much colonized by queer politics/postmodernism/sex positivism, etc. All of which are male dominated and represent the male perspective.

Which is a damn shame because classical liberal feminism used to be about making space for the female perspective and eroding a system based upon the male perspective.

I think you're right about the colonisation of liberal feminism Beachcomber, which is another reason why I feel more at home within radical feminism these days (as someone somewhere else is fond of saying, my feminism will be about women or it will be bullshit).

I also had a "peak lib fem" experience a few years back where a male colleague (a self-proclaimed 'feminist') accused me of being "essentialist" for pointing out that female and male biology are fundamentally different If only the word "mansplaining" had been in my vocabulary back then

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but can some one explain this "all women should be lesbians" stuff.

I'm straight. No matter how extreme or radical or militant my feminism became, I'd still be straight. That's because I'm straight. I'm not sexually attracted to women. I like men. That's never going to change. I think it's to do with me being heterosexual.

Do they mean I should live a lie and have a lesbian lifestyle for political reasons? Or just abstain from sex so as not to involve men in my life?

Beach, I totally agree. Liberal feminism has been colonised by queer politics. Much to the detriment of feminism.

I don't think anyone actually believes that all women should be lesbians, Brenslo. It's a myth.

OK Mooncupgodess. I thought they were serious! Never realised it was a joke. Must be losing the plot in my dotage!

Colonised?do you mean someone got temerity to disagree

Moocup, some do actually think that all women should be lesbians or at least not in relationships with men. But it is a minority view.

The idea of 'political lesbianism' is neither a myth nor a joke, although it's not something every woman can embrace as sexual attraction is such a personal thing for each individual. There's an interesting piece on the emergence of lesbianism as a political (and personal) choice here

scottishmummy - No we mean that queer politics changed what liberal feminism used to mean.

I don't care about anyone disagreeing.

Queer of course being a derogatory term,latterly adopted by some in a reclaim way

"Queer" means "queer theory" in the context of this discussion, SM

I am very aware of the existence of political lesbianism, and quite understand that some radical feminists see sexual relationships with men as contrary to their core values. But are there really radical feminists who believe ALL women should abjure sex with men? It must be a position held by a tiny minority at most.

Queer politics/theory is a different use of the word to "queer" as a derogatory term.

Mooncup, I have talked to a few women who do. But yes seems to be a very minority position

So it's true. There are women out there, a small number maybe, who are political lesbians, but are actually straight. They live the lesbian lifestyle to avoid being "traitors to the cause", but at their core, they are heterosexual.

I'm sorry if this upsets anyone's sensitivities, but that's just bonkers. And probably a short cut to mental health issues in the future.

Never live a lie about your sexuality.

Brenslo, political lesbians believe that sexuality is a social construct, like gender. So it isn't lying about sexuality if you believe your sexuality to be fluid.

That last sentence should really say So it isn't lying about your sexuality if your sexuality is more fluid I.e. it isn't innate.

There is a 21st-century view that the vast majority of people slot neatly into straight or gay boxes, with a small handful of bisexuals. I don't agree with this view myself, since it ignores the vast range of sexualities and attitudes to sexuality in recorded human history.