Radical Feminism

[Grennie]

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

Actually I remember reading some research which showed women photos of attractive women and men and measured their vaginal secretions. Het women said they were attracted to the men, but not the women. But the research showed no difference in vaginal secretions between Het, bisexual and lesbian women when looking at other women.

The researchers interpreted this to mean that women whatever their identified sexuality, were turned on by looking at photos of attractive women.

That's really interesting Grennie. Although part of me is offering thanks that I don't have to do studies where I invite people to have something shoved up their fanjo to measure their vaginal secretions ...

I think women are socialised to accept the institutions of heterosexuality (marriage, being in a relationship with a man is better than being alone etc.) but I am not sure that we are socialised to find men physically attractive in the way that we are for women. But then we're not supposed to actually enjoy sex, are we, so that's OK then ...

I don't know if their interpretation is right. But it might be, especially given Phyllis's point.

Grennie: I'm aware of that research.

They also found that women were getting physically aroused by men with women, women with women, men with men and bonobos with bonobos. This was regardless of their declared sexual orientation.

Women have just been socialised into a fear of their own sexuality, which is horrible, and a resentment of men's easier sexual growth, which is sad.

Yes women constantly try to measure themselves against men's sexuality. Which is sad and bound to create insecurity. Because we are obviously not men.

Maybe the secretions were nothing to do with arousal and everything to do with making the whole measurement thing more comfortable!

I wonder how they measured men's arousal

This is probably not going to go down well, but I can't help thinking the patriarchy is responsible for enough rubbish without pinning the blame on it for women's overwhelming heterosexuality. That's down to millions of years of evolution.

Most people are heterosexual. Which is just as well if the species is to prosper.

I am astonished at the sweeping generalisation passed off here.opinion traded as fact
Women constantly try measure themselves against men sexuality
I don't like being pigeonholed by men,women are this,and that.equally i don't like women doing it

So Scottish, do men (as a class) pigeonhole women? you seem to be implying they do. So if more than one man is involved and more than one woman, might it be necessary to generalise or abstract? Otherwise we can talk about you if you would like, and then we shall just have to...extrapolate from that and generalise!

I think the bigger question is:

Is it intrinsically better and more feminist for women to only have emotional/romantic/sexual relationships with women?

I know that there is a school of thought within radical feminism that, yes it is.

But I know that plenty of women would disagree, not least because most women are heterosexual or are in heterosexual relationships and would feel affronted by the idea that it is only "false consciousness" or social conditioning that stops them being in a relationship with a women.

So ultimately, I think political lesbianism is an interesting discussion, but one that has the potential to be very alienating and thus, I'm not sure how helpful it is to the feminist movement as a whole.

I often see the differences between radical feminism and more liberal kinds as the difference between a radical and reformist ideology, the former may be aiming for bigger changes, but those changes are often less achievable.

Radical feminism talks about women as a class. Political theories talk about classes.

Grennie - I would still consider feminism to be an ideology as well as a movement and I do think my wider point still stands.

Sorry I wasn't replying to you Gosh. It was in response to Scottishmummy

I don't think political lesbianism is much of a thing nowadays is it? Personally I think the concept behind it (and certainly how it has been explained to me) makes sense and could be very freeing for women who do not want heteronormative lives.

The term itself is probably outdated and certainly is controversial and potentially divisive - which of course is quite the opposite of the intention behind it.

Yes I think the idea is fine, but the term is not. Sheila Jeffreys in Lesbian Hetesy talks about it. There are some great bits in that book, but it seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about lesbian culture. Maybe not surprising when Sheila lived with a male partner for a while before becoming a political lesbian. She was then immersed in lesbian feminist space.

Is MGTOW akin to political lesbianism, then?

I understood sexuality largely was rather than chosen?

Many men seem to be happier with men, but choose women as partners? Is that patriarchy in action?

Oh, and in passing men often have extremely close friendships with men, sharing things through decades

I must admit I always thought that most people were bisexual to some extent, although with plenty of people far enough from the middle to feel strongly het or homo if you get my drift.

I guess it's difficult to do research on it when everything is moulded so much by society. Certainly (and others will know more than me as my history is rubbish!) there have been times where eg male homosexuality was accepted / encouraged and so loads of men were engaging in gay sex far more than in UK society now generally? Plus you have loads of stuff about single sex institutions where same sex relationships become very common - schools prisons etc. So doesn't all of that stuff indicate that lots and lots of people given certain circs will change a stated preference?

All of this is by the by though - for the vast majority of radfems political lesbianism (which involves more than just being in a sexual relationship with a woman AFAIK) is an interesting theory and to talk about but not obtainable or indeed desirable for most.

I think the christian thing is a red herring also.

People / scientists / whoever should be able to talk about sexuality and how it works and what forms it takes without it being taken as support for the outrageous homophobic views of certain branches of the christian church.

Some women do say they chose to be lesbians, and others say they were born that way. Certainly for some people, their sexuality does change during their lifetime. And some want it to change, but it doesn't. So I think it is probably more complex than we may often assume.

But certainly plenty of women in their 40's, 50's and older, do become lesbians after being married to men.

For those "women in their 40's, 50's and older, who do become lesbians after being married to men" I wonder if they would say they "became" lesbians or "realised they were" lesbians?

The ones I know, say different things. Some say they realised, some say they became. Why can't sexuality change for some?

I took this test to find out what type of feminist I am:

personality-testing.info/tests/FPS.php

My result:

Radical feminist 42
Liberal feminist 38
Socialist feminist 36
Women of Color 31
Cultural feminist 18
Conservative 10

The test is US focussed in some respects, I don't know how that changes things.

Interesting, Thanks Flora

Mine was:

Socialist feminist 55
Radical feminist 45
Women of Color 41
Cultural feminist 28
Liberal feminist 25
Conservative 10

If only I know how the liberal and conservative sneaked in...?

I'm going to regret this I think.