Radical Feminism

[Grennie]

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

Radical feminist 46
Women of Color 39
Socialist feminist 38
Liberal feminist 34
Cultural feminist 29
Conservative 10

Interesting. I am a bit surprised; I thought I would come out higher on liberal and lower on socialist. But I took it several times to be sure.

Thanks, Flora

I actually find many women agree with radical feminist ideas, if you don't use the name radical feminism. Most women can see the harms of porn and prostitution to women. And that women get a worse deal in life than men.

Many women agree with some radfem ideas. The fact that they don't identify with 'radical feminism' proves this. The idea that women get a worse deal is common to much of feminist thought.

Until radical feminism matures to the point of incorporating mainstream sociobiology, it condemns itself to impotence.

What do you mean by incorporating mainstream sociobiology?

Perspective Score
Radical feminist 39
Liberal feminist 39
Women of Color 31
Cultural feminist 30
Socialist feminist 24
Conservative 16

Pretty boring score

I really think though that this is so US skewed, unless you know the US well some questions cannot be answered with enough knowledge so it skewed me towards neutrality on the grounds of ignorance

I think Jo should take the test

I am American living in the US. I did wonder about whether it is culturally skewed. But I answered a couple of questions with "neutral" myself because I didn't think my opinion was informed enough.

RadFems often seem to suggest that the differences between men and women are purely or very substantially due to society. Sociobiology shows that this is very unlikely to be true. Women and men have different attitudes to sex and reproduction for very good adaptive reasons. Society may reinforce these differences, but to claim it creates them brackets RadFems with anti-vaxers and flat-earthers.

sociobiology is not science, just made up stuff like evolutionary psychobabble.

On the test, I had to go neutral on a lot of the questions about WoC because I don't feel able to form a view. I'd like to know where the conservative score comes from. I can't think of a question where I gave what I would consider a conservative position. I'm wondering if it was the question about prostitution.

Jo - Women and men's attitudes to sex have varied throughout history and different cultures. There have been cultures that have viewed women as much more interested in sex in general than men.

Radical feminists know that penis in vagina sex is much more risky for women than men. And that many women who do get pregnant, end up bringing up the child by themselves. So yes, women and men are going to view penis in vagina sex differently.

But note, in the past people did not know how women got pregnant.

Grennie I think your last point is vastly overlooked by proponents of evolutionary psychopish or sociobioloblub. It is very clear that our knowledge of sex and reproduction is very new, in evolutionary terms. Even in the early 20th century, it wasn't firmly known how long gestation lasted and there were some legal cases where children were declared legitimate even if they were born two years after their "father" died.

Yes. I also read about a tribe where the members believed that any man who have PIV with a woman, was partly the babies father. So x would be 20% the father, etc. The article was arguing that under that belief, it made sense for a woman to have lots of male partners, as then there were lots of fathers to help out.

That's interesting. I am reading Plato (as you do!) and he talks about the guardians not marrying and not knowing who their fathers are. His argument is that if no man knew who his father was, he would never strike another man. Back in the days though, they understood very little about conception.

JO, of course there are differences btw male and female but gender is socially constructed and reinforced, which yes I agree this has certain adaptive reasons when history is taken into consideration. (esp in terms of production/economics/politics) However it hasn't always been this way and it doesn't have to remain so. If you think we are subjugated because of biology then I might be forced to conclude that men are indeed violent aggressors, always have been and always will be, a slave to their biology.

Flora Do you often go about denigrating subjects about which you know precisely FUCK all? I'm guessing not, but for some reason you think it's OK for sociobiology. As a matter of interest, what do you do for a living?

You don't need to know how females get pregnant to evolve a desire for sex. I'd have thought this was pretty bleeding obvious. Individuals who didn't enjoy sex left no offspring. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that when a biologist talks about an evolved instinct they mean women sit there calculating the marginal genetically profitability of a given behaviour. I don't know why you're uncritically reciting selected anthropology. It tells us no more about what's evolved and what's not than looking at any other contemporary society.

Gender is not purely a social construct. Recent history is irrelevant. We evolved on the savannas 100,000+ years ago. No biologist would talk about a slave to your DNA, or genetic determinism, this is just something you see on feminist forums.

These comments reveal a near total ignorance of the field. Buy a biology book, read it, think about it, and come back when you've something substantial to say. It's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

"Individuals who didn't enjoy sex left no offspring."

Because no woman has ever got pregnant from forced sex

Sociobiology is not biology.

Sociobioloblub is a pure speculation which is an attempt to legitimise social constucts through biological determinism. Feminists do not believe in genetic or biological determinism. There is no good scientific evidence that gender is anything other than a social construct.

"Individuals who didn't enjoy sex left no offspring." This would seem likely to some extent (there would be other factors) however if it is true it would support multiple interpretations including that women and men would naturally have the same attitude to sex.

"You seem to be labouring under the delusion that when a biologist talks about an evolved instinct they mean women sit there calculating the marginal genetically profitability of a given behaviour" Actual biologists don't say anything about "evolved instinct" however this is the type of guff that is trotted out in support of evolutionary theories of human behaviour.

So if you've been raped, that means you don't and didn't ever enjoy sex .

Well Florablub, I'm a biologist, and I often say things about 'evolved instincts'. Evolutionary psychology IS the study of evolved instincts. Things like why we like sugar and salt, why we like sex, why we're gregarious, why we don't like people who can't shut up when they have got a fucking clue. Why don't you start by looking up sociobiology, as you clearly don't even know what the word means. Unless you really do believe that no instinct, no behaviour, preference or fear is ever inherited by humans or any other species.

Fuck me, this is like trying to explain chemistry to people who think chemicals are bad for you.

JotheNot evolutionary psychology is not biology. You are a random on a website. You are not explaining anything.

Perhaps you can share your knowledge of sociobiology. Who, for example, are the heads of the Departments of Sociobiology at some leading universities? Who are currently the leading thinkers in the space? What are the leading publications?

JO, in order to make the case that sociobiology shapes human behaviour, we first need to accept two premises:

One: humans are biological matter
Two: we live socially

You being the expert on sociobiology and all things anthropological would of course know this...wouldn't you??????

"sociobiology's contention that genes play an ultimate role in human behavior and that traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by biology rather than a person's social environment. Sociobiologists generally responded to the criticism by pointing to the complex relationship between nature and nurture"

It seems that socio-babble turns to nurture when its nature argument fails. I agree with you that human nature changes over time and is adaptive but the reason isn't genetic but social.

Like language, we evolve over time and in doing so we use language and behaviour to enforce inequalities/conditions that might be considered in some way beneficial at any given point. We may even change in terms of appearance, physical strength, characteristics, traits and fertility because social phenomena, like the way in which we use and abuse the natural environment.

Look at pictures of men in the great depression, men that were out of work, they have lost body mass but retain some muscle, compare that to today's fat and lardy specimen of masculinity and we find that desk dweller or coach potato, men's appearance and physical strength is different to only 80 years ago. This due to not the survival of the fittest (what a laugh) but changes to the economic and social life of people. ie social change drives all change.

And whilst you might like to think that men are naturally driven to aggression because of natural selection, I don't, to do so overlooks the one thing that sets humans apart from other animals...something you yourself seem to lack...rationality.

Perspective Score
Radical feminist 43
Socialist feminist 42
Liberal feminist 42
Women of Color 30
Cultural feminist 24
Conservative 10

I am more liberal than I thought

What we would need to make sociobioloblub and evo-psychobabble provable or valid:

hehe

Liberal feminist 42
Radical feminist 39
Women of Color 33
Socialist feminist 29
Cultural feminist 28
Conservative 10

Feels about right, though I don't know what a cultural feminist is.

Has anyone got a book reference for a feminist critique of evo psychology?