Why is it called RADICAL feminism??

[aaarrrggghhhh]

ie in the whole TERF thing?

My understanding is the basic position is:

sex = biological fact = reason for all sorts of bad stuff done to women (e.g. sexual assault, inadequate medical care) = need for interventions/policies to address bad stuff because of biology = need for women to be identified as women in a number of circumstances so biological related bad stuff can be addressed

gender = social construct and cultural stereotypes (e.g. relevantly makeup and dress wearing) = reason for all sorts of bad stuff being done to women (e.g. women are easily distracted by pink unicorns so can't possibly run business, men aren't able to clean so women must do all the cleaning) = need for gender stereotypes to be uncoupled from identification of "women" as women. Indeed, often this means the use of sex specific terms is to be avoided to avoid gender stereotypes (e.g. chairperson).

dominant transgender position/self- id = women = gender construct not biological fact = women to be identified as 'cis' women on the basis that they are one subset of a broader category of women based entirely on gender = the complete opposite of basic feminist principles.

Am I missing something? How is this radical??? My understanding is that this is really uncontroversial feminist logic that is accepted in the mainstream??? For the life of me I can't see how this logic is radical.

My own view is that i am entirely happy for men to wander round in dresses and lipstick and more power to that for challenging gender stereotypes. Very happy to support clear rights for people who don't feel they fit within established gender constructs to not be discriminated against in the workplace etc.

VERY unhappy to get changed at the swimming pool with ANY person with a penis in the room whatever they identify as. Very happy to support the provision of other areas for such people to get changed were they feel safe.

How is any of this radical? How did that become the accepted term??

I think the 'radical' was put in as a divisive tactic, as opposed to 'liberal'. It's a divide and rule thing.

Stillscreaming - re "the entire medical profession"... Well. When I outed myself as a terf on facebook, the next time I spoke to my sister she said "Well, you were quite right. How can a man be really a woman?" My mum said "Well, you know So-and-so - she's a man, isn't she?" They're both doctors.
But neither are psychologists/psychiatrists and that's what we really need - someone to tell us who's talking bollocks.
I started out as a linguist, so I believe that meaning is socially-constructed, and that no one person or group gets to dictate definitions to everyone else

@ aaarrrggghhhh

Andrea Dworkin is an excellent place to start if you want to learn more about radical feminism. She's funny and engaging with a wonderful mind. She was discredited over something she said about incest but her work is amazing and ground breaking and relatively easy to read in the original.

Her work sort of started the sex wars, the split between those who were anti sex work and anti sexeorkers. Liberal feminists developed the idea that not all porn is equally bad, that lesbian stuff made by lesbians wasn't oppressive etc and that if a women chose to make her living in sex work, she was still an acceptable human being.

It's less that the liberal feminists want to oppress women and more that there is an acceptance that some women don't choose their mode of opression.

Most feminist writing is actually quite subtle in the difference of ideas, it's also, often, quite respectful of different views.

...and that no one person or group gets to dictate definitions to everyone else

Be the change you want to see.

Stillscreaming - I have to pull you up on this one - no radical feminist ever has been against sex workers. Feminists of many sorts are against sex work [sic.] because in a patriarchal society the commodification of women's bodies means that "sex work" can never be freely chosen. It is damaging both to the individuals involved in it (the majority of whom are groomed into it as underage children and have a history of sexual abuse as children behind them), and to women as a class because it cements our position as the sex class, whose consent does not matter, in the minds of men as a class.

But no radical feminist ever has been against sex workers - that's yet another vicious lie spread by online nutters (who like to shout "SWERF" when they're not shouting "TERF" - both of which fill the linguistic slot of "witch", often accompanied by an invitation to "die in a fire").

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I and every single one of the 3.5 billion biological females on the planet have in common with Danielle Muscato, which we don't have in common with... men. You still haven't offered us a definition of what you mean by woman which is any more informative than "anyone who says they are."

It's about the 2nd/3rd waves.
2nd wave feminism is radical feminism. 3rd wave feminists are into/accepting of porn, stripping , queer theory, 'reclaiming' the word slut, burlesque, my Nigel, etc, etc,.. never putting women front and centre.
Lots of 2nd waver 'women's libbers' took exception to these 3rd wavers in the pockets of Patriarchs and misogynists.
Instead they declared feminism must put women first (v radical) and exclude males in order to consciousness raise effectively .. this is why only radical feminists and not all feminists are described as 'excluding' males.

Thanks Stillscreaming - will check it out.

For me I think the thing is reconciling the interesting and necessary "theoretical" aspect and then coming up for air in the shitshow that is the real world. i.e. what "should" be v what "realistically can happen" and trying to avoid my head exploding.

I have found mumsnet to be very informative on this issue (tbh I only recently came on it and have mostly only stated for the feminism stuff , oh and the puppy chat - insight into my life there...)

I have been vaguely hearing about Germaine Greer being "non platformed" for a while now and kept on thinking must look into that - all seems a bit odd. And odd it is indeed. As in WTF.

To be honest I think this is all going to have some detrimental impact on women but also on transgender people too. I think its just going to lead to a massive right wing backlash against transgender people (oh and women will get caught up in that shit storm too).

It really doesn't have to be this hard to just respect people. Sigh.

One thing I do agree with Still about is that Dworkin is well worth reading. A hard, and very traumatising read at times - because she describes male violence, and in particular male sexual violence, without pulling any punches. I find I have to tackle her in small chunks or I get too upset.

I don't know an awful lot about feminist theory, but I thought it was radical feminism because originally the idea that gender was a social construct, and the move to abolish gender was more radical feminist. But it is also used I assume to make it sound more like "crazy women" as the term radical feminist is often used by men to make women who express any form of feminist view as extreme, and therefore discrediting it, rather than it's actual meaning.

Thanks Sexmatters - that's helpful.

Has Trump just outed himself as a Radical Feminist then?

I would love that.

(nb: I do realise his actions do not fit within the tradition)

I love peachy yoghurt. She reminds me of my aunt, she looks a lot like her. She's a glorious 'butch lesbian'. An educated women who can see through the bullshit of gender. She is her self, accepts her biology, why wouldn't she? But hates the fact women are supposed to conform to stupid stereotypes. Recognises oppression. Radical has connotations of "extreme". That's not what radical feminism is about. It's about freeing women from the chains that took our voice! Men and women are not equal. We are different biologically. Our minds however are as equally thoughtful and relevant intellectually. Radical feminism aims to destroy the consensus that men and women act in certain ways. We are all different. I never feel like a woman, unless my female biology comes into play. Periods, height, childbirth, strength. All of that is biological. On the inside I am me. I hate wearing makeup, I hate how I'm supposed to be kind, I hate how I'm supposed to put others before myself and care for everyone. Radical means the root of female oppression. We are seen as incubators for the next generation of men. Both men and women are equally important to the suvival of the human race, neither men or woman are superior. Radical feminists want women on an equal platform of human rights, but recognise we are also different biologically. Also in a way challenging a society that promotes a sex role binary is radical, in the sense, most people are too conditioned to recognise the injustice of it. So they are shocked and uncomfortable when it is chalIenged. I personally believe gender stereotypes damage men as much as women. Men are the casualties of war, women produce the next batch. All of us are commodities in the system we live in. I like men, majority are good people. I would class myself as a radical feminist though.

Lolabowla - thanks. That's a helpful insight too.

I suppose I didn't think it was that radical to think that! To me its just logical. Although the older the get the more I realise the whole equality thing hasn't been sorted as I so naively thought it was when I skipped out of university all those years ago.

(I like that you noted that men don't get a great deal out of this setup often either. I think that's often overlooked (understandably) but even from a practical point of view in terms of achieving change I think its a really important point to make.)

Agree Peachy Yoghurt seems fab. Would LOVE to send her in to deal with some of the fuckwits (male and female) I've had to deal with in my time.

I love Peachy's bicycle analogy. If you take the wheels off a bike it's still a bike, right?

been vaguely hearing about Germaine Greer being "non platformed" for a while now and kept on thinking must look into that - all seems a bit odd. And odd it is indeed. As in WTF.

Germaine's earlier stuff is brilliant too. The later stuff, seems to me, to be about courting publicity for the wrong reasons.

No Platforming is legitimate. The woman up thread who said she had no responsibility to invite strangers into her house was right, no one has any responsibility to host anyone who's views they find odious. Free speech or, more accurately freedom of expression, isn't a right to charge into another person's space and shout views they find offensive.

I might think that my views are the most wonderful and enlightening views that you could hear but if I'm abusive or offensive, MN takes them down. This is their space, not mine. I'm here becasue I've agreed to moderate myself inline with the terms of service.

Germaine's views aren't acceptable to the students of many colleges; trans exclusionary views are as unacceptable to most of society as homophobic ones. No one has a right to spew hate speech in a public space.

Not wanting to share space is fine, mocking individuals for how they look, telling doctors that you know more than them and saying that children shouldn't get the healthcare recommended by their doctors, isn't fine. I think it's brave that young people are taking the stance they are.

*Has Trump just outed himself as a Radical Feminist then?

I would love that.

(nb: I do realise his actions do not fit within the tradition)*

I think this is a really important point. When someone introduces you to a new way of looking at things, it's a good idea to have a look at who else agrees with that way of looking at things.

Trump isn't a radical feminist, he's a minority bashing thug. The Christain Right aren't radical feminists, they're minority bashing thugs. 'We Need To Talk' were hosted at the HoC by a man who has made a number of homophobic comments. They had a speaker who compared trans women to parasites, just like Katie Hopkins with her cockroaches.

Let's be clear here. When you disingenuously say "saying that children shouldn't get the healthcare recommended by their doctors" you actually mean people saying 'hang on a minute, is it wise to advocate affirmation only protocols?'. Where affirmation means puberty blockers with severe side effects, a massive skewing of desistance rates, and where by "recommended by their doctors" you include doctors like Webberly who has been suspended by the GMC for prescribing over the phone.

Oh and the speaker at the HoC event did not say trans people were parasites, she said, in the context of a discussion of male sexual fetishists who wear full body latex "woman suits" that they were performing a kind of parasitic parody of womanhood .

The problem as always lies not with people who are trans but with Stonewall and the self ID lobby who make no distinction between trans people and cross dressers.

The way I see it is that patriarchy is a hierarchy of males on top females at bottom, males first, females last, etc.

It is extremely radical in such a system to turn it upside down an say "No. I am putting women first, even if that means saying no to men!" . It upsets the entire order of everything.

Feminists who don't have this radical approach say 'I believe in being equal, not putting women or men first' - however they don't examine and challenge their own socialised and unconscious bias to put males first. In their own mind they think they believe in equality, but in all their unconscious behaviours and decisions they ease males' path, allow themselves to be used, make excuses for them, etc, at the expense of all women.

Radical feminism is logical and evidence based, and uses those intellectual tools to challenge our own behaviours as well as others' to break from tradition and habit -and nothing is beyond examination and reflection. The downside is feeling conflicted about things you used to enjoy without a thought.

I can't remember the name of the vid, but what made me think peachy yoghurt was awesome was she was talking about clothing and started laughing and said "it's cloth, just a piece of cloth". To be fair we are all born naked. It's society that tells us which piece of cloth to wear! It's just logic

Stillscreaming

I haven't looked in detail yet at Germaine Greer's statements. At the risk of opening another can'o'worms (and this is a genuine question) what is that she says that is considered "transexclusionary" as opposed to feminist. i.e. if she presents the view/logic that I (inelegantly) set outing my original post do you consider that to be "transexclusionary"? Or is there a different aspect to her approach?

My own view - and I appreciate that this is a simple soundbite for something that has many shades of grey - is that to be a "woman" you have to have the biology of a woman - it is not a sense/feeling. However, I recognise that there are people who wish to identify as a different gender than their biology (and given that I think there are enormous cultural pressures re stereotypes and gender identification it is understandable, I feel less informed to comment on the science of gender dysphoria, about which I suspect much is unknown in reality) and I respect and support their right to do so as they wish, not be discriminated against etc unless that threatens women rights. Examples of things that I think do impinge on women's rights are access to changing rooms by non-transitioned and calling women 'cis'. But I support constructive compromises to this such as alternative "non sex specific" changing rooms and indeed am very happy to identify "transgender women" as such. Is that considered to be "transexclusionary"?

The reality is that I do want (not fully transitioned if that is the term) transgender women excluded from certain all women spaces. There is no way round that. But I would be aghast to exclude a transgender woman from a dinner party or a job. I think that these two positions can be reconciled even if at face value it seems not nice (the very worst thing that a woman can be of course....)

(controversially perhaps I also think impressionable young children need a lot of support and guidance in this and where medial intervention is used its not as clear cut as, for example, as how to support a young homosexual person)

transexclusionary views are as unacceptable to most of society as homophobic ones
I truly, truly, think that the majority of today's society in the UK do not believe that transwomen are "actually" women, despite a desire to not see transgendered people abused or to cause offence.

OP if it helps, pretty much all of your last post would be considered transphobic.

"The entire medical profession takes a different view."

See, now that's just daft.

It's funny how the same people who think it's dreadfully difficult to define woman and man, and that no-one, least of all the 3.5 billion female people of the world should get to have dibs on the word they use for themselves, ALSO have no difficulty in defining hate speech in an extremely unhelpful way as "whatever I say is hate speech"

I think it's cowardly that people cheerlead vulnerable youngsters into unnecessary and lifechanging surgeries because they are too unwilling to CHALLENGE something patently wrong and become unpopular, even whilst reams of well reasoned arguments and evidence are presented as to why this is a bad thing to pursue.

I understand newbies walking into this debate and being confused, but I lose all respect for those who've heard the evidence, seen the lack of logic, and understand the consequences, and yet still wave their pompoms for what will turn out to be the Jimmy Savile-esque scandal of this generation.