Although sharing the views of women here I don't think I can be a radical feminist

[IdaBWells]

I share virtually all the views here and this is definitely not meant to be a goady post in any shape or form. I guess I am trying to understand where I sit politically and ideologically. I would appreciate feedback to understand where I fit and some women theorists I might want to read.

For example, I do believe in the innate equality of all people. However because of our different biology I do think women and men can have different needs. Women grow and give birth to children and have the biological ability to feed them so that does affect our lives. We also can be affected by our periods and hormones. If that is ignored I believe usually women suffer.

I don't agree that the "neutral" definition's should be a male model, by that I mean an assumption that people want to have a career from the ages 22-65 and birthing and raising children don't factor into that model, or if they do it's a side factor and not as a central factor in life choices. I do think raising children with their biological mum and dad is a healthy model and if you choose your spouse with care that it usually works. I want an ideology where we recognize most parents of both sexes want to be able to be active in raising their children and also have other meaningful work.

I do think men and women parent differently for example and I don't believe that's down to purely socialization and having healthy adult male and female role models is good for boys and girls.

I am happily married to a man and am raising a son as well as daughters so I want a constructive and meaningful way to include both sexes positively. To me I want to raise my son to feel responsible for supporting his family and raising his children, I want to raise a strong man as well as strong women.

So this post is not meant to be antagonistic but purely to open a conversation and get opinions. When it comes to gay couples as I am not gay I am open to feedback. I do think as most couples raising kids are heterosexual we need to focus on supporting the majority of relationships to be successful as that benefits everyone. We should talk about all kinds of ways that women live and as the majority will raise children it is very important to talk about the needs of children. I am not talking about stereotypes and locking people into roles and stereotypes, quite the opposite. I want to acknowledge biology and how it affects women so that we don't get caught in stereotypical roles by default because the reality of how biology affects women and our working lives is not acknowledged.

Women and children's rights seem closely linked, when one group suffers so does the other.

Right Some of us aren't actually feminists at all, we just signed up and posted onto this public forum.

I agree that the biological reality of women's bodies needs to be taken into consideration.

As far as men offering different, additional qualities in parenting, that is probably true at the moment.

Do not underestimate the effect of socialisation on different sex babies though. Experiments show that we subconsciously treat boy and girl babies differently, from birth. We will not know the impact of that on brain development until we manage to stop doing it.

You may like to read this recent thread Ida

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3439449-Reclaiming-evolutionary-biology-thinking-about-what-Heather-Brunskell-Evans-said?pg=6

I don't agree that the "neutral" definition's should be a male model, by that I mean an assumption that people want to have a career from the ages 22-65 and birthing and raising children don't factor into that model, or if they do it's a side factor and not as a central factor in life choices.

I don’t feel like I’d associate this with feminism (radical or otherwise) - wouldn’t most feminists say that the point is that the ‘career driven children as a side factor’ shouldn’t be the men’s role, but that we should all have the chance and choice to share in things equally and not to have to have set backs to our careers, institutionally or personally, because we just happen to be women?

And that men shouldn’t have to not take an equal part (or more) in child rearing because of societal expectations of them, which is the flip side?

I'm not a feminist. I consider myself more of an equalist. I've had two kids and on both occasions I went back to work and my husband was the SAHP so I don't think the biological thing has to get in the way, it didn't for us.

As I understand it, 'radical feminism' simply means a feminism that is firmly grounded in an understanding of the 'root' (from the latin radix, iirc), of our oppression, which is our biology.

It took me an age to be ok with the label, and I know I don't fit comfortably into the mold because I'm pro life, but I still use the term with occasional caveats because I have been soundly convinced that women's oppression is ultimately connected to our biology.

But feminism isn't a fundamentalist religion - it's a movement of women who engage with all sorts of things and view points and backgrounds. There are disagreements and different women emphasize different things.

Worry less about the label. Just put women's needs higher up the priority scale than the rest of our society by a significant distance, and you'll make a difference.

Sorry CaptainKirk my meaning is that I definitely consider myself a feminist but am not sure what it means to be a radical feminist. I read a lot of feminist works on my own as a teen, then studied a lot at Uni. I studied in the US and read Womanist (black feminist) thinkers. I met bell hooks after going to a book reading of hers, I am just sometimes confused at what radical means. As I said I agree with the majority of what we discuss here, in fact most seems to be common sense rather than anything radical! It's not that I am scared of the label, more wondering if I have any right to use it. I was just trying to outline my thoughts in the hope you all could help me clarify my thinking. I am now 50.

But feminism isn't a fundamentalist religion - it's a movement of women who engage with all sorts of things and view points and backgrounds. There are disagreements and different women emphasize different things.

Worry less about the label. Just put women's needs higher up the priority scale than the rest of our society by a significant distance, and you'll make a difference.

Excellent advice! I think I’ll apply that myself.

For me radical feminism is very much rooted in women's biology and the female body. Traditional women's roles, skills and values are all under-valued and under-appreciated. That is not to say that we are all alike, or must conform to gender stereotypes which have their root in biological function. The problem is that in most societies people have been restricted to certain social roles, behaviours and functions on account of their biology and their sexed body; women especially so.

Womanhood is powerful. Our bodies are powerful. Our sexuality is powerful. But at the end of the day we are all human beings with our own individual destinies as well as our social roles and responsibilities.

FloralBunting how you have expressed yourself is closer to what I am struggling to articulate! Thank you.

There is also always the big issue of class. Many men and women won't have access to the same life choices if as someone up thread has said we just focus on careers. Class inequality can be as oppressive as/and combined with sex differences.

And that men shouldn’t have to not take an equal part (or more) in child rearing because of societal expectations of them, which is the flip side

Is it societal expectations or biology? I would say it's the later and believe there are many couples where neither the man or the woman want there to be equal involvement.

I've got a bloody good man but he would never have the nurturing ability that I have. We both know that I am way better at caring for young children than he is so I will do much more than a half share. And that is the way we both want it. Shouldn't feminism represent females like me too?

I think I’d call myself a radical feminist to differentiate myself from a lot of women my age (35-40) who are a bit more liberal - women who might not be anti-porn, or anti-lap dancing clubs, or who think that biological sex should be denied to be nice to people with dysmorphia. (Not that anyone ever asks me to define myself!). I’m sort of more at home with 2nd wave feminism than anything else.

I think the ‘radical’ in the term as it is widely applied does relate to the Latin meaning of a ‘root’ - believing that our oppression is fundamentally caused by the patriarchy and that things need to be completely changed rather than a few seating arrangements and we’ll all be okay. I think that radical feminism says we need to overthrow the patriarchy - at least ideologically, even if people don’t believe it is achievable in their lifetime.

I agree with you Thingy in that I think everyone should have the choice - feminism should support you in the way you want to child read whatever that is.

I don’t know if I think nurturing is biological and not societal. It’s a hard one to unpick. You may be right. I just know that it shouldn’t be assumed I am more nurturing and that I want to be more nurturing because I am a woman - and it routinely is.

child rear not child read!

I definitely don't identify with so-called third wave feminism, which is very uninspiring.

I do think having and raising children can be a crucible for women. We can believe we are in an equal society until biological reality kicks in and we find ourselves reclassified, especially by men.

Nothing is worse apparently than if "mums" are enthusiastic about something. Or the other one "teenage girls" because teen girls are gormless with no brains. It's that patronizing dismissal of us.

I think I have understood radical feminism differently. From what you all say it doesn't even sound radical, just common sense and especially if we are going to classify it according to the root of a word.

So much of what we struggle with also seems to be a result of modernization and industrialisation and that is the separation of work and domestic spheres. So men and women, adults and children are all spending most of our day separated in different places. There is the logistical struggle of trying to get various people (especially small people) to various locations in short time frames.

On the other hand modernization and industrialization have been good for women in so many ways and have gone hand in hand with women increasing our social power and rights.

I always knew I was a feminist, but have learned from here that I am probably a radical feminist. I always thought it meant "extreme" but now I don't think so. It's just the realisation that everything in our world is set up for men, for their comfort and benefit.
I kind of always knew that, it just needed to be named.
I DEFINITELY think men and women are different in some ways , but us being different is seen as inferior, when it isn't.

I wouldn't have wanted to work all the hours when dc was tiny, I needed to nurture, BUT don't see why a few years of nurturing =a fucked career.
To me radical feminism is saying that men can take on nurturing roles as well. They don't need to automatically be alpha breadwinners forever. And women don't need to be fuckable eye candy OR cosy mumsy types.
Getting older ( 40) clarified a lot for me when I found I couldn't move up at work because at 40 I was not respected, whereas less able men of the same age were ( with bells on).
I think radical feminism is a gift to men AND women in that it looks at removing unfair expectations from both men and women.

There is also always the big issue of class. Many men and women won't have access to the same life choices if as someone up thread has said we just focus on careers. Class inequality can be as oppressive as/and combined with sex differences.

And that, my friend, is your tentative first steps in genuine intersectionality.

Yes, feminism should certainly take into account the specific factors which exacerbate the oppression of women. Extremely important.

Thingy
I know what you’re saying but there are plenty of men who are nurturing and caring so I’ve always been inclined to think things like this are maybe more signs of individual differences that coincidentally match up with stereotypes. For example, my DH is better at maths than me but he went to an expensive private school that focused on academic excellence and pushing its pupils (boys and girls) to Oxbridge whereas I went to an ordinary state school and had “arty” parents (mum and dad) who encouraged me to play musical instruments and express my creative side more. (My dad’s numerical skills border on number dyslexia he gets so flustered, so this stereotype has never rung true for me.)
Fundamentally though I agree with your point that everyone should be able to choose their path equally and not have assumptions made about them based on stereotypes.

However because of our different biology I do think women and men can have different needs. Women grow and give birth to children and have the biological ability to feed them so that does affect our lives.

Yep. Biological factors do make a difference. There has to be some reason why almost every society in history has been a patriarchy, and if we don't attribute that to mental differences between men and women then it must be the physical differences.

Second wave feminists developed the idea of gender to mean the expected behaviour and social roles associated with each biological sex. They saw gender as a negative thing that served patriarchy. That's why some feminists now describe themselves as 'gender critical'. Some people talk about abolishing gender entirely but I don't think that's possible because of the physical differences. Those differences need to be acknowledged. For example, if men and women competed on equal terms in sporting events, that wouldn't be good for women. Nor do we want mixed prisons because men are stronger and generally more violent than women. Some issues like job discrimination against people who might become pregnant are only going to affect women. And so on.

Well Flora so-called intersectionality has been around a long time. Black Womanists in the 1970s were frustrated at American middle-class white feminists wanting to flee the home and embrace the workplace. This was because for many black women in the US being able to stay home and raise your children was a luxury and a majority of them had always been working outside the home to make ends meet. They also were often spending their days raising white children, especially in the South and only seeing their own children very late at night, if at all.

Also they didn't embrace the term feminist especially because they found themselves outside definitions of feminine that were based in a stereotypical white femininity. They had many role models of strong women that kept their communities alive and thriving. They didn't identify with women kept at home and cherished as weak and feminine. They had never had the luxury of being perceived that way, instead they were seen as beasts of burden that did all the hardest and least well paid domestic chores in every community. So they chose the name Womanist. Their goals were different from white Feminists.

"Ain't I a Woman? in 1851 in support of Rights for Women is Sojouner Truth's famous line way before modern Feminism.

Hi everyone, I don't see patriarchy quite in the the same light, nature wanted the world populated and men selfishly helped that.(I'm not saying it's right just natural) Feminism was always going to happen because with 7 billion soles living on this earth we are running out of resources etc.
Feminism is about women taking control, they can either have no kids, less kids, better educated, healthier kids etc, choose Mr Right or not find him.

Part of feminism is a mum making a Mr Right, do it if you want to or don't do it. (I'm a father with 3 grown up kids)

sevens your post is somewhat confused can you make your point clearer? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Yup, I'm aware of the tangled history of feminism and race, especially in the US. My own background is working class white English, and I've never seen women do anything but work, and work hard.

I don't for a second buy into the idea that feminism, particularly rad fem thinking, is opposed to black women or is the preserve of the white comfortable middle classes. I think intersectionality has very useful things to say about being aware of the matrix of different oppressions that keep women down - in my own family it was a combination of financial dependence and poverty and disabilities that pushed the women in family to the brink. All significant issues that hooked into feminism along the way.