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.

"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. "

We have different biological needs. A man doesn't need a sanitary pad or a tampon at certain times of the month. But then I don't now either.

I think feminism (radical) doesn't seek to deny biology.

Periods, pregnancy, menopause etc can all impact a woman. Society tells women to shut up, not cry,.not get upset etc. Because men can't always handle it.

I think genuine feminism is not getting to the top by trying to be like men, but starting again and allowing us all equal space to be out genuine selves.

And I usually agree with floralbunting.

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

Err..do you honestly think this just applies to black American women?? Ask any working class woman of any race and it's the same. In my family no way we're women seen as fragile or weak. My female relatives always worked, AND bore children, looked after elderly relatives, same as now!
That's the norm, surely, for the majority?

Womanist

I like that. I have at last found the right word to describe myself

The way I see radical feminism is different from say, liberal feminism, is because radical feminism recognises that EVERYTHING is ripe for feminist analysis, challange and reform, whereas liberal feminism or 'equalism' is about getting women to reach (supposed) 'equality' in a world which has be built on and shaped by misogyny and the exploitation of women by men. Radical feminism is about a belief that women can never reach 'equality' in this world shaped by and for men at the expense of women. We are set up to fail if we try.

This is why the sex industries are so important.
If men are programming themselves by coupling their orgasmic highs with films of women being violently abused, tortured and degraded, how is that going to affect the way they view and treat women?

If an underclass of women are having their intimate orifices used as public conveniences by callous misogynists, how does that impact women's social status in relation to men?

I think radical feminism is pretty unflinching in going to the dark underbelly of Patriarchy and dealing with the blood and guts, rather than just being an intellectual or legal pursuit.

I have decided not to explain, I don't think men should have a view, it's a conversation that women should have between themselves.

Sorry

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

A while ago I looked this up so I could read her whole speech. Turns out Sojourner Truth never actually gave a speech with that phrase. This site www.thesojournertruthproject.com/compare-the-speeches/ compares her original speech with the rewritten one that was published a few years later. The white abolitionist who rewrote her speech in a southern slave dialect (Truth was born in NY State and grew up speaking Dutch) thought it might be more palatable to white people.

IfNotKnow I am also from a working class background and didn’t suggest that no other women would fit that category. If you reread my post I said their critique was of middle-class white women. I was describing in a few words black women’s critique of a dominant and fashionable feminism of that era. If you know anything about American politics you will know that class critiques are not as popular as in Europe because of the history of the violent suppression of socialism in the US, there is not a history of a large socialist party such as old Labour in the UK (the Democrats are centerist).There is a tendency to therefore look at sex, gender, sexuality, nationality, race and class is one of the last to get attention.

Race has always been a huge issue in the USA due to the history of suppression and enslavement of people of colour whether they be native or African descent. Colour has a strong correlation with class in the USA, especially before large numbers of black people had access to a university education. I was not including every form of feminism or every feminist critique, just a quick outline of some black women’s critique of a dominant feminism that was getting a lot of popular support at that time. No one is “against” anyone else within feminism. I am talking about ideas that first were noted in books and papers 40+ years ago. Women with different backgrounds are free to say they don’t feel included and to describe a form of feminism that includes them.

When I was at college one of the first things that female professors emphasized was that there isn’t a monolithic “feminism” but feminisms and they also made sure we read and were aware of a range of feminist theories including Womanist. This was in the early 90s.

Let’s be honest when we look at the meetings being held in UK in the past year supporting women’s issues, which I think are fantastic and support 100% the audience and speakers are not particularly diverse. There were working class and gay women there but not a real cross-section of women from British society. No one is actively excluding anyone but for whatever reasons not all women are reading and sharing the same information. It’s important to acknowledge that.

Weriseup I agree.

My apologies if I mentioned the US a lot. I have spent a lot of my adult life here and studied in the UK and the US. Class is categorized differently in each nation. It’s basically working class women drawing attention to the fact that many of the American popular theorists of the 1960s (Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem) came from comfortable backgrounds and were not acknowledging that women of different backgrounds class and race have different experiences and different priorities.

So noone was saying Flora that these women were opposing other women or deliberately excluding them but that the theories needed to be expanded so other women were included. We know even recently in the past couple of years there's been accusations of "white feminism" or a comfortable middle class feminism which I don't think is true but at the same time it's important they we do look to reach out to other women with different backgrounds and don't assume anything about them or what they see as their most important issues.

I have studied and thought about a lot of these issues as well as lived them and that's why I am wondering how do my thoughts fit currently? What would my form of feminism be called? Is it radical if I still have faith in traditional family structures for example? My thought has to acknowledge biology, that is a very important factor in my own personal belief.

I know due to the time difference y'all are asleep right now so rather than continue a monologue I will wait till tomorrow and get your feedback! I am on Pacfic Standard Time.

Yes, Ida, I brought up the word intersectionality precisely because you had mentioned the actual concept in a relevant way - yes, it is based in the double whammy of sex based oppression and race based oppression, but it's also possible to apply it in other forms of oppression women face, like disability and so forth.

I used the phrase 'genuine intersectionality' as a contrast to those using intersectionality as a means to get feminists to focus on all sorts other causes, notably those which centre men. That's all.

Personally, as I bore people to death with, no doubt, I am a believing Catholic. And I still consider myself a radical feminist, because I find that my faith spurs me to fight for the vulnerable, and my discovery of feminism has coincided with that sense of calling.
That's my basis for thought, if you will, so my feminism is in a worldview that accepts an understanding of marriage in a spiritual way as a hugely positive thing, concept wise. Obviously, reality is what it is, but the idea is a good one.

Others come to feminist ideas with a strong understanding of class analysis, perhaps more left wing socialist ideas and their understanding of marriage reflects that so they have different views.

There are very worthwhile conversations to be had around these differences, and I often find my positions gaining more nuance as I talk with other women about things.

That's what I mean about it not being a fundy religion - this is about women respecting and learning from each other, and putting women and girls at the centre of our thinking in ways which just don't happen in a male dominated conversation.

I don't describe myself as a radical feminist because there are some areas where the theory and I diverge: I'm not a blank slatist and I tend to see social class, not sex, as the primary driver of inequality. I'd probably prioritise the political needs of working class men over upper middle class women.

But I don't think it really matters. I'm certainly not a third wave feminist and, indeed, I don't really think the third wave is feminist at all, especially in ways that matter to working class women. And certainly, with regard to the issue of the day - what even is a woman? - I see no reason for it to be a conversation that only radical feminists have.

Your title says "I don't believe I can be a radical feminist".

Without expanding upon what you think radical feminism is, and what principles you disagree with.

And when you go on to outline your beliefs with the implication that you think these beliefs are in conflict with radical feminism, I was puzzled. Because your beliefs seemed to me to be perfectly aligned with radical feminism.

Could you outline a principle of radical feminism that you disagree with?

OK, this is all a bit over my head, but I still think middle class women face inequalities compared with men of the same background. I actually think most women whatever their background share certain struggles and I'm not sure about "feminisms"..
We all have our specific needs but the basic stuff, to do with who bears the brunt of domestic chores, discrimination around maternity etc, those things are universal and I guess that's what I'm interested in.
The practicalities, not theories.
This I found interesting;
- it's important they we do look to reach out to other women with different backgrounds and don't assume anything about them or what they see as their most important issues.
Who is "we"? Who is "they"?
See, i might have a different perspective from you if I am a different economic class or a different race but the central fact of being a woman is the thing that matters when I'm talking about feminism.
If I am a disabled women or a Muslim woman there will be extra things I think about that non disabled or non Muslim women won't, but that changes nothing about my femaleness.

Yes, I think that is key - our femaleness is what connects all of us, whatever else we vehemently disagree on. It's really an excellent starting point for discussion because it doesn't begin from or rely on us each understanding everything about our personal situation. I guess that's why the class analysis thing is so pertinent here.

So many excellent, excellent points on this thread.

WeRiseUp

'The way I see radical feminism is different from say, liberal feminism, is because radical feminism recognises that EVERYTHING is ripe for feminist analysis, challange and reform, whereas liberal feminism or 'equalism' is about getting women to reach (supposed) 'equality'...'

Completely agree. I've been a femist for about 40 years but I started out thinking it meant 'doing what men do!

If tables needed moving why ask for 'strong men' to do it. I could move a table! But I am not as strong as the average man! And now, at 50 plus, not even as strong as the average woman.

So I see now how trying to be like a man isn't really feminism!

In the last year or two Mumnset has really helped me. One thread about swimming and periods really switched on the lights.

If society were built around women's bodies and not men's bodies all the bloody time everyone would know that periods affected life.

Some girls and women's periods are really debilitating, they can't swim or do PE, they feel naturally more tired or emotional. Yet we as a society are kind of ashamed of this. We feel womem should just be able to carry on! Who in the real world has worm white shirts on their period! Let alone gone rollerblading with dogs!

So the whole of our society is built around us being an oddity that has to be accommodated rather than us being the norm - or at least 50% of the norm.

"Let’s be honest when we look at the meetings being held in UK in the past year supporting women’s issues, which I think are fantastic and support 100% the audience and speakers are not particularly diverse. There were working class and gay women there but not a real cross-section of women from British society."

Ida the meeting I attended was in a part of the country that is not very ethnically diverse. But the panel of 4 contained a youngish white woman, a youngish black woman, a middle aged white trans woman and another speaker /presenter who was also white. I think that is quite diverse.

'Personally, as I bore people to death with, no doubt, I am a believing Catholic. And I still consider myself a radical feminist, because I find that my faith spurs me to fight for the vulnerable, and my discovery of feminism has coincided with that sense of calling.'

Floral you never bore!

As you may remember I am a Christian too(of the 'sort of evangelical' variety). My views on same sex marriage etc would differ from the hardline that evangelicals sometimes take.

Plus I am very big on divorce, which the more high church of the Anglican communion may find difficult.

Marriage, when done well, can be a liberating sharing of love, chores and childcare. A safety net, a safe place, a home. Done badly it is a cage, a trap, a life sentence.

So I support marriage only as much as it supports those in it.

As a 21st Centiary Christian and feminist this doesn't disturb any of my views.

One day I will do the diagram with religious conservatism on the east axis, radical feminism on the south axis, gay rights on the west axis and penis rights activists on the north axis.

On the SouthEast axis is where a lot of activists around pornography/prostitution/sex based rights sit & FloralBunting & ItalianGreyhound (apologies for being presumptuous) sit.

On the SouthWest is where the political lesbians sit.

On the NorthWest is where transactivists sit.

On the North East is where the traditional sexists "Eve tempted Adam", sit.

I think most people could comfortably plot where they are on the diagram.

That should be anti porn/prostitution.

Even when I was a fundamentalist evangelical full of self-loathing, my views on same sex marriage were rather out of step with my co religionists. I said openly that in a secular society, the church had no authority defining what marriage is. Despite various theology around marriage, the church didn't invent monogamous long term pairing, and it's existence around the world is a good reason for the church to step back and learn a little humility.

But I am a bit weird like that and going off topic.

Yes, I am.anti porn/prostitution.

Interestingly this is vastly to do with being a feminist. As a Christian I would also always say porn and prostitution is wrong but again more from a what about the people involved position. Not a what about some sort of religious offence/family values.

One thing I've experienced is that some religion is elastic. As you age and learn more your faith can widen and deepen.

I am nothing like the young idealist 18 year old evangelist I was, and yet, to be honest, I am everything like her!

My values have not really changed but my understsnding, of how people and life works, has. I am more 'liberal' but actually I hope more liberating.

Once you don't take the Bible (religious texts) literally you have a lot more freedom. I never took it literally but I acted as if I did!

So I see now how trying to be like a man isn't really feminism!

God no! As the brilliant Jessica Eaton points out here, that is absolutely the last thing we would want.

www.google.com/amp/s/victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/08/04/why-i-dont-want-to-become-equal-to-men/amp

FloralBunting I completely agree, but I kept quiet! For the most part. I was a coward non-boat rocker! It was Mathew Vine and the church's own exploration into Shared conversations that finally made me 'come out of the closet' as an affirming evangelical (and Greenbelt!)