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.

Not a what about some sort of religious offence/family values.

The notion of human rights is one that grew out of Christianity and people can arrive at a belief of every human having value, deserving dignity, compassion, etc through, instinct, philosphical analysis or faith.

When you are involved in anything humanitarian you will keep bumping into feminists and people of faith.

It could do with refinement, but here is my crude sexual politics compass.

Added detail

I feel that feminism kind of took a wrong turn at intersectional feminism as it removed the view that there is a patriarchy and that men set up systems to benefit themselves, and concentrates on social injustice.
I think radical feminism centres women of all races and class divisions, to say that it does not is outdated.

I feel that feminism kind of took a wrong turn at intersectional feminism as it removed the view that there is a patriarchy and that men set up systems to benefit themselves, and concentrates on social injustice.

I don't agree with this. I think the wrong turn was taken when, despite the protestations of Crenshaw herself, intersectionalism was appropriated by queer theory's libertarian individualists and became a matter of personal identities rather than a systems analysis, which is what Crenshaw articulated.

I think intersectional analysis is inherent to radical feminism. How can you examine the oppression of the female sex class by the male sex class without recognising that other class oppressions exist and intersect? You'd have to be a bit thick to not notice.

It was the coining of 'Intersectional Feminism' as something separate from Radical Feminism that was the problem and it was very much a splitting off that was encouraged by MRA dudes who saw how the internalised misogyny of young Black women and the internalised misogyny and 'white guilt' of young white women could be turned against radical feminists by blaming white women for racial oppression and promoting the lie that radical feminism is 'white' feminism. A lot of gullible youngsters got suckered right in.

I've often read that 'radical' is intended more as 'fundamental' but it does also seem to be more extreme from what I've seen.

Could you explain please RockAndSausageRoll?

WeRiseUp

Could you explain what an 'Antinatal Political Lesbian' is please?

I am not entirely comfortable with it, it needs a better definition, but relates to lesbian separatists who are somewhat unsympathetic to mothers and motherhood in that they tend to echo some gay men in their irritation and lack of patience with children's all encompassing demands, how they fall on women and how mother's must centre them. I've heard a couple self-identify as anti-natal.

I am not happy with it though and would welcome a better term.

I get the thinking behind 'Anti-natal' but it doesn't really work as a distinct term from antenatal and would thus be confusing and ineffective. Perhaps a variation on the child-free that is often a self chosen term?

I thought the idea of political lesbianism was the idea that heterosexual women could choose to be lesbians as a political statement, in order to wholly reject the patriarchy?

I have to say that's one part of the history of radical feminism I think is actually very extreme, and my gut feeling is that it is offensive to lesbians of the real homosexual variety.

But I don't think political lesbianism is really a 'thing' anymore.

Political lesbianism strongly overlaps with radical feminism in so far as it is about centring and loving women first. It's not about who turns you on/gets you off.

Barracker I guess what confused me was what I considered pretty run of the mill, common or garden feminism of the 2nd wave kind did not seem to me particularly radical. Yet I was surprised to find that say when it comes to trans-activist issues women who said “hang on a minute, something sketchy seems to be going on here” and were willing to organize were called radical by the trans activists and even by women on this forum, (which as I said in my original post I agreed with). But I felt I must be missing something as none of it seems radical! I am also not hearing any new ideas either so it confused me. I thought I must be missing something.

I am a 50 yr mum of 3 kids married happily for 22 years and I don’t feel particularly radical in anyway so thought, this label just cannot be referring to me. As I said the ideas seem based on ordinary common sense and biological reality, hardly radical. I find the label confusing.

Waffling about theory (as I have been!) is also not the same as living radically. Although to be honest, having a strong marriage and family with no one going off the deep end seems to be pretty counter-cultural these days.

Kimberlé Crenshaw who used the term intersectionality was following on from other black feminists that I mentioned such as bell hooks and Angela Davis who identified with womanist theorists. Also we were talking about all those intersections (gender, class, race etc) back in the early 90s and I’m sure long before so I am confused by the idea that any of these concepts are new.

Few things are ever really new, to be fair.

Again, I think you're getting a bit hung up on the word 'radical' in the sense of extreme. By all means don't use the term if that is the only definition that computes. But I've yet to meet a woman who defines her views as radical feminism in the sense that she feels they are extremist.
I've seen others describe feminists as radical feminists as a negative criticism, a sort of sneer at 'feminism gone too far', and that's a problem, but it's usually dealt with by a few straight forward sentences of explanation.

I was confused about "radical" feminism and spent a long tome trying to understand it.

I came to the same conclusion as floral that there's no point being hung up about the word; it does just mean 'root.'

Everything linked to feminism in all capacities (even porn, TW etc) is about biology and the biology of being a woman. Or trying to appropriate it.

I believe there's been an unconscious campaign against the word 'radical feminist' for decades (probably mix of 3rd wave and MRA); I certainly grew up in the 80s and 90s believing we were to be suspicious of the term and those who saw themselves as radical feminists.

The word radical also had different connotations for me for some reason, ie that it was extreme or even anarchic.

It's a shame as the word 'liberal' has similarly for me (who hasn't studied these words beyond alevel history) been painted as really good whereas I now see it as something to be a little wary of depending on contexts.

Semantics, semantics...

I am proud to call myself a radical feminist but a bit conflicted and embarrassed about the lack of re-examining my own life and choices and making changes since i've become a mum. I'm tired.

However the lense I perceive the world through is a radical feminist one - it is both the sharpest lense and also has the greatest depth of field.

I know that:

1. Male domination restricts women, saps our energy, creativity and prevents our self actualisation. It is essential to have spaces free of male domination, as frequently as possible, in order for women to become actualised. Men will naturally start to dominate in mixed spaces, both through male and female socialisation and because their physiology is bigger, stronger and louder. It just happens.

1. When women are free to discuss our lives free from the presence of men, we spontaneously start 'consciousness raising' as we realise we are not isolated individuals but there is a pattern to our problems rooted in being of the female reproductive sex class which is exploited and dominated by the male reproductive sex class in age-old patriarchal traditions and habits.

1. With raised consciousness we want to do something about the appalling injustice of female oppression in the world. We want to tear down every sign trying to sell it to us as a good and normal thing and liberate every girl and woman living in misery of male violence and oppression or traditions of female subordination. Rage.

1. We become uncompromising. We see how women have had to fight tooth and nail to get small improvements. We see other feminists (liberal etc) getting fobbed off with tidbits while any gains face a backlash. We realise that women saying no to male domination is extremely unpopular in patriarchy and yet this is the only course of action. We are forced to say no, without compromise and face the hatred.

1. We put women first, we want to end male domination of women and girls, we want to end systems and practices which oppress and enslave women and girls, we say no male domination, use phrases like "name the problem" and "male violence", we are suspicious of male allies and don't want them to enter or disrupt the inner feminist circle (but may be happy to accept certain acts of support on certain terms), we prioritise women's safety over men's feelings. Thus means we are radical feminists.

Funnily enough, Mumsnet has been a great female -dominated space for consciousness-raising and it is obvious how males can disrupt it when they join in. Either with NAMALT, women do it too, the entitled behaviour that comes with male socialisation or all the enabling fawning of female socialisation.

You also see the seasoned rad fems get turned upon and berated for not being 'nice' enough and basically saying no to dudes.

I think Mumsnet is a radicalisation portal.

Oh it absolutely is, if we go back to the correct meaning of the word; the root of feminism.

Relationships board frustratingly spelt out a few home truths to me. FWR did the rest.

First, apologies as I don’t think I’m a particularly good writer and so many women on here are able to communicate their points so well and much better than me, thanks for that.

I guess if I can just go around living and thinking as I have done without caring about labels then that’s the way to go.

I have been confused by the self-description on here as “radical feminists” because as you say Flora outside this context radical feminist is demonized and I guess to me was connected to older ideas from the 1970s and earlier of women choosing to separate from men entirely, rejecting traditional concepts of the family and embracing lots of theoretical navel gazing. I know, silly stereotype. I guess it’s because “radical feminist” was embraced as a self-descriptor on here and yet what they were promoting just seemed a general pro-woman and pro-woman’s biology reality.

It’s the use of the word “radical” on here and by others to describe us on here that confused me.

I am totally over post-modernist ideas which again we were discussing 30 odd years ago, nothing new seems have been emerged since then, just more going down the rabbit hole of extreme individualism that people can define themselves however they want even if that conflicts with biological reality. What I particularly detest is the way many of these ideas developed in academia and are so detached from reality (especially of the biological kind) that if you don’t agree you must be ignorant and in need of re-education.

My dd is going to Uni here in the US next year and I will encourage her to steer clear of all gender studies and stick to a balanced education continuing with some math and science as well as languages and theory. The academic departments that used to be Women’s Studies and are now Gender Studies and the likes of Stonewall just seems to have created a mini-industry where all they are doing is creating more jobs for themselves. I saw that Stonewall got even more lottery money and the use of the money was to promote their ideology online and in social media. So money for direct attacks on the likes of Mumsnet.

This is a unique space because all it does is let women talk and write about whatever we want! Yet that is so radical in itself that there seems to be powerful forces forever trying to take it down.

I guess it would be impossible to have a sticky at the top of Feminist Chat defining certain concepts like feminist and radical feminist.

I appreciate everyone’s attempts to engage with me and wrestle with some of this. I also have to confess I am guilty of often skim reading posts and conversations and I need to make sure I take the time to be very clear about what everyone has actually said!

Weriseup in relation to your comment about being tired as a mum: the very, very, important essential work we do as mums to create that solid foundation for health and very beingness of our kids doesn’t get acknowledged enough. It is taken for granted, mostly as invisible and intangible and hard to quantitfy from a capitalist viewpoint. I would like to have that acknowledged a lot more and I guess here is one place where we can all talk about that.

No need to apologise, Ida. This is a very worthwhile and useful thread. I do like the use of 'pro-women' and as I often use 'anti-women' for certain activist people, I may well start using pro women more.

Weriseup in relation to your comment about being tired as a mum: the very, very, important essential work we do as mums to create that solid foundation for health and very beingness of our kids doesn’t get acknowledged enough. It is taken for granted, mostly as invisible and intangible and hard to quantitfy from a capitalist viewpoint. I would like to have that acknowledged a lot more and I guess here is one place where we can all talk about that.

Absolutely. I've started noticing how much general chit chat at family events can be about career achievements, generally the men's as the women are part time. As soon as I went part time they stopped asking me, and yet I'm in a much more interesting role about which I could wax lyrical for hours...

But if I were not working I'm not sure I'd be asked anything about my motherly role.

A sahm I know approached it very much as a job and career choice which I always admired, though she ultimately was economically shafted when he became abusive and she had to leave him.