Discussion thread - GC? Radfem? Terminology we use, and does it matter?

[xxyzz]

Just this. Sparked by a slight bicker between two people I follow on Twitter, both of whom I generally agree with, with one saying the other 'wasn't really GC'. It reminded me of other discussions I've seen between people arguing over whether they'd call themselves radfems or GC or neither, and that I wasn't (truth be told) that sure of the difference.

So - what is the difference, assuming there is one? I often call myself GC but probably my preferred term would be 'feminist' - I stand up for equal rights for women, in a long tradition of other women doing the same. It's a widely-understood term, in the way that radfem and GC aren't.

So what do you call yourself? Does it matter? Would a different or new term do better?

NB Please note this is not a thread for swords to be crossed at dawn with political enemies, just a gentle look at terminology for that slow period in the run up to the new year... :)

I like ‘materialist feminist’ personally (I picked that up from Helen Joyce!)

I prefer to describe myself as trying to be not sexist.

I googled materialist feminism and found a whole lot of waffling about discursive construction and making women out of words. Started off grand then veered off into gender identities.

Which I would have less problem with if the implementation of the idea of gender identity weren't being performed in such a sexist fashion.

Trying not to be sexist is a bloody good way of putting it, actually.

I've been interested in feminism all my adult life. But I don't know if I'd even describe myself that way, these days.

I want fairness. I want women and girls to be safe and respected.

I doubt I'd fit in any of the categories, really.

Maybe there can be a new one for oddbods?

Genuinely serious about the positivity of saying woman-centred in my outlook. I've even tried very hard to stick to pledges not to engage with threads on here that centre men's perspectives, even supportive men. I think it is a tremendously powerful act for a women to unashamedly prioritize women in her politics, conversations, and general choices. It always unsettles the status quo.

'Feminist'.

I think it is a tremendously powerful act for a women to unashamedly prioritize women in her politics, conversations, and general choices. It always unsettles the status quo.

I agree. It feels utterly right to me, but it can be utterly shocking to others.

In real life I find no need to do this.

I just raise a feminist perspective in conversations when they come up.

Sometimes when I know people better I say. Well as a crazed feminist I think xyz. Only with people who respect me but are unlikely to consider a feminist perspective ever. I say it with a grin, look them in the whites of the eyes, and hit them with some sense.

As a woman approaching 50 in a male dominated workplace this has worked well. I wouldn't recommend it as a general tactic though!

Also. The certain topic has brought lots of women to FWR who aren't feminist in other stuff. Quite big stuff. So remember that on this board.

The infighting in radfem circles is off putting as well. Very much so. I was immersed for a while online and some real life stuff but there was a lot of stuff that caused splinter groups etc and was just not good to watch. It's classic leftist behaviour sadly. We are our own worst enemies way too often.

I see the point that the term 'gender-critical feminist' is like rape-critical feminist, or a patriarchy-critical feminist. It's unnecessary, because feminism includes opposing genderism and rape and the patriarchy.

It's like saying I'm a vegan who doesn't eat meat.

But I accept being called GC because so many people who'd call themselves 'liberal feminists' or 'third-wave feminists' are not GC. Personally, I don't understand why someone who puts men's wishes above women's needs would bother to call herself a feminist.

That's like saying you're a vegan who does eat meat.

There often aren't hard edges to these terms, because they are part of a tradition of thought and activism.

Feminist is quite broad and includes all kinds of different ideas, including some that are opposed to each other in a basic way. I would say "the women's movement" is even broader.

GC is quite specific and I would say describes a fairly specific viewpoint that can be found within several strands of feminism.

Radfem is a movement within feminism, which is also GC, at least generally speaking. But not everyone who is GC is a radfem.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg - yes, guess that's why GC feminist or radfem have ended up being used by people like me, because I want to make clear that I'm actually feminist and not a libfem.

Gah to the appropriation of the word 'feminist' first, before pinching 'women'. And thanks to whichever poster pointed that out upthread!

The popularity of the term GC may also stem from the fact it's only 2 characters, so easier to fit into a tweet.

I agree Chestnut, but for me real change can only come about when you reach critical mass. I don't think endless splintering of a movement they should ultimately centre the best interests of women and girls is that useful to progress. I think TRAs have scored some success by persuading Lib Fems that feminism isn't feminism if it isn't intersectional (by which they're not really concerned with racial inequalities or class/poverty, they mean if it doesn't centre transwomen). That's why I feel it's important not to be kettled into 'GC' feminism but to assert that genuine feminism, the 'feminism isn't feminism' feminism is about women and girls and only them.

That not they

@HecatesCats

I agree Chestnut, but for me real change can only come about when you reach critical mass. I don't think endless splintering of a movement they should ultimately centre the best interests of women and girls is that useful to progress. I think TRAs have scored some success by persuading Lib Fems that feminism isn't feminism if it isn't intersectional (by which they're not really concerned with racial inequalities or class/poverty, they mean if it doesn't centre transwomen). That's why I feel it's important not to be kettled into 'GC' feminism but to assert that genuine feminism, the 'feminism isn't feminism' feminism is about women and girls and only them.

I think feminism was pretty divided before TRAs ever came on the scene, though. I can remember back in the 80s, many women had been really turned off of feminism because of all the infighting and divisiveness.

Solidarity is great but I think there is no use in trying to pretend real disagreement doesn't exist, either about theory or about activism. What you end up with is what has in fact tended to happen, and what has alienated so many - where women who think the "wrong" feminist ideas are told they can't call themselves feminists or contribute to the feminist discourse. That includes people like Camille Paglia who was reviled by many feminists but is a solid academic thinker, and was saying years ago that women's studies departments were neglecting the scientific aspects of the study of women, and it also includes large numbers of women who were simply dismissed as betrayers of women because they had different views on things like motherhood and to what degree mothering roles were biologically based.

Even the idea that feminism is only about women and girls has often been used as a way to dismiss women who had concerns about things like the effect of what were being promoted as feminist principles on children generally. As if any set of principles or ideas can be completely hived off from other important issues.

What would be better is to acknowledge that women thinking about women, for the good of women, can differ significantly in what they see as problems, their causes and solutions, and how they see those being related to the wider society, without reflexively accusing those other people of not being real feminists, being betrayers, handmaidens, and basically showing some respect for other women's minds and experiences.

This would mean that not all issues would have large numbers of women who agreed on a way forward. But the other option isn't really that all would agree. It's that some would get to call the shots while others would have to keep their mouths shut and go along. That is, a hierarchy.

The other element of this is that by pretending that those outside of a particular silo are not worth engaging with, it's allowed some pretty squidgy ideas to pass without much note. The discussion between different viewpoints, even when it doesn't convince the other side, has a really important role in strengthening reasoning and testing evidential claims.

Great post ChestnutStuffing !

If someone asked if I was a Feminist, I’d say, “Yes”. Recently someone described me in a “bio” as someone who “campaigns for women’s rights” and I was very pleased about that

Unless it was relevant and I was in conversation with someone who I expected to understand the term or I was keen to explain the issues, I would not mention “gender critical”.

“RadFem” is not a term I can imagine it being necessary or helpful for me to use. I associate it both with “academic feminism”, which doesn’t interest me, as well as nit-picking, purity-testing discussions that I’ve observed and find both tedious and toxic.

I avoid mentioning “Women’s Liberation” since seeing dogmatic assertions about what this really means, so it feels like an invitation to get sidetracked into debating the thesaurus.

I’m more of a simple, old-fashioned “not a doormat” feminist at a personal level and a gut-instinct, Women’s Rights Feminist at a collective level:

”I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”

Rebecca West

Agree with HecatesCats that in-fighting is generally unhelpful and am interested to see how many here say they would prefer to refer to themselves/be referred to as 'feminists' without prefix.

Yet many on here and Twitter do call themselves GC or (less commonly I think) radfems.

Is it just because GC only takes up 2 letters? Or to make one's position clear when opposing genderists (which is of course only a small part of what feminism is and does or has done, historically, but is currently centre-stage)?

Or are the posters who have replied so far atypical?

I'm sure I've read some knowledgeable academic feminists explaining the difference between the terms in detail at some point, somewhere. So glad it's not only me who doesn't feel the distinctions are key. I know what I basically stand for and care about, but have worried I might be using existing terminology 'wrong'. 😳

A feminist but not a libfem, as my feminism doesnt centre males, regardless of what they identify as, nor can i support the notion that sex exploitation 'work' is a real choice for probably 99% of children and women that are forced, coerced, compelled to do it survive.

I used to say GC feminist to differentiate my views from the libfems, but now I'd just say feminist or maybe radfem. Partly because how on earth can feminism not be critical of gender, but also because I've realised a few people use the GC label but who aren't approaching it from a feminist perspective or aren't feminist within other areas.

So yeah, I'm a feminist first and foremost, and quite like women's lib as a way to differentiate too.

I recently described myself as someone who leans toward gender critical in my feminism. I was talking with a bunch of women who haven't done any reading or thinking and they asked me a question about whether we can correct a boy putting on a skirt and calling himself a girl. If I had of used the term radical feminist they all would have been horrified.

That sounded awful! They have read and thought... just not about feminism!

I would say GC, because it's an issue that I think cuts across streams of feminism. I don't even think you have to "identify as" (ho ho) as a feminist to be GC. It doesn't require any prior belief in any ideology or school of thought. I don't agree with every single thing that has been put under the umbrella of "feminism" by someone (plus the term is a bit sullied for me by the posturing showbiz version that means basically nothing), and perhaps that's why I think presenting something first and foremost as the (radical) feminist position can put unnecessary barriers to people listening and understanding.

Or perhaps I am wrong there, and this is a great issue to bring popular feminism back to tangible real life issues.

I'm not sure if any of the current terms are great, to be honest. GC is probably not a self-explanatory term to people who are unfamiliar with all this.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

I see the point that the term 'gender-critical feminist' is like rape-critical feminist, or a patriarchy-critical feminist. It's unnecessary, because feminism includes opposing genderism and rape and the patriarchy.

It's like saying I'm a vegan who doesn't eat meat.

But I accept being called GC because so many people who'd call themselves 'liberal feminists' or 'third-wave feminists' are not GC. Personally, I don't understand why someone who puts men's wishes above women's needs would bother to call herself a feminist.

That's like saying you're a vegan who does eat meat.

It think it’s saying you’re a vegan but you consider bacon a vegetable.

I'm on Twitter and have "gender critical" on my bio. Someone tried to "educate" me before they had spotted that and then said "oh I won't bother, it says 'gender critical'".
But to answer the original question, I think any indication that you ACTUALLY centre women or have worked out what gender is (i.e. it's a property of society not an individual) is helpful and you can use what suits you.

Oh and I'm happy that the term GC exists as I think it's helpful for male allies as well.

The discussion between different viewpoints, even when it doesn't convince the other side, has a really important role in strengthening reasoning and testing evidential claims.

Great post Chestnut and I completely agree with this point. I appreciate that infighting has always been a part of the movement and that dogmatism alienates. I can't help but feel that self imposed monikers while helpful to differentiate between schools of thought (and to galvanise groups within a movement) can also be a bit of an own goal. T**f has become an effective stick to beat feminists with and also allows other women to distance themselves from the ideas without giving them consideration.