Radical Feminism

[setzer777]

I think there's a difference between personally invalidating a specific individual's experiences and stating in general terms that X is or is not assault. I'm completely comfortable saying "If someone says no to sex and you don't stop, that's rape." Some people go further and point out some of the cultural reasons why some people are reluctant to classify certain actions as rape even when those actions meet the general criteria of the word. Similar arguments are made with regards to physical and emotional abuse and some victims' reluctance to acknowledge when it is occurring.

I'm not saying that PIV-critical feminists who classify it as an assault are right (I don't think they are) - I'm just not sure their arguments can be dismissed so easily by appealing to people's right to self-define experiences.

Edit: My point is that what these radfems are doing by making posts on their own websites seems more akin to a public service announcement* and should therefore be judged on those terms - not in terms of them pointing to a specific person and trying to define that person's experiences.

*Just as we have public service announcements telling people that certain actions constitute rape or domestic abuse.

[Zcorp]

I think people often do replace them, but to do so I believe we have to transcend them. They are kind of pre-programmed with different levels of strength in different aspects based on temperament or other aspects of personality. But this is getting way off topic.

So once transcended, does the given instinctive drive disappear? Or have we simply built a mental structure that allows us to successfully control and channel this instinct?

I've personally experienced both happening. However, I'm not actually sure what is generally accepted by people more adept at this area of psychology than myself.

Do people enjoy sex because sex is reasonable, or because there's an instinct that guides them toward sex? Do people build things because building things is reasonable, or because there's some part of us that finds pleasure in building? In the absence of instinctive and emotion-based drives, what would humans do with themselves?

Both or either, both or either and whatever they choose to do. However, I'm certainly not suggesting that people can attain a state where they have overcome instincts and emotions entirely, nor am I suggesting that we should try (not suggesting we shouldn't either). I'm simply stating that some of our behaviors are not driven entirely by emotion or emotion at all.

I agree, but I also file "I know enough about cognitive therapy and about your situation to determine that this is an unhealthy belief for you to have" as an unhealthy (for others) and wrong perspective. Unless you happen to be a cognitive therapist who knows a lot about the situation of the person you're currently talking to. Ie, your patient.

Clinical psychology as a variety of practices with a few different goals. However, generally people are healthy when they understand and accept reality. People enact defense mechanisms when reality doesn't match up with what they want reality to be. The authors of this article, and their views, do not express understanding nor acceptance of reality.

It's not about punishing people or making people feel bad; it's about validating the way people feel about things, and, in the right context, trying to help them find the best emotional response to their particular situation.

I know this was not in response to me but it shouldn't be about trying to find the best emotional response. It should be about trying to help them know how to correctly think about their particular situation, as our perceptions guide - if not dictate - our emotions. The goal is how to think, the effect is how you feel. The goal shouldn't be about how you feel, as this schema leads to your feelings leading our thinking rather than your thinking leading our feeling.

Edit: Note that I'm not suggesting we should make people feel like their emotions are invalid, even if some feelings are in fact invalid.

[The Great Hippo]

I think there's a difference between personally invalidating a specific individual's experiences and stating in general terms that X is or is not assault. I'm completely comfortable saying "If someone says no to sex and you don't stop, that's rape." Some people go further and point out some of the cultural reasons why some people are reluctant to classify certain actions as rape even when those actions meet the general criteria of the word. Similar arguments are made with regards to physical and emotional abuse and some victims' reluctance to acknowledge when it is occurring.

Actually thinking on that, I can see a hole in my reasoning: It's hard for me to imagine how a campaign that attacks the notion that domestic abuse isn't abuse constitutes an unhealthy thing.

I'm not sure if that's a hole, though--I'd have to think about it more. I think there's a difference between trying to change the context (creating widespread acceptance that domestic abuse is abuse, is wrong, etc) and trying to address an individual's perception (someone doesn't believe they're abused when they suffer domestic abuse). The ways we approach those situations are different, and the language we use to address those situations are different. My concern is that when we confront the macro-problem (there's a widespread culture that says abuse doesn't count if it's toward your spouse), we ignore the micro-problem (a spouse might not parse their abuse as abuse because of some deep, fragile issues, and confronting those issues in a way that's hostile--that's confrontational--that simply denies their perspective, rather than trying to work with it--might end up doing way more damage than good).

The way we see our individual experiences is a tangled web of context and ideas, and I don't like the notion of people calling certain types of tangles 'wrong'. The process of untangling these webs and trying to restructure them into better, healthier webs--while I think that's important, even critical--I'm just always concerned that in the process of deconstructing 'bad' culture, we might attack the minds of people who live, breathe, and think in that culture.

I'm simply stating that some of our behaviors are not driven entirely by emotion or emotion at all.

Can you give an example of a behavior that's not carried out as a result of some emotional or instinctive drive--but rather a purely rational one?

It should be about trying to help them know how to correctly think about their particular situation, as our perceptions guide - if not dictate - our emotions.

This implies to me that there's one correct way (or, at least, a 'most correct way') to think about their particular situation, and that the best therapists are the ones familiar with this way. Is that what you mean to imply?

EDIT:

Edit: Note that I'm not suggesting we should make people feel like their emotions are invalid, even if some feelings are in fact invalid.

How can a feeling be invalid? Feelings are feelings; you feel something or you don't.

[Zcorp]

I'm simply stating that some of our behaviors are not driven entirely by emotion or emotion at all.

Can you give an example of a behavior that's not carried out as a result of some emotional or instinctive drive?

Any action could be driven by thought rather than feeling. When you value the result of a behavior rather than a feeling leading you to act, you are acting without an emotional motive.

It should be about trying to help them know how to correctly think about their particular situation, as our perceptions guide - if not dictate - our emotions.

This implies to me that there's one correct way (or, at least, a 'most correct way') to think about their particular situation, and that the best therapists are the ones familiar with this way. Is that what you mean to imply?

Well yes, as I said accepting and understanding reality is the healthiest way. The ideal therapist understands the state of their patient and know how to bring them to a place to accept and understand. However the most effective methods, techniques and rhetoric to utilize vary greatly depending of the state, personality, knowledge and intelligence of the patient.

Edit: Note that I'm not suggesting we should make people feel like their emotions are invalid, even if some feelings are in fact invalid.

How can a feeling be invalid? Feelings are feelings; you feel something or you don't.

Well, for example, if a person felt their sibling was getting more attention and resources from their parents than they were; they might get angry because of this. But in reality, if they were getting an equal amount or more then their anger would be invalid.

[Роберт]

I can see where you're coming from, though ethically this creates a troubling situation where you can say: "All PIV that you've had was rape (solely by virtue of being PIV), but at least some of the rapists did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel remotely guilty about." It seems very disturbing to define rape in such a way that it can be morally acceptable for an individual to be a rapist.

You can have rape without a "rapist". Any sort of situation where the victims is coerced outside of the knowledge of their sex partner(s) to appear to enthusiastically consent when they don't want to would be rape. I don't think this is just a "never would happen" hypothetical, either. I'm under the impression that this type of thing has happened in making certain porn films. The criminal/rapist is not the one having sex with the victim, anyway, so it feels weird to call the criminal a rapist.

[gmalivuk]

I'm simply stating that some of our behaviors are not driven entirely by emotion or emotion at all.

Can you give an example of a behavior that's not carried out as a result of some emotional or instinctive drive?

Any action could be driven by thought rather than feeling. When you value the result of a behavior rather than a feeling leading you to act, you are acting without an emotional motive.

I think you're begging the question here. What is it to value something, if not emotional? Reason alone doesn't give anything values.

[engr]

For anyone interested in criticism of radfems by a more "old-school" feminists, I highly recommend Christina Hoff Sommers' books. She defines herself as an "egalitarian" feminist, as opposed to "gender" feminists, and claims that the latter have basically hijacked the feminist movement.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I would not describe Christina Hoff Sommers as the mainstream alternative to radical feminism.

[engr]

I would not describe Christina Hoff Sommers as the mainstream alternative to radical feminism.

Oh, she's definitely not mainstream. She's a dissident, a "traitor". When I say "old school", I mean old, like, first-wave feminism.

[Spambot5546]

Let's just say that hypothetically there's a person who is unfamiliar with the waves of feminism. How would you describe first wave to them as compared to second, third, and nth?

[engr]

Let's just say that hypothetically there's a person who is unfamiliar with the waves of feminism. How would you describe first wave to them as compared to second, third, and nth?

First wave feminist: "We want the same legal rights as men."
Second wave feminist: "We want to be able to have abortions when we want, we want to sleep around if we want, and we want to have the same salaries and same positions of power as men."
Third wave feminist: "Society is evil and oppressive and everything needs to change. Government is evil. Capitalism is evil. Whiteness is evil. Masculinity is evil. Heterosexuality is oppression. Patriarchy is the root of all evil. Women don't even understand how oppressed they are. We need more Women's Studies classes to reeducate them."

That's the short, hyperbolized version.

[yurell]

That's so ridiculously misrepresentative of third-wave feminism it's not funny.

[Jplus]

@yurell: could you please give your own version?

[Azrael]

That's the short, biased and idiotic version.

First -- Basic legal standing: Suffrage, property rights
Second -- Modern legal equality: Bodily autonomy, workplace inclusion, divorce and family law reforms
Third -- Social equality: Questioning of ingrained social behaviors and influences (e.g. gender and sexual roles, including gender and sexual identity) that may not have rational basis.

Or if you prefer even shorter: Being recognized as persons / Gaining equal legal rights / Actually being treated equally

[gmalivuk]

If you want a simplified and flippant but less utterly idiotic summary:

1st wave: we want to vote
2nd wave: we want equal pay and less rape
3rd wave: there is no single female experience, and we need to acknowledge more of the intersectionality of oppressions. Also we were serious about the rape thing.

Edit: ninja'd by someone who took it a bit more seriously.

[leady]

lol - how are those serious definitions different from the joke one

[gmalivuk]

They bear some passing resemblance to reality, for one.

[HungryHobo]

It's like in the israel/palestine debates where people don't like israel being described as "militaristic" or "expansionist" because those are negative words where describing it as a well armed country which has unfortunatly had to take control of some of the areas around it to protect itself is ok.

same deal. the negative words have no connection with reality. the positive ones are all good.

I mean to be fair: this whole thread started based on a third wave feminist blog which preached that heterosexual sex is by it's nature oppression but that women just don't know it and he did say it was the "hyperbolized version".

it may be the hyperbolized version but it's not that far from the position maintained by some hardliners. that says nothing about whether they're correct but dressing it up in nicer words doesn't change that.

[gmalivuk]

No, the problem was in characterizing *all* third wave feminism as the same as this one extreme example of it. That would be like defining Christians as "violently extremist homophobes" because some people have committed religiously motivated anti-gay hate crimes.

Sure, *some* Christians are violently extremist homophobes, and some third-wave feminists believe some or all of the stupid things engr posted, and some Israelis are militaristic and expansionist. But of course some non-Christians are also violently extremist homophobes, some first and second wave feminists believed those stupid things, and some Palestinians are also militaristic and expansionist.

So the utter stupidity is in thinking those things legitimately characterize the movement itself, not that they're negative.

Nice try, though...

[setzer777]

Elsewhere on the site I linked to you'll find strong criticisms of mainstream feminists ("fun feminists") for being too uncritical of PIV, too focused on individual choice rather than how those choices support the patriarchy, and too accepting of trans people. I'd say it's fair to characterize many of the views on that site as "fringe".

[HungryHobo]

So the utter stupidity is in thinking those things legitimately characterize the movement itself, not that they're negative.

Sounds a bit no true scotsman ish.

"Well these feminists aren't *truely* part of the third wave" kind of thing.

but you make a fair criticism.

the problem is that there's no really solid line around the third wave.
There's no central body. it's like the difference between christianity and catholicism. there's a solid line around catholics. not around christians. a lot more of the "fringe" groups only fall into the latter catagory.

there really are a good few nutters and it's as fair to lump them in with other parts of the third wave as it is to lump the latest disgraced preacher in with the chirstian right: they most certainly are part of it and they're often the most visible and unpleasant part , other christian groups certainly wouldn't class them as part of their own movement but to anyone outside they really are as much a part of it as anyone else.

and christians seem more willing to say "You're nasty, unpleasant and wrong" to the more unpleasant fringes of their group.

[Роберт]

there's a solid line around catholics. not around christians. a lot more of the "fringe" groups only fall into the latter catagory.

ROTFL

[HungryHobo]

ROTFL

believe me, my view of the catholic church is not a positive one but a lot of the weirdest cults are outside it.

[omgryebread]

So the utter stupidity is in thinking those things legitimately characterize the movement itself, not that they're negative.

Sounds a bit no true scotsman ish.

"Well these feminists aren't *truely* part of the third wave" kind of thing.

That's actually not his argument, and it's not at all like no true scotsman.

Let's reframe our argument:

Engr: "A Scotsman is violent, drunk, and likes haggis"
Gmalivuk: "That's not true, most Scotsmen aren't like that at all."

Gmalivuk isn't saying that violent drunk guys who like haggis aren't Scottish, he's saying they aren't the totality of Scotsmen, and in fact, are not representative. He's also pointing out that there are some non-Scots who are violent, drunk, and... okay, my metaphor breaks down here, no one likes haggis.


And to illustrate his argument, I'm a third wave feminist.

Third wave feminist: "Society is evil and oppressive and everything needs to change. Government is evil. Capitalism is evil. Whiteness is evil. Masculinity is evil. Heterosexuality is oppression. Patriarchy is the root of all evil. Women don't even understand how oppressed they are. We need more Women's Studies classes to reeducate them."

First: Okay, sure, that's a drastic simplification of my view, but you know what, we'll let it pass, it's hardly the stupidest thing here. I love government, I want to work in government, most feminists are Democrats and if you haven't noticed, we're big fans of government over here. I love capitalism, feminists want to get equal opportunity in the workplace, not matching uniforms for the communal farm. I'm mostly white and I don't think I'm evil. You can't get more manly than Matt Damon, or less evil (MAYBE BIASED BECAUSE OMGMATTDAMON.) I like sleeping with dudes, and I certainly don't feel oppressed. Heteronormality is oppression though, because I also like sleeping with girls.Patriarchy is the root of a lot of evil, but not all. Yes, women (and men), often don't understand sexism, and we need Gender Study classes to educate both genders on... gender.

[leady]

This post had objectionable content.

leady, you're trolling.

Stop it.

- Az

[Azrael]

It's like in the israel/palestine debates where people don't like israel being described as "militaristic" or "expansionist" because those are negative words where describing it as a well armed country which has unfortunatly had to take control of some of the areas around it to protect itself is ok.

same deal. the negative words have no connection with reality. the positive ones are all good.

No. The 'same deal' would be to define all Christians by the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church or all Republicans by the Tea Party.

The source blogs have been thoroughly identified by everyone here as exemplifying an extreme view. No one is suggesting that the author isn't a third wave feminist, but to suggest that those views define all of modern feminism is entirely fallacious.

[omgryebread]

oh dear god western society is doomed

I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but if feminism is threatening your "western society" (certainly not threatening my western society), then maybe you should wonder why a patriarchal oppressive system is so important to your society. Then you should wonder, if patriarchy is so great, why is it also so feeble as to be destroyed by women making choices?

In other words, either your society sucks and you should embrace destroying it and building something better, or your society sucks because despite your best efforts, it's facing an existential crisis from something you view as inferior to it.

[leady]

appologies I was being flippant rather than specifically pushing for a reaction and more a reaction to the idea that people should study "gender studies"

We really don't live in a patriarchy in the west I'm afraid, at least not in the glass ceiling, cabal like world that word invokes. At worst we live in a practical world that when people are allowed to make free choices ends up looking patriachal and for logical reasons. There is a gulf of difference between the two viewpoints though, I'm not even convinced the latter is actually a real issue that people should want to solve.

[Azrael]

... a reaction to the idea that people should study "gender studies"

Is your problem that they exist and that some people want to take them?

Or are you reacting to having parsed her sentence as a statement that all people should take them?

[leady]

assuming neither answer is a bannable offence, kind of both, but far more the latter.

[setzer777]

Just to repeat:

Edit: Can we please try to keep this thread on the subject of radical feminism, rather than debating the merits of feminism in general and especially rather than discussing evo-psych? Since radical feminists generally position themselves in relation to mainstream feminism (or "fun feminism", as they derogatorily call it), I'd like to focus on areas where they differ from the more common brand of feminism, rather than more general feminism issues.

[Azrael]

... a reaction to the idea that people should study "gender studies"

Is your problem that they exist and that some people want to take them?

Or are you reacting to having parsed her sentence as a statement that all people should take them?

... kind of both, but far more the latter.

So you mildly object to gender studies being offered. Which makes me wonder why you object to people thinking about how gender might effect society. Because it certainly does to one degree or another, that much really can't be rationally disputed. So why shouldn't people who want to study it do so? You might find it a waste of time, personally. But then again I'm sure that given a statistical sampling of the country you'd probably find at least one person who thinks that any one class is, personally, a waste of time for each entry in a course catalog. So unless your mild objection makes you want to play Educational Merit Police, I don't really see an issue.

But you strongly object to the idea that all people should take a gender studies course. Which is fine, because I'm betting that's not what she was saying.

[The Great Hippo]

assuming neither answer is a bannable offence, kind of both, but far more the latter.

Your opposition to the notion of gender studies existing at all (mild though that opposition may be!) demonstrates a lack of interest in the notion of gender, which demonstrates a lack of interest in the subject we're actually discussing.

What I'm saying is that given your stated stance, I don't think you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion.

[setzer777]

This is one of the less vicious criticisms of mainstream feminism by a radical feminist that I've seen.

Excerpt:

So, I am writing this blogpost as a plea to my feminist fellows across the world. Lets stop talking about fun feminism. It is a meaningless term that just seems to be used to disagree with one another. Instead, I would ask that we use the term ‘Feminism TM’ as trademarked (aha! A pun!) by Nina Power in her fantastic book, One Dimensional Woman.

Feminism TM, in brief, is about feminism that has been co-opted by patriarchal capitalism. It’s about treating feminism as something designed to make the individual ‘feel good’, that puts individual happiness or fulfilment above a collective goal. With Feminism TM, buying a pair of designer shoes or a Primark handbag is as ‘empowering’ as marching for your right to choose or volunteering at a rape crisis centre. Feminism TM means that Sarah Palin can call herself a feminist because she is a powerful woman, a ‘grizzly mama’, even though her anti-woman policies are an anathema to feminist ideals. Power writes that, with Feminism TM:

‘the political and historical dimensions of feminism are subsumed under the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual. As a response to the ‘I’m not a feminist but…’ pose it’s very successful. Almost everything turns out to be feminist - shopping, pole dancing, even chocolate.’

The problems with this are clear. Feminism isn’t a lifestyle choice that we can define for ourselves. It isn’t a matter of saying ‘this is my choice as a woman and therefore it’s a feminist choice’. ‘Liberalising’ feminism ignores the impact our individual choices have on others, on other women, in favour of telling you ‘if it feels good – just do it! Go on, that’s empowerment!’. And this isn’t good enough. Feminism has to mean something, or it risks meaning nothing at all. Feminism is a social revolution dedicated to making the world a better place for women and men. It isn’t a 12-step guide to making you feel not guilty about shopping for clothes made in sweat shops, and eating chocolate bought from Nestle.

[engr]

No, the problem was in characterizing *all* third wave feminism as the same as this one extreme example of it. That would be like defining Christians as "violently extremist homophobes" because some people have committed religiously motivated anti-gay hate crimes.

It's funny how when I pointed out that Dav Savage says that every Christian is, by default, a "violently extremist homophobe" who bears responsibility for gays' suicides, unless he/she is actively working to prove otherwise, everyone jumped on me and said how Savage is basically right.

some third-wave feminists believe some or all of the stupid things engr posted,

Yeah, and they kind of ruin it for the other 5%.

Note that I didn't say that all, or even the majority 3-rd wave feminists were condoning extermination of males. What I claim they believe is;

Third wave feminist: "Society is evil and oppressive and everything needs to change. Government is evil. Capitalism is evil. Whiteness is evil. Masculinity is evil. Heterosexuality is oppression. Patriarchy is the root of all evil. Women don't even understand how oppressed they are. We need more Women's Studies classes to reeducate them."

The focus on the perceived oppression of various groups (sexism, classism, heterosexism, cis-genderism, ageism) and the notion that these types of oppression stem from "patriarchy" is very characteristic of 3rd wave. The idea that many women and members of oppressed groups "internalize their oppression", used to discredit dissidents, is not unique to 3rd wave (it's not unique to feminism even) but is fairly mainstream among the American left.
Masculinity (as commonly perceived, e.g. male as strong, brave, confrontational) is, again, commonly seen as an integral part of "rape culture".
Heterosexuality being oppressive - that's a tricky one; I am perfectly aware of the existence of sex-positive feminists, but saying that sex-negative feminists are some fringe minority is absurd.

So basically if I stated these views with a straight face, in a non-sarcastic way, they would not sound foreign to most 3rd wavers.

[setzer777]

No, the problem was in characterizing *all* third wave feminism as the same as this one extreme example of it. That would be like defining Christians as "violently extremist homophobes" because some people have committed religiously motivated anti-gay hate crimes.

It's funny how when I pointed out that Dav Savage says that every Christian is, by default, a "violently extremist homophobe" who bears responsibility for gays' suicides, unless he/she is actively working to prove otherwise, everyone jumped on me and said how Savage is basically right.

Okay, this is SB - how is the hypocrisy of forum members on-topic?

Yeah, and they kind of ruin it for the other 5%."

If what you posted is indeed the mainstream view among third-wave feminists, then it is also off-topic for this thread, which is about radical feminism as differentiated from mainstream feminism.

[Роберт]

This is one of the less vicious criticisms of mainstream feminism by a radical feminist that I've seen.

Excerpt:

It isn’t a 12-step guide to making you feel not guilty about shopping for clothes made in sweat shops, and eating chocolate bought from Nestle.

If this isn't a strawperson, than I agree that Feminism TM is a bit silly and potentially harmful since it dilutes feminism.

[engr]

If what you posted is indeed the mainstream view among third-wave feminists, then it is also off-topic for this thread, which is about radical feminism as differentiated from mainstream feminism.

It's hard to discuss radical feminism if we first don't agree on what's radical and what's mainstream.
You do have a point though. Now that I think of it, the views C.H. Sommers criticized are fairly mainstream, so that may have belonged in a different thread... But then again, we can't agree on what's mainstream and what's radical, so who knows.

[setzer777]

If what you posted is indeed the mainstream view among third-wave feminists, then it is also off-topic for this thread, which is about radical feminism as differentiated from mainstream feminism.

It's hard to discuss radical feminism if we first don't agree on what's radical and what's mainstream.
You do have a point though. Now that I think of it, the views C.H. Sommers criticized are fairly mainstream, so that may have belonged in a different thread... But then again, we can't agree on what's mainstream and what's radical, so who knows.

It's fine to disagree about what's mainstream and what's radical, I just want to discuss them in relation to each other, and not have the argument centered around "These views are mainstream, and I want to talk about how much they suck." For example, the existence of patriarchy is almost universally accepted by third-wave feminists, and therefore debating its validity is off-topic when discussing the distinction between radical feminism and mainstream feminism.

Edit: To use an analogy, I don't want this to be like a thread debating Catholic vs. Protestant theology that gets hijacked by a debate about whether God exists.

[The Great Hippo]

It's hard to discuss radical feminism if we first don't agree on what's radical and what's mainstream.
You do have a point though. Now that I think of it, the views C.H. Sommers criticized are fairly mainstream, so that may have belonged in a different thread... But then again, we can't agree on what's mainstream and what's radical, so who knows.

It's easy enough to talk about radical feminism's divergence from feminism in general, though. Because radical feminists often self-identify, and often tell you how they differ.

I think the idea put forward by previous posters (Enuja and natraj)--that radical feminism is primarily interested in patriarchy and the roots of 'male roles' versus 'female roles', and deconstructing (as well as understanding) the nature of these roles--gets us closest to what we're talking about.

Yeah, in one sense, relying on this definition creates an opportunity for us to talk about radical feminists without including adjectives like 'extremist', 'hateful', 'vindictive', 'polemic', and 'misandrist'. But I actually think that's a good thing.