The other day, a commenter asked for a definition of radical feminism. Coincidentally, SarahMC and PilgrimSoul had just been talking about that very subject. Here are some of our thoughts. Join in!
On the perils of identifying as a radical feminist:
SarahMC: I qualify as a radical feminist in many ways, but it’s rare that I ever identify as one. There are so many different strains of feminism, and I agree with aspects of all of them, but I don’t find that there’s a reason to qualify my feminism with another label. Sometimes it’s more trouble than it’s worth, and it can be easier to simply let your words reveal your views. Even many feminists have adopted the deceptive framing of anti-feminists, who’ve successfully cast radical feminism as a man-hating philosophy that wishes to privilege women over men, enslave them, kill babies and outlaw heterosexual intercourse.
PilgrimSoul: Yeah, I usually leave my “This is What a Radical Feminist Looks Like” t-shirt in the closet. I do not defend this choice, which I did not make on principle. I made it out of sheer exhaustion from the baggage, as you mention, that people bring to the term. The cultural weight is, after all, against us. It’s like radical feminism has been reduced to bogeywoman everyone on the internet met in college or at Michfest or saw on tumblr. But I, personally, don’t seem to know any examples of this variety of “radical feminists.” But I got into radical feminism through an academic rather than activist route, perhaps that explains it.
On definitions:
PilgrimSoul: I would define radical feminism as follows: radical feminism insists that a patriarchal power structure exists in this and other cultures, that that power structure actively and deliberately oppresses women, and that the only way we can get at that power structure is through honesty, in consciousness-raising and other exercises focused on women’s experiences, about the ways in which the patriarchy continues to shape our lives. Radical feminists are particularly known for their critique of sexuality, since they tend to see that as a primary site in which patriarchy, well, happens.
SarahMC: I see radical feminism is a specific way of understanding the world and addressing the problems therein. The sex class “men” dominates the sex class “women” in a system called “patriarchy” which exists for the benefit of men and detriment of women. The goal of radical feminism it ending male supremacy (i.e. patriarchy) and thereby the oppression of women. Many radical feminists, myself included, recognize and strive to end all kinds of oppression: racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism, among others.
On terminology:
PilgrimSoul: You know, I think one of the things that gets us in trouble as radical feminists is the way we tend to talk about things. We talk about “men,” and people think that means “all people with penises” when what we usually mean is “the socially constructed ideal of what a man is, to which most but not necessarily all men subscribe.” Put more academically, radical feminism is not equivalent to biological essentialism. Patriarchy does not reside in the Y chromosome. It resides in the world, where we live, and where the Y chromosome is given supremacy. But people seem unable to understand this nuance.
SarahMC: That is a huge pet peeve of mine. I am constantly accused of thinking “men are inherently x, y, z…” which is basically the exact opposite of what I argue. I reject the idea that people are inherently anything according to their sex. I think almost all observed emotional, mental, and intellectual differences between the sexes can be attributed to nurture rather than nature. People also seem incapable of realizing that critiquing and examining certain behavior =/= desire to outlaw said behavior.
On why we continue to be attracted to radical feminism despite all the baggage:
SarahMC: I suppose it’s important to me to constantly ask “why?” when it comes to human behavior, rather than accepting things at face value. “I choose my choice!” is not sufficient for me. At the heart of my radical feminist leanings is my absolute hatred of strictly enforced, unchallenged gender roles. The blind acceptance and perpetuation of gender essentialism is at the root of so much oppression, and it’s something that absolutely pervades society. I cannot stomach watching adults police children’s gender; it breaks my heart and I desperately want to bring an end to it.
PilgrimSoul: What attracted me to radical feminism was its refusal of simplistic interpretations of pretty much everything. Which is funny, because radical feminists are accused of being overly simplistic, of judging and condemning. But let’s put it this way: the radical feminists I recognize are people like MacKinnon and Dworkin and, to use an internet example, Twisty Faster. But those are very smart women who write complicated things about the complicated way patriarchy inserts itself into all of our lives. I guess I can understand that it’s easier to adopt simplistic interpretations, both of these women’s work and of the patriarchy itself, but I’m not sure that it gets us any further towards actually undermining male supremacy. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, is even what regular garden-variety feminism says it’s about when it talks about making women equal to men.
Great discussion you guys. In tangentially related news, is it wrong that I want to go live in Texas with Twisty Faster and her horses and deer?
This was excellent.
Twisty Faster is amazing. I guess I felt like I could potentially identify as a radical feminist when I first realized that I can rant about the patriarchy for thirty minutes and worry like crazy about how it would have affected my son’s notions of gender. I’m not going to automatically identify as such because part of me feels that I’m still not as well versed in feminist theory, radical or otherwise. But in practice, I do feel that way.
Also, Sarah I am so with you on “choosing my choice”. And I constantly have to examine myself on that level.
Very interesting discussion! I think this was my favorite part:
“Patriarchy does not reside in the Y chromosome. It resides in the world, where we live, and where the Y chromosome is given supremacy.”
Very well said.
I identify as a “material feminist,” rather than a radical one, but having read both of your definitions, I could possibly borrow your label or you mine. My formal education in feminism taught me, almost from the get-go, that there are three general feminist “camps,” defined thusly:
–liberal (or moderate) feminism, which aims to integrate women into the current power structure;
–radical, which was sometimes called “essential feminism” and which was about privileging all things female/feminine over the male/masculine;
–material feminism, which was about looking at how sex/gender system is set up to provide privilege to (some) men, as well as understanding how issues of class, race, etc., work together to reinforce that privilege.
Granted, my teachers may have been operating from an older model, but the reason I’ve stuck with my label “materialist” is that I am interested in understanding sexism as a system (complicit with other systems of domination and subordination) and inspecting the material, honest-to-maude, on-the-ground realities that result from it. With the aim, of course, of destroying it.
Although, now that I think of it, since I do believe that Patriarchy (rather than a purely Marxist owners/workers dynamic) is THE master narrative, maybe I ought to reconsider hanging out my radfem shingle…
@PhDork: I’m with you in the material feminism camp. “Radical feminism” as it was explaind to me meant seeing women as superior to/incompatible with men–or, as you put it “privileging all things female over male”–and that always sounded far too intolerant/bigoted for my comfort (it was also the dominant school of thought in the Women’s Studies Dept. where I went to college, which is why I never formally studied feminist theory).
I have never heard radical feminism described in that way, PhDork.
Re: liberal feminism – I would like to dismantle the current power structure rather than be integrated into it. I had not heard the label “material feminism” before but that does sound more like my philosophy.
Not just intolerant, Becky, but turning the world upside down doesn’t make it any more fair, right? We’re the same age, and a couple years older than P.Soul and SMC; I wonder if we were just given information that has been revised (and for the better, I might add)?
And SMC, liberal feminism didn’t make sense to me, either. Isn’t this just wanting to be an oppressor rather than the oppressed? I think this is the flavor of feminism that women like Schlafly and Coulter secretly subscribe to: “I’ve got mine!”
And to both of you, as I edit this comment for the bazillionth time: great, smart post.
I identify as a radical feminist and am not afraid to say it. To me it is less problematic than the non-radical alternative, liberal feminism, with its connotations of appeasement and compromise. I don’t know how it breaks down in terms of people’s concept of themselves as feminists, but in terms of ideology, I’ve always understood the distinction to be that liberal feminists believe in working within the system to change sexist behavior and attitudes, rather than doing away with the broader interactions of patriarchy responsible for sexism. It seems to me that any woman who truly identifies as a feminist and has some understanding of the way patriarchy functions should be able to recognize that liberal feminism doesn’t go far enough.
@PhDork: Yes, exactly. It’s wrong for men to treat us as inferiors and it’s equally wrong for us to treat them that way, or to denigrate them in order to elevate ourselves. That is not the way to equality.
I think that whole notion of “integrating women into the power structure” is fairly problematic because, yes, you get women like Sarah Palin or Nancy Pfotenfucker who use all the opportunities feminism has made available–education, career, political power–to shit all over feminism. Ugh. It’s like some kind of Stockholm Syndrome where they’re all just trying to become Jesse Helms in a dress.
@PhDork: It’s funny, seeing radical feminism as female trumping male was never my interpretation. Patriarchy can harm men as well as women (not to the same degree, of course) and warps everyone’s perception of gender. I don’t think that corrective actions that are designed to break the patriarchy necessarily dictate that it reverses the gendered hierarchy just that it brings a new equation into play.
I was trained that there were the following major schools of feminism:
1. Liberal or “equality” feminists: focus on formal or legal equality btwn men and women, some may oppose single sex ed or other tactics. Emphasis on consent, choice — libertarian/individualist notions.
2. Radical or “power” feminism: analyzes gender relations in the light of background power differential between men and women, patriarchy. Problematizes notions of consent and choice. Says “female” characteristics (see below cultural feminism) are just signs of fetishized subjugation.
3. Cultural or “difference” feminism: i.e. Carol Gilligan et al, women are different but superior in some ways, “ethic of care,” etc.
4. Postmodern or queer feminism: Gender is a construct, focus on subversion, play, drag, etc.
5. Material or marxist feminism: understands gender relations primarily through economic or physical advantage or disadvantage, labor analysis, etc.
Though in my younger years I firmly identified as a radical feminist, I now steal bits from all the schools but probably more firmly identify as material or postmodern fem. With huge, huge respect and understanding to my feminist sisters of all stripes.
JDR: There was no “queer feminism” in my undergrad education; lesbians were pretty much lumped in with the “cultural” Carol Gilligan and radical feminism (as defined in my post above). Obviously, it was a less sophisticated understanding. What can I say? I went to a state school.
Pilgrim wrote about the problems of using “wave” terminology a while ago, and I feel like it’s the same thing here: we’re using labels as if we all have a common understanding of what they mean, when clearly that isn’t the case.
I’m troubled that the conversation has shifted somewhat to attacking strawfeminism that allegedly privileges the female over the male. That is what I meant when I wrote about embracing anti-feminist framing. The only radical feminism I’ve ever read, discussed, or witnessed, has been one that seeks to abolish the very notion of inherent “femininity” and “masculinity” as well as the dominator model under which we currently live.
PhD — definitely. I wrote out my understanding of the supposed schools of feminism only to show the diversity in our own understandings of the terms, not to assert that my understanding is supreme in any way. Also realizing the problems in breaking down the movement into waves and schools.
SarahMC — I actually have read some feminism — Carol Gilligan being one example — that does privilege some “female” characteristics over “male” characteristics. Gilligan purported to have performed social science research on girl and boy children and to have identified different notions of justice, care, etc. between them. Culturally rather than academically, this kind of thinking is also reflected in some separatist movements, womyn-circle type cultures, etc. I don’t think it is necessarily bad or that we need to deny it exists within the feminist movement. My reading of Gilligan is that she sees patriarchal culture as unevenly privileging those characteristics we associate as male and that balance is needed by honoring that which is identified as female. This kind of movement is in real opposition to some radical feminists who posit that “women’s ways” are, as I said earlier, fetishized symbols of subjugation (i.e. women learn to “listen” because they aren’t allowed to talk, women learn to “receive” because they are raped, women learn to be “soft” because they are punished if they are hard, women learn to share because they never get what they deserve). I think its interesting to acknowledge the differences and conflicts in the different ways of being feminist.
I hope I’m not setting up any straw feminists. That was certainly not my intention. If anything, I’m interested in doing a little materialist analysis on why these different camps developed, who they serve, how they pay off for those who subscribe to them. JDR’s reading of Gilligan is one example: needing to “honor” some characteristics to correct an imbalance. Likewise, with the lesbian separatist movement we talked about: because of their experiences in the P, those women had a real need to withdraw, and I don’t begrudge them that one iota.
JD:
“she sees patriarchal culture as unevenly privileging those characteristics we associate as male and that balance is needed by honoring that which is identified as female.”
I see patriarchal culture doing the same thing, and I think it’s important to elevate stereotypically feminine characteristics, hobbies, interests, etc. rather than constantly putting so-called femininity down.
There is a huge difference, though, between honoring “that which is identified as female” and advocating a power structure that merely swaps who’s in charge. One can honor what’s identified as female while recognizing that just because it’s identified as female does not mean it’s inborn or exclusive to girls and women.
Carol Gilligan is hardly a radical feminist, though, JD. She is a biological essentialist, which I have also heard called “difference feminism.”
PhDork, I have to say, I don’t think this is a later-in-time thing. I think it is a “some teachers are more careful than others” thing. There is a lot of strawradicalfeminism out there – I have read a hundred and ten critiques of it that never seem to cite to anything at all, and I have met academics who have never read either Dworkin or Mackinnon but scoff at their “radicalness.”
Becky, I think you are making the same category mistake that some people make: if indeed you have met a female supremacist somewhere, that does not and should not define your view of radical feminism. Stupid knows no race, class, or ideology. But to reject an entire movement on the basis of stupid people within it is overreaching. Did you take a class with any of them?
SarahMC — yeah I mean I definitely don’t think radical feminists just want to see women become CEOs of Johnson and Johnson or whatever. In fact I associate that kind of thinking more with liberal or equality feminists. And I think even Carol Gilligan would say that the feminine characteristics have a life outside of individual girls — that’s her whole notion of an “ethic of care” that she thinks we need to integrate into law and policy, because stereotypically male ideas about what’s just and fair have prevailed. But (some — cuz even these schools aren’t monolithic) radical feminists may agree with her that current notions of justice and fairness are hopelessly patriarchal, they are less likely (to my understanding) to think that the answer is “feminizing” the culture. I have always thought of radical feminists as problematizing pretty much everything, saying that even our notions of what is feminine and what is masculine, what are positive and negative qualities, are so deeply infected with patriarchy that we barely have access to what our own identities, desires, and preferences “really” are.
P.S. Twisty, who has probably read more fem theory than any of us, identifies as a radical feminist.
Also, to throw something else in the mix, it is my experience that radical feminism is about the end of dominance. It is about not eroticizing it, or defending it as “natural,” or pretending it doesn’t exist because it’s easier than talking about it. So it’s weird to me to hear people claim that radical feminism is about dominance, and I have to say, it is not something I have ever seen in radical feminist writing.
PS — as you will notice I specifically identified Gilligan as a “cultural” feminist, in opposition to radical feminists of her era.
::blushes:: Sorry, JD, I’m a bit behind and skimmed your categories. I have to say, yours are pretty close to what I was taught, and not to claim authority, but having amassed a fair bit of reading in diverse schools in the last six months, that scheme has continued to bear out to me.
Sarah, I guess my point in all this is not to say that one has to ally herself with one school of feminism, or that aspects of the schools are never compatible with each other, but just not to let our desire to defend against strawfeminisms to elide real differences and internal conflicts among forms of feminist thought. I don’t think the presence of dissent within feminism is any kind of weakness — I think it shows the movement’s maturity and ability to evolve and express the myriad types of lives that women lead.
sorry to put on the bitchface, PS, I just bristled because I didn’t want you to think I was lumping you in with essentialists!
Psoul — what’s interesting though is that if you say “radical feminist,” most laypeople THINK of cultural feminism or essentialism or feminine superiority, when really I see those forms of feminism as much more sort of safe and mainstream than radical feminism, which would never be hopeful enough to think that “women are better” is anything close to an answer.
Right on, JD.
P.Soul, It’s pretty clear that my early formal feminist education was a bit lacking. It was a minor, and it was new, and it was years ago.
I know Twisty is a radfem–reading her over the last few years is what made me go back and reassess what I’d been exposed to (Valerie Solanas = radfem; Mary Daly = radfem, etc.). But the fact remains that anyone can claim any label she chooses, and do with it whatever she wants, and it was my understanding of the materialist approach that helped me to take what is worthwhile from the Solanases, Dalys, and Gilligans, rather than write them off completely.
Re: your comment to Psoul, JD:
That’s an interesting point. Strangely, it’s more acceptable to throw up your hands and declare “Women are better! Men suck!” than to critique the structure that supports certain abhorent attitudes and behaviors from (some) men. Probably because those who stand to benefit from patriarchy realize that the former statements pose no real threat to their power whilst advancement of the latter theory does.
I write off Carol Gilligan pretty much completely, but I digress.
I was taught my schools by a male postmodern feminist of sorts, and also at a state school. (Canada has no other kind, I am still confused about why this is a pejorative term here.) We had long arguments in class about porn and Judith Butler. God I miss that class.
And JD, yes, although they simultaneously tend to think of lesbian separatists, which… eek.
Sarah, I was actually reminded that deep feminist critique means WORK for us, not just societal benefits (although those are nice too) right here on this very blog when PhDork wrote about challenging ourselves to do “men’s work” at home. I was all, “I don’t WANNA learn to use power tools! I’m medium high femme! That’s my subversive identity! That’s feminist enough!” and then I had to dig deeper and shit, cuz my radicalism ultimately wins over my “acrylic nails are subversive” pseudo feminism.
And, JD, this comment above is why I love you.
P.Soul, don’t get too excited. By “dig deeper” I meant “leave a comment” not actually, like, refrain from getting acrylics or succeed in changing my behavior at home. Although me and my oppressor/husband (kidding!) did have a little talk that weekend about me learning how to hook up our electronics and roll joints. I haven’t done it yet, but we talked about it.
Babysteps, JDR. Babysteps.
as you know, JD, I am a firm believer in feminism by blog comment.
and I love you anyway.
Also, to clarify something although I know JD is being her usual funny self – I have zero interest, even on a radical feminist basis, in taking away anyone’s acrylics or learning to hook up electronics. I only want people to examine why and how they do these things. If, post-examination, these practices still appear just fine to them, well, I have no issue.
To be honest, I would love to rid the world of acrylic nails altogether. I keep getting radical-er!!!
i was under the impression that radical feminism holds that misogyny is the root oppression from which all other oppressions stem (‘radical’ in the literal sense of ‘root’ not in the colloquial sense). and as such, it holds that if patriarchy is destroyed, there will be no racism, classism, ableism, etc. does this accurately reflect radical feminist ideology or is it a misinterpretation from its denouncers?
Ephraim, I would say it’s a misinterpretation. While there might be someone (at the beginning of their patriarchy-blaming career, to use a Twistyism) out there saying this, most of the “mature” radical feminist theory I’ve encountered does not deny class/race – but it does say that experiences of class/race are qualified by gender in the same way that gender is qualified by class/race. So some people do read the insistence on the presence of gender as a denial of class/race.
It’s true they impede my typing (not enough, obviously) but they’re airbrushed! You can put pictures on them, and jewels! Cats love to be scratched with them! They provide a (toxic, low paid, non unionized) workplace for dozens of immigrant women workers! I’m like, spreading the wealth! And by wealth I mean student loans!
You guys, I have only gotten acrylics like three times because I can’t afford them and I can’t open cokes with them. But I do love them beyond all reason and I admit I enjoy the fact that people get shocked/disgusted to see an educated white “out” feminist wearing ridiculous bejeweled fake nails. It’s adolescent, I know.
JD, for the life of me I can’t picture you with fake nails. And I know what you look like.
Sarah I know! That’s the best part. But I suppose it would be equally satisfying and far more useful to the world and our cause to secretly and subversively know how to build a house or something.
JDR, I can really only get behind the cat-scratchin’ aspect. But even then, it’s the toxic-low paid-non unionized needlessly decorated anti-functional thing. Of course, if it were up to me, we would all wear nondescript uniforms and sensible shoes. FEMINIST POLICE!
PhD, you are 100% correct. I couldn’t live without decoration though, even if it has to be woad war paint instead of makeup and nails.
Woad will be allowed. On weekends.
Shit, JD, I’m genetically a man and I know fuck all about building a house. Wiring electronics though, that I’m good with. And sewing buttons back on shirts/slacks. I vaguely learned about power tools when I failed to drill a hole in a cinderblock with a 6volt drill. (I was gonna use it as a lighting stand, but I found a less power tool necessary option.)
This post and the comments has been very educational, as I was one who had thought radical feminism and cultural feminism/biological essentialism to be similar. But I knew enough to know you guys weren’t essentialists, yet radical feminists. Basically I’m rambling in order to not say ‘I guess I just hadn’t thought of it before.’
@PhDork: we would all wear nondescript uniforms and sensible shoes
Sorry, but that makes me think of Zamyatin’s We. And that’s a scary thought.
AspEx: I’m sure you’re not sorry. And that you connect neutral clothing with a totalitarian dystopia says more about you than it does about me. I am neither your Benefactor, nor your benefactor.
And I feel compelled to note that throughout dystopian literature, the one societal element that is kept intact–and usually given some sort of importance as a way to break out of the imposed conformity–is the patriarchal gender order. This is not accidental.
Consider me humbled. As again, I hadn’t thought about that before, and yet, it’s completely obvious, especially in We and 1984.