Radical Feminism

PAGE 1 OF 2
This is part 1 of a two-part discussion of radical feminism that took
place on WMST-L in late November/early December 1998.  See also the 
related file Conservative Feminism: An Oxymoron?  For more
compilations of WMST-L messages, see the WMST-L File Collection.

 
Greetings:
 
Can we still define radical feminism as the belief that our patriarchal
social system is the problem?  Can we still believe the radical feminist
approach is to get to the root of the problem?  I thought that was the
essence of radical feminism--until I read a WMST-L post on Monday.
 
I thought radical feminism was about philosophy, not personalities.
Betty Friedan can be very outspoken, but she's a liberal feminist, not
a radical feminist.  I would think that these words from the more
understated Gerda Lerner summarized the radical position very well:
 
   "Reforms and legal changes, while ameliorating the condition
    of women and an essential part of the process of emancipating
    them, will not basically change patriarchy.  Such reforms need
    to be integrated within a vast cultural revolution in order to
    transform patriarchy and thus abolish it."
                          From "The Creation of Patriarchy", p. 217
 
It seems that many people still confuse personalities and philosophies.
Also, there may be many different types of radicals, ranging from the
reformists to the separtists.
 
Until liberal feminist groups start talking about patriarchy, it seems
like the *philosophical* deliniation between the two camps is pretty
clear.  Liberals and radicals may use a similar set of tactics, ranging
from undercover to outspoken.  They also may work together on many
projects.  But radicals know that reforms can easily get co-opted.  They
know that new laws aren't enough.
 
I always thought that most Women's Studies profs had a fairly radical
philosophy.  You're 1000 times more likely to hear discussions about
patriarchy in a WS class than in a NOW or AAUW meeting. ;-)  But could
I be wrong?
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
In answer to the concerns raised by Joanne Callahan:
 
Can we still define radical feminism as the belief that our patriarchal
social system is the problem?
YES.
 
Can we still believe the radical feminist approach is to get to the root
of the problem?
YES.  THIS IS WHAT 'RADICAL' MEANS.
 
I thought radical feminism was about philosophy, not personalities.
IT IS.  AS IS ANY FORM OF POLITICAL THEORY.
 
I always thought that most Women's Studies profs had a fairly radical
philosophy.   But could I be wrong?
YES, YOU COULD.
 
Bronwyn
bronwyn.winter   AT   french.usyd.edu.au

 
Greetings:
 
> I always thought that most Women's Studies profs had a fairly radical
> philosophy.   But could I be wrong?
> ¦ YES, YOU COULD.
 
OK.  So what is the predominant philosophy of Women's Studies profs
these days?  Is it postmodern feminism?  Or is it a more sophisticated
brand of liberal feminism (i.e.; patriarchy is the problem, but really,
men suffer from it just as much as women)?  When I said fairly radical,
I meant a reformist radical philosophy, not a separtist one.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Joanne Callahan wrote:
 
> I thought radical feminism was about philosophy, not personalities.
> Betty Friedan can be very outspoken, but she's a liberal feminist, not
> a radical feminist.
 
Joanne's comment caught my eye because I'm not sure that Betty Friedan is
a "liberal feminist." I've been reading some of Friedan's most recent
publications and she seems to be a "centrist" or "communitarian" rather
than a liberal feminist. In her article on "To Transcend Identity
Politics: A New Paradigm" (THE RESPONSIVE COMMUNITY, 6:2 1996), for
example, Friedan appears to be more concerned about aging issues for men
rather than women.
 
Since ageism (for both sexes) is rampant in the United States, I'm not
surprised that Friedan is addressing age discrimination as a society-wide
problem. Seems to me, however, that Friedan has shifted her focus to aging
problems for men rather than women's aging issues. Thus, Friedan is
hardly a liberal feminist in her older years. If I'm misreading or
 misinterpreting Friedan's most recent publications, I'd appreciate being
enlightened by WMST-Lers.
 
niki
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------
Nijole (Niki) Benokraitis, Professor of Sociology
University of Baltimore, 1420 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201
Fax: 410-837-6051; Voicemail: 410-837-5294; nbenokraitis   AT   ubmail.ubalt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------

 
On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 nbenokraitis   AT   UBMAIL.UBALT.EDU wrote:
 
(cut)
> Joanne's comment caught my eye because I'm not sure that Betty Friedan is
> a "liberal feminist." I've been reading some of Friedan's most recent
> publications and she seems to be a "centrist" or "communitarian" rather
> than a liberal feminist.
(cut)
 
I'd say the change in Friedan had begun by the time of _The
Second Stage_, though I'd call it a change in liberal feminism
more generally.  (Rosemarie Tong made a similar point; I
haven't got the reference here.)
 
 
Judy Evans------Department of Politics---------jae2   AT   york.ac.uk
using Dragon Voice Recognition Software------hence any voicoes
---------------------opinions mine----------------------------

 
At 08:31 AM 11/27/98 U, you wrote:
>In answer to the concerns raised by Joanne Callahan:
>I finally have decided to weigh in, as someone who has been conducting
radical feminist research and written rad fem articles for years. I think
that to define something it is useful to look at what partitioners of that
set of beliefs actually do.  Most of the radical feminists in the academic
world (and you can count them on the fingers of one hand in liberal arts,
but the radical feminist jurisprudence women i.e. law professors, have a
number, because of Kitty mackinnons influence, focus on violence against
women.  Other kinds of feminists don't because they have this fantasy that
somehow men will come around or change or there will be a revolution which
will change them.
 
When we started examining violence against women systematically, neither
socialist nor liberal feminists though our concerns relatively trivial.  It
was only because of validaton of the problem from international feminists
that other groups started to take it seriously.  The exception I can think
of is that socialist feminists who were concerned with sexual harassment
appreciated the contributions of MacKinnon, and thus didn't join in the
general demonization of her, once she took on pornography.
 
Furthermore many women falsely claimed that we were cultural feminists.  I
remember sharing an apartment with a socialist feminist and pointing out
that I read two newspapers a day and listened to four hours of NPR, while
she did none oof the above.  Yet I was considered apolitical-a cultural
feminist.  BUlshit!!!
We are also less entranced at the opportunity to make coalitions with men,
although there are exceptions. We are less entranced by individual solutions
e.g. Celia Kitzinger, one of the most brilliant of radical feminists,
asserts that therapy, with its emphasis on being non judemental, did great
harm to the political edge of radical feminists.  A social movement HAS to
make judgements. cf Changing Our Minds by Kitzinger and Perkins-an ovular
book.  We use "have a nice day"  ironically.
 
There are of course radical feminists who are outside the academy-writers,
poets, artists, who are upfront at the harm done to them by men.
 
Now about Betty Friedan-- She was the first, and I think only, woman I
refused to have lunch with.  She wrote in the NYTIMes SUnday magazine
yet,that the lesbians in NOW were CIA agents, kwhich is why lesbians
withdrew, calling themselves "The Lavendar Menace."  SHe has never been able
to deal with the issue of violence against womken, even though she herself
had been abused, or maybe because sh..   I call her a "man junkie" because
she has always focussed on men, and how the women's movement would free men,
paying no ttention to what they have done to women.  She always says that
she is against the MacKinnon Dworkin ordinance re pornography, and I can
tell from what she says that she hasn't read the ordinance.  She generally
plays fast and loose with facts and data (OK so I'm an uptight academic).
 
She has a radical background working in the labor union movement which she
denies, having painted herself as simply a surbuban housewife (see recent
book by Horowitz).  It is no accident that she is the favorite of the media.
She doesn't say much that threatens them.  Yes, she wrote one good book.
That it.  After that she was mainly, both personally and intellectually a
pain in the ass.
e.g. when a prominant feminist was being battered and left her batterer,
Betty had dinner with the batterer and said that there were two sides to
every issue.
 
With friends like that who needs enemies.
Pauline Bart  pbart   AT   ucla.edu

 
Greetings
 
I've been looking at the pattern of the ongoing discussion on defining
radical feminism--the image of the blind men and the elephant first
comes to mind. Beyond that  the thought that one is not so much seeking
in that elusive definition  a guide for the perplexed as  seeking a
sound, unifying  theoretical model (or construct) for all of
feminisn--one  that rationally subsumes and justifies all the activities
carried out by all kinds of feminists in the name of feminism, e.g.,
research in academic disciplines (WS), participation in social movements
to effect change.
 
If this is so, it will take time--because feminism still has growing
pains and is still in a formative healthy and natural state of
effervescence to which everyone contributes. All movements go through
periods of dizzying excitement, intellectual ferment, name-calling,
pettiness, argumentation, serious disagreements, schism, labeling,
embarrassments (Friedan just one case in point) .  Meanwhile radical
feminism will be most clearly defined by what its self-identified
practitioners do, and later by historians.
 
It takes some time to sort out the myriad central elements that need
remediation in this  planet  and  in the academic world, and then to
condense them into neat subelements of an intellectual model. Of all the
qualifiers that are applied to
feminists--liberal,socialist,separatist,centrist, etc.--"radical"  would
then be applied to that type of feminist who most rigorously follows the
imperatives of a comprehensive  existing  model. The practical purpose
of a good model is that it will provide a rationale for prioritized
focussed action and research. The important question is whether the
paradigm one selects is the right one.
 
 
I think Joanne Callahan has it about right--that it's about philosophy.
To me it's always been as self-evident as a Euclid postulate that
patriarchy is the root philosophical/theoretical paradigm of feminism.
This central idea naturally and logically leads to passionate
socio-political movements for the extirpation of patriarchy and to the
(dispassionate?) intellectual activities that will transform or
modify liberal arts and social studies.  Is there another paradigm ?
 
herb hersh
hhersh   AT   megsinet.net

 
Re Joanne Callahan's and Pauline Bart's last posts on this:
Pauline said you could count radfem WS profs on the fingers of one hand.
Well, yes, that about sums it up.  Radical feminism is really caught in a
difficult place in relation to academia. On the one hand, the ideas are too
subversive for the suits (of both sexes) who run academic institutions to
feel comfortable giving their proponents too much space (Catharine
MacKinnon's success in terms of tenure, fame etc is practically a one-off;
among the many things I admire in her work are what must be her sheer
tenacity and clarity of purpose, to manage to get so far in academia without
being completely compromised politically.)
On the other hand, and in fact conversely, most radfems I know have a very amb
ivalent relationship with the academy:  while we want our voices to have that
sort of forum, we distrust the milieu so much (so healthily, one could say),
that many of us have chosen either not to enter it, or once inside it, to be
wary of attempts to co-opt us, and thus remain on the margins somewhere.
 
Pauline is also spot on concerning the misrepresentation of radfems as
"cultural" feminists: this sort of bullshit has considerable currency in
Australia as well. One might also mention the misrepresentation of
anti-pornography/prostitution campaigners as "wowsers" or prostitute-haters:
Dworkin and MacKinnon get this sort of stuff all the time, both in the US and
Australia, as does Sheila Jeffreys:  blowing the whistle means becoming a
target, and this requires enormous courage and, I think, a strong sense of
self-worth, not to be completely undermined by the tremendously vicious
attacks that are made on anyone who dares to name the enemy:  a case not so
much of shooting the messenger but cutting her up into little pieces and
*then* riddling her with bullets.  I have enormous respect for any woman who
continually braves such attacks to speak out for women's right to be human
beings.  (Such a simple thing to want, really:  it is amazing how much
aggression expressing such a wish attracts, including from WS).
 
Anyway**  What you can't co-opt or silence (even through enormous
intimidation and violence), well, misrepresentation is the next step (which
is tantamount to silencing, of course**)
 
Re Joanne's further Qs on WS:
 
Joanne wrote:  OK.  So what is the predominant philosophy of Women's Studies
profs these days?  Is it postmodern feminism?  Or is it a more sophisticated
brand of liberal feminism (i.e.; patriarchy is the problem, but really,men
suffer from it just as much as women)?  When I said fairly radical, I meant a
reformist radical philosophy, not a separtist one.
 
Well, I think Joanne's intuitions continue to be right, and would add that
postmodern feminism is not really that far from liberal feminism,
particularly in the "do-your-own-thingism and stuff the analysis" that is so
typical of much postmodern "theory" (in fact, postmodernism often seems to be
liberal and some socialist feminists reinventing themselves**).
I am a little puzzled, however, at the distinction between "reformist radical
philosophy" and "separatism".  Does this mean, Joanne, that you believe that
a) the single defining characteristic of radical feminism is separatism and
b) radical feminists don't think institutional reforms are important?  If so,
I would say you are wrong on both counts.  While all radical feminists
exercise some degree of separatism which goes along a continuum from
women-only feminist meetings to a life completely without men (in work, home,
dealings with tradespeople, whatever**), this is not for me what defines
radical feminism.  What defines radical feminism is putting women at the
centre of the picture and considering male supremacy as what oppresses women
(in all sorts of ways, it is not something "separate" from capitalism or
racism or homophobia, for example**)  Getting to the root of the problem, as
you said yourself.
Re reformism, Radical feminists have always considered institutional reforms
important, because this is what can help make women's lives less difficult in
the here-and-now; this also helps to empower women and give us more
manoeuvring room to make bigger changes further down the track*  Pauline
mentioned the Dworkin-Mackinnon ordinance, but there are many many other
examples.  We know, however, that reforms are at best a piecemeal solution:
this is where we *start*, not where we *stop*.
Bronwyn
bronwyn.winter   AT   french.usyd.edu.au

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
Thanks for the enlightenment on Betty Friedan.  Yes, she has been
uneven in recent years and has refused to study patriarchy as a social
system.  At various times, she'll advocate for women (i.e.; she spoke
out strongly against Robert Bly and the mythopoetic men's movement).
But I wouldn't exactly call her a beacon for feminism.
 
Nevertheless, she still has a reputation as a feminist.  Some people
actually think she's a radical feminist because of her outspoken
personality.  This is no joke.  I've put in sweat labor trying to tell
friends that feminism is about *philsophies*, not *personalities*.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
Greetings:
 
Continuing the dialogue about radical feminism . . .
 
> On the other hand, and in fact conversely, most radfems I know have a very amb
> ivalent relationship with the academy:  while we want our voices to have that
> sort of forum, we distrust the milieu so much (so healthily, one could say),
> that many of us have chosen either not to enter it, or once inside it, to be
> wary of attempts to co-opt us, and thus remain on the margins somewhere.
 
If radical feminists are not in the academy, then where are they?
 
> I would say you are wrong on both counts.  While all radical feminists
> exercise some degree of separatism which goes along a continuum from
> women-only feminist meetings to a life completely without men (in work, home,
> dealings with tradespeople, whatever**), this is not for me what defines
> radical feminism.
 
Bronwyn, now we're getting to the "rub" of it all.  I sense this
perception that one has to be a woman and a lesbian to be a radical
feminist.  Now where does leave heterosexuals like me who know the
problem is patriarchy?  Where does this leave men like Bob Connell,
Allan Johnson, and John Stoltenberg? ( BTW, I do know about the pro-
feminist label and the unanswered question, "Can a man be *any* type of
feminist?)
 
We all know society's stereotype of a radical feminist:  the "angry
man-hating lezzie feminazi".  But I sense that even within the feminist
community, there is this view that one is radical only if she lives in
a lesbian commune. ;-)  I sense this view that a happily married mother
of three cannot be a radical feminist even if she knows the problem is
patriarchy and doesn't fall for the "equality of oppression" theory.
 
>What defines radical feminism is putting women at the
> centre of the picture and considering male supremacy as what oppresses women
> (in all sorts of ways, it is not something "separate" from capitalism or
> racism or homophobia, for example**)  Getting to the root of the problem, as
> you said yourself.
 
Exactly!  Indeed, any solid analysis about men in patriarchy must talk
about how the competitive male bonding which undergirds this system
ultimately oppresses women.  Men do suffer in patriarchy, but women
suffer much more.  A radical analysis avoids the fallacious "equality
of oppression" theory.  I've heard people say, "Patriarchy is the
problem" and then, talk about how it oppresses men as much as women.
Those of us who say that isn't true are called lots of names, which
only reinforces our view that we're still in a patriarchy. ;-)
 
> We know, however, that reforms are at best a piecemeal solution:
> this is where we *start*, not where we *stop*.
 
Exactly!  I do work with liberal feminists, but I have no illusions
about changing the world.  Sometimes I wonder if some feminists are
somewhere inbetween the liberals and the radicals. ;-)  Perhaps we
have a radiliberal feminism?   I wonder if there are different degrees
of radicalism.
 
The conversation continues . . .
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
More on the dialogue with Joanne
 
--If radical feminists are not in the academy, then where are they?
 
Some of us are in the academy, but not in women's studies.  There are even
some quite well-know radfems who are not in women's studies.  (Some *are* in
WS, of course).  Many are on the margins, in both 'work' and "academy' terms:
a friend of mine, somebody I consider an intellectual of considerable
calibre, earns a living through unemployment benefit and cleaning houses.
She has a doctorate and has written a number of books.
 
 
--Bronwyn, now we're getting to the "rub" of it all.  I sense this
perception that one has to be a woman and a lesbian to be a radical
feminist.  Now where does leave heterosexuals like me who know the
problem is patriarchy?  Where does this leave men like Bob Connell,
Allan Johnson, and John Stoltenberg? ( BTW, I do know about the pro-
feminist label and the unanswered question, "Can a man be *any* type of
feminist?)
 
I know heterosexual radical feminists (but not that many).  One does not
automatically have to be a lesbian to be a radical feminist, but the
connection is, you will no doubt appreciate, a logical one.
 
--We all know society's stereotype of a radical feminist:  the "angry
man-hating lezzie feminazi".  But I sense that even within the feminist
community, there is this view that one is radical only if she lives in
a lesbian commune. ;-)  I sense this view that a happily married mother
of three cannot be a radical feminist even if she knows the problem is
patriarchy and doesn't fall for the "equality of oppression" theory.
 
Well, it all depends on what the happily married mother of three's take is on
marriage and motherhood as sites of women's oppression, doesn't it?
 
--Exactly!  Indeed, any solid analysis about men in patriarchy must talk
about how the competitive male bonding which undergirds this system
ultimately oppresses women.  Men do suffer in patriarchy, but women
suffer much more.
 
Well, I wouldn't see it as a matter of degree of suffering, but of the type
of suffering.  Men are not the victims of womanhating, nor is "manhating" the
basis of our social organisation.  Sure, men can refuse the role, but given
the strength of socialisation & "culture" and the way power and privilege are
created and maintained, there is only a certain extent to which it is
possible for men to refuse to be men in a sociopolitical sense.  I give those
that do credit for trying, but the bottom line is that whatever their own
position in the social hierarchy, and whatever their unwillingness to collude
in male domination of women, men *all* benefit to some extent from male
supremacy.
 
 
--A radical analysis avoids the fallacious "equality
of oppression" theory.  I've heard people say, "Patriarchy is the
problem" and then, talk about how it oppresses men as much as women.
Those of us who say that isn't true are called lots of names, which
only reinforces our view that we're still in a patriarchy. ;-)
 
Indeed.
 
>We know, however, that reforms are at best a piecemeal solution:
> this is where we *start*, not where we *stop*.
 
--Exactly!  I do work with liberal feminists, but I have no illusions
about changing the world.  Sometimes I wonder if some feminists are
somewhere inbetween the liberals and the radicals. ;-)  Perhaps we
have a radiliberal feminism?   I wonder if there are different degrees
of radicalism.
 
Well, there are a lot of feminists who refuse to align themselves with a
"tendency".  I did for a while, until I found out that what I thought and
what radical feminists thought was basically along the same lines. (NB I was
*already* a lesbian ;) !). From that day I have called myself a radical
feminist, because I figured, why continue with this "nonaligned" bullshit?
If the politics fit, wear them, preferably in as loud a colour as possible
;).
 
The conversation continues . . .
Bronwyn

 
ok I'll jump in now...
Some of you may know my name from connection with the Women's Presses
Library Project -- I'm here now in a very different capacity -- in my own
voice.
>
>--If radical feminists are not in the academy, then where are they?
>
>Some of us are in the academy, but not in women's studies.  There are even
>some quite well-know radfems who are not in women's studies.  (Some *are* in
>WS, of course).  Many are on the margins, in both 'work' and "academy' terms:
>a friend of mine, somebody I consider an intellectual of considerable
>calibre, earns a living through unemployment benefit and cleaning houses.
>She has a doctorate and has written a number of books.
 
I'm sure you're aware that feminism -- radical or otherwise -- doesn't
only live in "the academy" or reside with women who have doctoral
degress!!! I think this points to an issue near and dear to my heart --
the tension between "academic" feminism and "activist" feminism. Now
these are not mutually exclusive - obviously. But there are a lot of
women not at all associated with the academy (myself included, until
recently) who "do" radical feminism -- rather than only write and talk
about it.
 
Some of the fiercest radical feminists (oh, yeah, they're lesbians too) I
know spend their days cooking and washing dishes in a relatively
well-known feminist vegetarian restaurant (Bloodroot in Bridgeport, CT).
They also have a bookstore and no interest in media (TV, radio, etc.) --
they're avid readers of everything feminist. I worked there for close to
10 years and some of the most interesting and heated conversations I had
about radical feminism and activism were held in their kitchen while
chopping vegetables or washing dishes. MANY women who have traveled
through the restaurant either as customers or as workers have received
large doses of radical feminism mixed in with their mashed potatoes. They
"educate" in context -- connected to the very real lives of women living
in one of the most depressed cities in the country -- being active in
many different ways in their local community. Go there sometime and ask
any of the collective members (esp. Betsey) about Mary Daly or Andrea
Dworkin (or others) and you'll get more insight than you'd probably get
from any grad student!
 
There is obviously some relationship between reflecting and doing -- I
think those in the academy may spend too much time reading/thinking and
not enough time "doing" in some community activist sense. I'd venture to
say that trully radical feminism demands a serious level of "getting your
hands dirty."
 
We're out here -- independent of the academy -- doing our work in a
myriad of forms -- acting AND reflecting, reading, thinking about what
we're doing -- "doing" radical feminism in very concrete ways. Some of us
perceive the academy as a trap -- esp. women's studies -- where there
seems to be little tolerance for radical feminists (or where we'll get
"postmodernized" to death!).
 
I'm in a rather peculiar position myself -- having been the university
press columnist for Feminist Bookstore News for more than five years and
a worker in feminist bookstores for more than 10 years, I'm all to
familiar with feminists writing from the academy. Now (after years of
resistance and under somewhat unusual circumstances) I, myself, am now --
at the age of 43 -- beginning  as a doctoral student (for an Ed.D.) in --
of all things -- critical pedagogy.  Will the academy affect me? no
doubt. But I will demand of myself on-going activism as a radical femnist
-- which given the indiviudal focus of my program i think I'll be able to
do.
 
I'm appreciating this conversation.
Mev 
wplp   AT   winternet.com

 
Mev Miller:  "I think those in the academy may spend too much time
reading/thinking and not enough time "doing" in some community activist
sense. I'd venture to say that trully radical feminism demands a serious
level of 'getting your
hands dirty.'"
 
I agree with much of what you say about the importance of following
reflection with doing (and vice versa).  I think there's a place and
need for some feminist scholars to spend "all their time" thinking and
reading and writing, but that portrait leaves out a key component of
academics' activist work, and that is teaching, I mean the sort of
"critical pedagogy" you mention.  I mean teaching to transgress (bell
hooks).  I mean introducing my students to both academic feminists and
those who are "in the community" (a different community than an academic
one).  I admit that I do most of my work in the classroom setting.
Others have spoken on this list about their successes and challenges in
arranging meaningful internships and practicums--meaningful for the
students and the people who invite them in.
 
Given our various talents and personalities and training, we can and
should do radical feminism (undermine patriarchal oppression) in
different places and with different outcomes.......
 
Finally, can anyone be an activist without the belief that change is
possible?
 
Jane Olmsted (jane.olmsted   AT   wku.edu)
Western Kentucky University

 
I am a married mother, heterosexual, lesbian, radical feminist. To me,
lesbianism is more than a sexual preference, it is a state of women-loving
and is life-affirming. I believe there are a few pro-feminist men. In fact,
at the recent NY convention of the National Commubication Assn I attended a
roundtable on the pro feminist men's movement. The men who chaired the
panel were sincere and candid. They also knew they faced numerous road
blocks. The big one is the fear that men will take over the feminist
movement!
 
My graduate school career has started off rocky, but thanks to help from
e-mail mentors and feminist professors I will survive. I take my feminism
to the streets and I write and speak out every chance that I get. I plan on
having an impact and a good time doing it.
--------------------------
Tess, Kick-Ass Liberal Curmudgeon
--------------------------

 
>Mev Miller:  "I think those in the academy may spend too much time
>reading/thinking and not enough time "doing" in some community activist
>sense. I'd venture to say that trully radical feminism demands a serious
>level of 'getting your
>hands dirty.'"
 
>Jane Olmsted (jane.olmsted   AT   wku.edu) "
>I agree with much of what you say about the importance of following
>reflection with doing (and vice versa).  I think there's a place and
>need for some feminist scholars to spend "all their time" thinking and
>reading and writing, but that portrait leaves out a key component of
>academics' activist work, and that is teaching, I mean the sort of
>"critical pedagogy" you mention.  I mean teaching to transgress (bell
>hooks).  I mean introducing my students to both academic feminists and
>those who are "in the community" (a different community than an academic
>one).  I admit that I do most of my work in the classroom setting.
>Others have spoken on this list about their successes and challenges in
>arranging meaningful internships and practicums--meaningful for the
>students and the people who invite them in.
>
>Given our various talents and personalities and training, we can and
>should do radical feminism (undermine patriarchal oppression) in
>different places and with different outcomes.......
 
I'd like to agree that sometimes "radical feminism" is defined more by the
place in which one lives, than any other definition posed. What is radical
feminism in Connecticut, New York, or California, is a far cry from what
radical feminism is in, oh, say, Deep East Texas. I  live within easy
driving distance of Mt. Enterprise, the home of the charming Reverend
Otwell, who's followers carried signs at Matthew Shepherd's funeral
claiming Matthew was "now in hell" and who stand with curiously detailed
signs *just* off the campus of my institution to protest homosexuality. In
the opposite direction, I can drive to Jasper, where James Byrd was dragged
to death this summer. In fact, his cousin was in one of my colleagues
classes, struggling to stay in school though she was recently denied
welfare health benefits for her son's treatment for epilepsy ( the judge
thought she was too well-dressed to need the extra money). By declaring
myself a feminist at all in this environment, I am "radical." By teaching
women writers, I am radical. By thinking women worthy of study and
attention, I am radical. Sometimes, just by being a woman with a Ph.D, I am
radical.
 
Can we consider "situational radicalism" as part of this everchanging
discussion of what it means to define oneself as feminist?
 
Best, Amy

 
In response to Joanne's last observation about those feminists somewhere
between radical and liberal feminism, it might be interesting to consider
that in the context of Zillah Eisenstein's early work (late 70s I believe)
The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, published by Longman.
 
Diane L. Fowlkes
Director, Women's Studies Institute (Retired)
Professor Emerita, Political Science
Georgia State University
wsidlf   AT   panther.gsu.edu
www.gsu.edu/womenpower

 
I am abolutely loving this dialogue!
As a former student of Mary Daly's at Boston College (of all places!) last
year, I was exposed to radical feminism as an undergrad, which profoundly
changed my life.  As a 22 year old, I find my beliefs to be regarded with
suspicion (or blank-ness, which is scarier) among women of my age-group.
I have chosen to pursue graduate study in WS with the hope and intention of
one day being able to teach radical feminism within the academy.   This
perhaps may be futile, but I'll be damned if I don't try.  I feel that it is
imperative to carry on the torch, so to speak, of my fore-sisters.
'Academentia' is more often than not exactly that.  The original purpose of WS
(feminist studies, really) was to subvert 'traditional' education practices
and forge new ground. Feminism (especially radical feminism) is in a
precarious place within my generation and I feel that is imperative that we
keep it thriving and loud.
I would be interested to know if there are other list-members among my
generation who feel similarly about radical feminism.
 
Emily Mann
esm624   AT   aol.com

 
Emily, and lis(i)sters,  no you're not alone.  I'm currently working on
a dissertation firmly 'grounded' in Irigaray's radical feminism: trying
to understand her ethics of sexual difference as a poetics/lens for
reading poetry.  She definately believes that patriarchy is the
problem.  I was warned as a masters (sic) student that because of my
interests in Irigaray's work (among other interests) that I would be
"walking a lonely and steep road." My answer to that person was/is that
I have very strong legs.  And it's really not so lonely.
 
I also have a question related to this thread, my motive more one of
testing the water than of being provactive or troublesome.  I have never
quite understood: why are liberal and radical feminism cast as at odds
with each other? The assumption that patriarchy denies women humanity
and the conviction that women need their rights protected seem to me to
be natural allies.  This is Irigaray's influence talking, but is the
line between women's rights and rights specific to women as a gender
really so divisive?  The radical argument in Irigaray terms is that men
have defined Human in terms of their gender, their identity, so 'equal'
rights would be problematic as it would require women to 'be' men.
Thus, a radical feminist project is for women to determine the sorts of
rights that would agree with our gender, our way of being in the world.
The difference between these two positions, in *practical* terms, seems
to be one of depth.  Liberal feminism seems to me to offer a strategy
For Now, an immediate and necessary surface response, while radical
feminism seems to have a wider, more future oriented horizon, to be a
response to the depths of the problem.
 
I understand the content of the tension and the debate, I just don't
understand why the tension is there.  Some days I think it's a jargon
problem mostly.  Any comments?
 
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Someday there will be girls and women
whose name will no longer signify
merely an opposite of the masculine,
but something in itself;
the feminine human being.
    --- R.M. Rilke
 
Meaghan Roberts
Ph.D. Candidate: Lit&Fem.Philos.
University of Texas   AT   Dallas
antiope3   AT   airmail.net
a paper:  http://www.uta.edu/huma/enculturation/1_2/roberts
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

 
Mev wrote
"There is obviously some relationship between reflecting and doing -- I
think those in the academy may spend too much time reading/thinking and
not enough time "doing" in some community activist sense. I'd venture to
say that trully radical feminism demands a serious level of "getting your
hands dirty."  "
 
 
---- Of course radfems are not "only" in the academy or women with
doctorates.  But I am wary of the opposition "academics vs. activists".
Among women in the academy, from what I have observed, radical feminists are
the ones who keep the closest ties between their academic work and their
activism.  *Of course* any woman is capable of thinking (and writing),
whatever her socioeconomic or "approved intellectual" status.  Any woman is
also capable of being an activists, "even" academics.  Most radical feminists
do both, fortunately.
 
Bronwyn

 
I second the motion that location has an effect on what is defined as
"radical" in terms of "feminism."
 
I live in a northern industrial working class city (Erie, PA). It takes very
little to be declared "feminist" in such a male dominate area. Its like living
in Europe 100 years ago. However, after getting all sorts of local flack for
telling female clients they are under no obligation to
1)seek approval from men,
2) submit to their husband's authority
3) accept physical and psychological abuse, etc...
 
People who want to cover up for local perpetrators hate my guts.
 
However, on the other hand,
I get all sorts of other flack from sister feminists on the coasts who find my
heterosexual, married, with kid, homeschool, artsy-intellectual, computer-geek
lifestyle ---- counter-revolutionary. To a degree,  I think feminism is self-
defined. One knows indeeed how far from local cultural norms one is....
Lili
pinteareed   AT   aol.com
FEMINIST BIBLIOGRAPHY 1000 titles
http://members.aol.com/PinteaReed/fem_books.html
Senior Contributing Editor Feminista!
http://www.feminista.com

 
I like Amy Winks' offering of the term "situational radicalism" because, as
her example made so clear, what's radical in one situation or context may
not be considered so in another.
 
Expanding the expression to feminism in general, I see that the concept of
"situational [or `contextual'] feminism" fits the issues of whether women's
resistance to the system in past times (and some current women's activities)
could be considered feminist.  I remember discussions (if not on this list,
perhaps on h-women) of whether or not Roman women's fighting of a particular
law, the activities of orders of nuns, and the existence of women's
counterparts to Promise Keepers could be classified as feminist--based on
some sense of how "feminism" may be defined today.  Seeing these activities
as "situational feminism" makes sense to me.
 
Actually, I see "situational feminism" as perhaps a more appropriate
--or more "radical feminist"? :) -- way of thinking of feminism than by
trying to *define* theoretical subcategories, which is--when you think of
it--a patriarchal mentality and activity.  "Definire" in Latin means
"to limit, to determine, to end," all of which involve a more-or-less
macho sense of control or mastery.  As one of the (male) students in an
Honors class I taught last year on "The Archetype of the Femme Fatale"
asked, is what we're doing trying to define--to capture, to pin down--
a concept, or more to identify characteristics of something that may have
boundaries, but fuzzy boundaries? Now, I'm by no means a die-hard card-
carrying PostModernist, but when we question the old rigid gender
stereotypes that have imprisoned us (women much, much more than men),
when we question whether biological sex should be cast in the either-or/
oppositional woman-man polarity, when we profess to recognize the fuzzy
boundaries of gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic class . . .--are
we being consistent with what we might identify as "feminist" ways of
thinking when we focus so much time, attention, and energy to trying to
determine exactly what a "radical" as opposed to a "liberal" feminist is?
I was going to say that such terms, as well as the periodization of
Euro-U.S. feminist activity as "waves," are indeed useful for studying
feminist from a historical perspective, but I'm rethinking that now.
Labels such as these are, of course, useful in understanding history;
however, like so many traditional historical labels in the various
disciplines (whose rigid boundaries women's studies has been trying to
transcend--sorry, I forgot who said this today) which, by the way, were
(with few, if any, exceptions) *not* coined by women, such labels are
not absolute and are valid for the most part only within certain contexts.
 
In fact, the masculinist propensity to categorize--to "fix" things with
conceptual formaldehyde and pin them to the wall, properly labelled, of
course--is one of the instruments of abuse (name-calling), control over
others, and polemic.  [Others might tend to use the term "rhetoric"
instead of "polemic," but unless we're talking about a specific form of
rhetorical practice--the agonistic, conflict-based manipulation of and
control over others by means of words that is the masculinist, though
traditionally dominant, form of rhetoric--I prefer not to tar all
rhetorical practice, including what we're doing in this very discussion
list.  This is so particularly because feminism has so often been
labelled as "rhetoric"--or "mere" rhetoric--in contrast to the "truth"
of ideologies that characterize feminists as "the enemy."]
 
Speaking of which--and I'm sorry, but I just can't resist--we have a
perfect example of the masculinist propensity to categorize in Hoff
Sommers' _Who Stole Feminism?_, in which she attacks what (or rather
"who") she labels as "gender feminists" who, as "ideologues," have "added
to the woes of our society and hurt[] legitimate feminism"--which of course
is the so-called "equity feminism" whose poor beleaguered forces she has
been ordained (by voices, perhaps?) to lead.  She makes clear that she
isn't at all confusing "the women who work in the trenches to help the
victims of TRUE abuse and discrimination with the gender feminists whose
falsehoods and exaggerations are muddying the waters of American
feminism" (17--emphasis mine).
 
Which brings me to another point--a rather disturbing one that I noticed
in some of today's posts:  the oppositional positioning of feminism in
the academy to that in what is usually called "the real world."  This
polarization (divide and conquer technique) clearly if often implicitly
underlies Hoff Sommers' classification of contemporary feminism.
 
Now, granted, some feminist academic discourse (especially, but not only,
that inspired by French feminism) is quite jargony; however, it's not
just people who are not in the academy who can get disgusted with both
feminist--and, most definitely, non-feminist--discourse that one can't
even hack through with a razor-sharp machete!  Further, not all feminist
academic discourse (including much that is French-inspired) is a densely
impenetrable thicket of jargon.
 
In addition, as Jane Olmsted said today, academic feminists don't merely
talk and write in sedentary, complacent non-activist lives:  "teaching is
doing."  Now, once again, I'll grant that the activism of teaching in
many baccalaureate colleges and universities is situated in a context of
privilege.  Yet, in places like community colleges and urban baccalaureate
colleges, the students are far from privileged, and academic feminists
in these places could be characterized (if I may use the war metaphor) as
being in the trenches, but only if we're talking about degree.  The last
thing I'd want to suggest is a "I'm-more-in-the-trenches-than-you" kind of
pissing (if I may) contest.  As someone else said today, we're all activists
in different places, in different ways.  Trying to valorize one lifestyle
or occupation over another is falling back into the masculinist mentality.
 
We all thus may "educate in context"--not just those who are not in the
academy, but all of us, with just different contexts.  Contextual
(situational) feminism.
 
Finally, I return to rhetoric/language.  The opposition of using language
(talking or writing about things) to "doing" is yet another heritage of
the masculinist tradition with which we're unfortunately plagued.  As
much as this tradition owes a lot to Plato and Aristotle, they, along
with other ancient thinkers (including, as feminist rhetorician Susan
Jarratt has demonstrated, the Sophists so unmercifully bashed by Plato)
recognized that using language is an act:  talking (or writing) IS doing.
The Greek word "logos" cannot be adequately translated as "word" or
"logic/thought":  it incorporated both, as well as a hard-to-translate
sense of action.  Not only have (at least some) rhetoricians perceived
language use as "doing," but so has 20th century Speech-Act Theory.
Finally, Catharine MacKinnon in _Only Words_ argues eloquently from a
feminist legal standpoint that word use is an act.
 
Feminists "do," whether the means by which we "do" primarily involves
language use or getting our hands dirty.  But we do, each in our own way.
 
Situational feminism.
 
Connie Ostrowski
ostroc   AT   rpi.edu

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
This has been quite a discussion.  I don't think radical feminism is
dead. ;-)  Perhaps we should think of feminisms in a continuum sense
rather than a categorical sense.  In other words, liberal and radical
feminism aren't neat little boxes where the twain never meets.  Rather,
they are a line, a river, a journey, a scale.  I started out as a
liberal feminist.  Twenty years ago,  I just didn't understand the
radicals' ideas.  But after seeing liberal feminism's limitations, my
philosophy is becoming more radical.  To my dismay, the effect of all
those crucial liberal feminist reforms was the modernization of
patriarchy, not the abolution of it. ;-)  However, I wouldn't quite
call myself a *really* radical feminist.  I feel more comfortable with a
term like radiliberal, although much more radi than liberal. ;-) Someone
did say feminism is self-defined to a degree.  Well, here I am doing
it!
I think it's crucial to keep these categories fluid.  Remember, it's a
river, a journey.  Rigidity may turn people off to hearing about
patriarchy.  Twenty years ago, I had a hard time with radical concepts
not only because of my background but because of the way the message was
presented.  Much of the literature sounded harsh and it scared me.  The
message has been refined since then.
 
Perhaps many WS profs are in that radiliberal category.  Who knows!
They may be all-purpose radiliberalpomo feminists. Now that may be too
fluid. ;-)
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Joanne Callahan wrote:
> Perhaps many WS profs are in that radiliberal category.  Who knows!
> They may be all-purpose radiliberalpomo feminists. Now that may be too
> fluid. ;-)
>
Not too fluid.  Joanne's description feels very familiar to me.  The term
"radiliberalpomo" approaches my description of myself, although upon
reflection it seems "pomo" says the largest part of it.  It is precisely
the fluidity--represented as a decentered self, a multiple-identity, an
anti-essentialism--that appeals to me.  The accuracy lies in something a
little slippery:  that in one situation the liberal-ness surfaces and
speaks more clearly, in another it is the radical-ness of me that sings.
When I am performing radically, it never feels radical, it feels
essential--which to me reads as necessary and common and just, in spite of
the earlier lessons I have/d learned in the patriarchy.  Eventually I
have come to rest with the idea that no label captures who I am, how I
behave, why I act and when ... So the terms become only marginally
interesting.
 
Gill Wright Miller
Assocaite Professor of Dance
Associate Professor of Women's Studies
Denison University
Granville, Ohio  43023
millerg   AT   denison.edu

I'm noticing a certain watering down of the meaning of radical
feminism, an equating of radical feminism with all feminism.
I always thought undermining patriarchal oppression was what
ALL feminists, not just radical ones, were after. If this is so,
then radical feminism would include gender studies, queer studies,
and other groups who focus on pieces of patriarchal oppression
(such as oppressive stereotypes or sexist representation or the
privileging of straight sexuality) without actually focusing on
women. I also note from discussions on this list that many radical
feminists would not recognize these other groups as belonging
to the same camp.
 
Twenty years ago it looked like radical feminists were those
who saw oppression of women as THE root problem, lying behind
oppression by race and class. More recently, radical feminists
seem to be those who focus their attention on male violence toward
women. Both of these definitions are pretty fuzzy, and often
they're hostile definitions--given by detractors.
 
What is a more precise definition? How do radical feminists
on this list define yourselves? What theory of oppression or what
practices distinguish radical feminists from other feminists?
 
Priscilla Stuckey, Ph.D.
pstuckey   AT   california.com

 
Priscilla Stuckey makes some good points about radical feminism being
watered down by some of the classifications on this list--
and asks for a more precise definition by self-identified radical feminists.
 
As a self-defined radical feminist i want to say that on the one hand, I
would like to see the category--and the analysis that it represents
be seen and lived an enacted as dynamic.  I am not interested in
preserving a static historical category which, in itself, has represented
different struggles and claims etc. on the other hand,
what remains true to me as a radical feminist is that male power
remains central to the analysis and critique.  ONe reason that radical
feminists focus on sexual violence--including pornography and
prostitution, a focus that has made radical feminism so contested as a
political theory and practice--is that we maintain not only that male
dominance is an urgent, central concern for feminism as such but that
male dominance needs to be understood in terms of sexual power and men's
appropriation (to use a term from French radical feminist Colette
Guillaumin) of women.  This analysis of male power as "Men possessing
women" (as runs the subtitle of Andrea Dworkin's book on pornography) has
been highly contested in recent developments in feminist theory (see
Judith Butler's stuff on going "beyond the anti-pornography paradigm"),
that aim to "go beyond" oppositional categories of oppressor and
oppressed.  This is a big liability of postmodernism--although it is
touted as its strength--and is a very different kind of contestation of
radical feminism, in my opinion, than the
kind of challenges to earlier radical feminism stemming from, primarily,
critiques of racism or white ethnocentrism.  It is perfectly possible and
infact urgent to develop a radical feminism that maintains its critique
of male power and expands its scope and complexity to address capitalism,
globalization, etc.  Some of this is being done in movements against
international trafficking--a place where radical feminism today is
actively political and internationalized.
So, in short, the liberalism/radicalism divide
as once understood (in terms of reformism vs. revolutionary) is not
really the central conflict--or way that radical feminism has been
contested or defines itself today.
 
Kathy Miriam kmiriam   AT   cats.ucsc.edu

 
I think that one of the reasons it is difficult to define radical
feminism is that we are so often defined in the academy by those
who are hostile to us. Radical feminism has always included an
analysis of race and class into its theory and practice and while
we may have not always done a great job (mainly because we
were building theory and this takes time to develop), we have understood
that patriarchy works with other systems of opression. Many early
radical feminists came out of the left and thus class was always
seen as a major form of opression. Andrea Dworkin is a good
example of a radical feminist who has linked different
systems of oppression. I also want to add that for all the radical
feminist I know, an anti-pornography stance is central to
our understadning of violence against women. This has made us very
unpopular in liberal and post-modern feminism and has been used
against us to define us as simple minded and unsophisticated.
I have yet to read a book from "the other side" that does a
fair and respectful job of presenting our case. We are caricatured
as book burners, anti-sex and in bed with the right. These are all
incorrect assertions and fail to capture the reality of our
theory and activism. As someone who has lectured and written on
pornogrpahy for years, I am often an outsider at feminist
conferences and have had trouble getting my work
published in academic journals. After making tenure, I, as a radical
feminist, have decided to write for non-academic audiences since
it seems to me that it is a waste of time trying to get a voice
in mainstream women's studies. I think that it is impossible
to have a discussion on radical feminism without exploring how
our anti-pornography position has marginalized us and caused
us to be wary of academic feminism. Gail Dines, whe_dines   AT   flo.org

 
Here's an offering to Priscilla Stuckey's request for a more precise
definition of radical feminism.
 
Feminism, Radical:
1. The Cause of causes, which alone of all revolutionary causes exposes the
basic model and source of all forms of oppression- patriarchy- and thus can
open up consciousness to active participation in Movement, Transcendence, and
Happiness.
2. Be-ing for women and all Elemental Life, which implies going to the roots
of the oppression of all Others.
3. Way of be-ing characterized by (a) an Awesome and Ecstatic sense of
Otherness from patriarchal norms and values (b) conscious awareness of the
sadosociety's sanctions against Radical Feminists (c) moral outrage on behalf
of women as women: WOMAN-IDENTIFICATION (d) committment to the cause of women
that persists, even against the current, when feminism is no longer "popular":
CONSTANCY
 
source: Mary Daly and Jane Caputi (1987) Webster's First New Intergalactic
Wickedary of the English Language. San Francisco: HarperCollins, p. 75
 
Emily Mann
esm624   AT   aol.com

See Page 2 for continuation of the discussion.