radical feminism

208 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 12 2006 14:28
revol68 wrote:
I don't think it took my posts to illustrate what a wingnut Kirsten is.

Oh man from that outing pigs article I'd forgotten just how nutty it is. Saying he's even racist for liking blondes, and wondering if he "has those gross mudflaps with the tit woman on them on his truck". I'm going to put it in the library grin

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 12 2006 14:32
madashell wrote:
Oh for fucks sake, you aren't really pimping this shit are you?

This is a non-flaming forum madashell.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 12 2006 14:32

im not "pimping" anything madashell.

Quote:
Of course women are still battling for these demands, it doesn't however make them anymore radical. Women are still fighting to have to abortion in Ireland but it really doesn't change the fact that such a demand is not at all radical.

i disagree, but if you choose not to call it "radical" it makes no difference to me.

and John. the stuff said about kirsten here was way worse than anything she said about joe bageant, imo.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 12 2006 14:35
arf wrote:
im not "pimping" anything madashell.

Whatever you want to call it, what the fuck are you playing at posting that sort of pseudo-political biggotry without any kind of comment or disclaimer?

Sorry if this comes across as flaming, but it really pisses me off when people come out with this anti-trans stuff.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 12 2006 14:37
arf wrote:
and John. the stuff said about kirsten here was way worse than anything she said about joe bageant, imo.

Examples? At least the stuff we said - that she's loopy - is demonstrably true, unlike the outright lies, distortions and ad-hominem attacks on Chuck and Joe. She even accused zobag of being a man because she called her a "loon"! And we never said that we'd NEVER want to sit next to her, EVER! wink

If you think it's acceptable for a radical to behave in that way, arf, then that says a lot about you. If she was a man should she be able to say things like that?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 12 2006 14:40
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
I don't think it took my posts to illustrate what a wingnut Kirsten is.

Oh man from that outing pigs article I'd forgotten just how nutty it is. Saying he's even racist for liking blondes, and wondering if he "has those gross mudflaps with the tit woman on them on his truck". I'm going to put it in the library grin

hmm.

those mudflaps are pretty common in the US, but maybe that comment is lost on you.

as for the racism of stating that he likes "blonde pussy". why do you disagree with her? there are loads of WOC political blogs, id wager if his article was published right now in a 'progressive' mag/blog, there would be a lot of discussion about that comment, and the alienation of WOC from left politics.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 12 2006 14:49

libcom wasnt where the argument started. before she emailed here the argument had been raging in public and private. by the time she emailed rkn she was clearly fuming. im not going to defend everything she said, but the fact is, she didnt start it, and all sides said a lot of fucked up shit. i dont get why she is the only one who comes out "judged".

anyway, i have my pov, you have yours, none of us is going to move on that and i have better things to do than have an argument about an argument that occurred ages ago.

i dont mind actual discussion but i cant be arsed with these petty little battles, tbh.

madashell - im not having that argument with you on this thread, i'm afraid. i'm not interested in silencing trans voices and i would hope that radical feminist voices are also allowed to be heard. besides - didnt you post a link to that very website yourself a week or two ago? it's not a porn site, and it's not a hate site, so i don't think there is any reason to object to the link. however if you disagree and admins agree with you, then by all means take the link down.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 12 2006 14:54
arf wrote:
im not having that argument with you on this thread, i'm afraid. i'm not interested in silencing trans voices and i would hope that radical feminist voices are also allowed to be heard. besides - didnt you post a link to that very website yourself a week or two ago? it's not a porn site, and it's not a hate site, so i don't think there is any reason to object to the link. however if you disagree and admins agree with you, then by all means take the link down.

Oh please. Don't try to make this about me trying to "silence" anybody.

My problem is that you post up this "reading list" which includes that woeful "Questioning Transgender" site (and yes it is a fucking hate site, it's the worst kind, because of the insidious nature of it), but you make no attempt to distance yourself from any of it, in fact, you've come across as an apologist for it in the past.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 12 2006 15:02
revol68 wrote:
this is an internet forum, no one can shout so loud no one can read your posts

a thesis you're always at pains to try and falsify mate neutral

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 12 2006 15:11

YOU FUCKING COCK YOU UTTER GOBSHITE BLAHBLAHBLAH!!!

all in the name of science cool

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 12 2006 15:32

its there as a point to start. if anyone has a specific objection to any of the items on the list, make it.

the "questioning transgender" site may not be one you agree with, madashell, but it isnt a hate site. it's a collection of articles by women, mostly radical feminists and some of them radical lesbian feminists, who think that the politics of surgically altering someones gender is messed up. it's a critique of capitalism and endless meaningless "choice", and of masculinity/femininity.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 12 2006 15:37
arf wrote:
the "questioning transgender" site may not be one you agree with, madashell, but it isnt a hate site. it's a collection of articles by women, mostly radical feminists and some of them radical lesbian feminists, who think that the politics of surgically altering someones gender is messed up. it's a critique of capitalism and endless meaningless "choice", and of masculinity/femininity.

That's what I mean by "insidious", on the surface it tries to be an intelligent, civilised critique of so-called "trans politics", but underneath that there's a very nasty current of bigotry which relates to some rad fems doing some very messed up shit.

You can't isolate it in the abstract when the result is battered women being turned away from shelters because they're not "real" women.

Stripey's picture
Stripey
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Dec 12 2006 16:31
Refused wrote:
If anything in there advocates herbal abortifacients I'll be super-pissed. angry

context?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 12 2006 16:34

context is for girls roll eyes

wink

and just to be sure: wink

Stripey's picture
Stripey
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Dec 12 2006 16:38
arf wrote:
re naomi wolf

i read the beauty myth once, a couple of years ago, and i just didnt feel enthused (if thats the right word) by it. i felt it was a bit dull. but i'll give it another look now, seeing as you disagree. i have recently read "misconceptions" by her, which was again, a bit dull. its like i already know everything she's saying, and she doesnt really go far enough, iyswim? just as i feel she's beginning to grasp something, she ends and moves on, it's a bit frustrating.

I have a section of books on my feminist shelf called "white middle-class american reformist feminism." It's a pretty big section because the books are easy to come by in used stores and for sale at the library.

Anyways I tend to regard those books as places where you take what you can get out of it. I wouldn't take on the entire analysis of most of those writers because for the most part they don't get it. However they are often scrupulous researchers who will back up everything so as to be able to prove the point. This has been useful to me at some stages of my thinking.

Like when I was wondering, "Is there a point to feminism? Is it useful?" and I read the Feminine Mystique, written in the early 60s, which pretty much says "all" american women are affluent white suburbanites and has the goal of getting more women into the workplace. It was useful because it oulined some methods of patriarchy which are still very much alive today, even though the race, economic, sexual, etc viewpoint was pretty much fucked.

You gotta start somewhere... Becoming a feminist is a really challenging shift in perceptions and actions, sometimes it's good to only be challenged on one front at a time so you can absorb it better.

I gave my cousin the Beauty Myth for Giftmas last year. I think at 14 maybe it was a bit too soon but hopefully she'll hang onto it and pick it up another time.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Dec 12 2006 16:42
arf wrote:
the "questioning transgender" site may not be one you agree with, madashell, but it isnt a hate site.

Ask trans people what they think about that. When I started coming across the transphobic stuff in radfem that's exactly what I did, and it's not pretty. Radfem's treatment of transpeople time after time after time has been bigoted and vile. And it's treatment that comes out of radfem's approach to gender and subjectivity which is hopelessly confused and elitist and simply cannot cope with the full range of ways in which people experience and live gender and sexuality.

The trans issue is where the fundamental flaws in radfem as a way of analysing the world show up, because it shows an ideology entirely incapable of meaningful solidarity, entirely incapable of dealing with the way the world actually works. The simple fact is, gender doesn't work in the way that radfems think it does and the mere existence of transpeople is a demonstration of this that the ideology cannot tolerate.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 12 2006 16:44
Quote:
have a section of books on my feminist shelf called "white middle-class american reformist feminism."

Why waste space with such books? You want black, working class, Ghanaian, totally radical men writing feminist books.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 12 2006 17:31

Nurse, the screens!

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 12 2006 19:04
Gwen wrote:
Refused wrote:
If anything in there advocates herbal abortifacients I'll be super-pissed. angry

context?

Context is a figment of your imagination. Herbal abortions are dangerous hippie rubbish.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 14:37

On what a radical feminist is I think Emma could fall into that. I see radfem as anyone (women usually but also a man) who asks questions, and usually proposes answers, to issues of the day that either directly or indirectly affect women. but also with a wider political understanding of how such situations arise. You dont need to label yourself as such, but Emma would be a radfem as she discussed contraception in a time and place when it was a big no no, indeed I think if she was still doing it now in some places in America the reactions she got wouldn't be to different. I dont even think what passes for liberal feminism is, feminism isn't just about getting more women into posistions of power, far from it, thats just tweaking the power relations for a few women, but dosent mean anything for the mass of women. I dont know if it was Emma who said it, or someone she quoted, but I think it sums up the radfem perspective 'we don't want to be equal to unfree men.'

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 14:51
Quote:
sorry but you can't conflate radical feminists with radical feminism like that, as Gwen said what people refer to as Radical Feminism is a certain branch that developed out of third wave feminism.

True, I posted a thread here a good while ago about disliking labels due to the minute divisions and elitism they often create and i'm not prone to use them on myself or anyone else, but in the sense of what constitutes radical feminism I think that is the crux of it compared to more liberal feminism, and as such Emma did fit into what I would see radfem as, although I prefer to see her as a whole of her parts, and not just labelled parts.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:12

Well the best thing is to limit the usage of such labels, the fact that they are either so inclusive or exclusive is a big limiting factor. Thats why I said I prefer to see Emma, and others, as a sum of their parts rather than just differt sections.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Dec 13 2006 19:13
revol68 wrote:
sorry but you can't conflate radical feminists with radical feminism like that, as Gwen said what people refer to as Radical Feminism is a certain branch that developed out of third wave feminism.

As it was Emma Goldman actually detested the "feminist" movement and she certainly would have support the legalisation of prostitution.

Just like communists, all my favourite feminists have hated Feminism.

BTW i think that quote is from the Mujere Libres who refused the label feminist.

This is a quote by Emma Goldman:

"There is not a single modern writer on the subject [prostitution] who does not refer to the utter futility of legislative methods in coping with the issue."

Also this quote suggests that she was against prostitution per se and thus would see no difference in whether it is legalised or not:

"Whether our reformers admit it or not, the economic and social inferiority of woman is responsible for prostitution."

Also, Goldman, to my knowledge, never used, and never would have used the term 'feminism'. So I have no idea what you are on about.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 13 2006 20:41

Goldman lived in a time and place where she did not identify with the feminism that was in formation.

I like to think that if she were here now, she would be feminist of some sort, and proudly so.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 14 2006 02:24
revol68 wrote:
BTW i think that quote is from the Mujere Libres who refused the label feminist.

What qoute?

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 14 2006 02:27
Gwen wrote:
I gave my cousin the Beauty Myth for Giftmas last year. I think at 14 maybe it was a bit too soon but hopefully she'll hang onto it and pick it up another time.

Not having a go at gwen but reading this i couldn't help but think it was like something out of brave new world or out or 1984. I really don't like this renaming things in order to write out the socio-historical factors in our everyday language. (I'm referring to calling xmas giftmas, maybe she was being kooky or sumat but you get it alot all the same)

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 14 2006 17:40

its a quote used rather often by radical feminists. funny that.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Dec 14 2006 18:43
arf wrote:
the "questioning transgender" site may not be one you agree with, madashell, but it isnt a hate site. it's a collection of articles by women, mostly radical feminists and some of them radical lesbian feminists, who think that the politics of surgically altering someones gender is messed up. it's a critique of capitalism and endless meaningless "choice", and of masculinity/femininity.

Transgender is noot transsex. Connflating the two is just another instance of trans-fobia. I could be deemed transgender, and I have no intention of surgically or chemically altering my body.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Dec 14 2006 18:47
ticking_fool wrote:
The trans issue is where the fundamental flaws in radfem as a way of analysing the world show up, because it shows an ideology entirely incapable of meaningful solidarity, entirely incapable of dealing with the way the world actually works. The simple fact is, gender doesn't work in the way that radfems think it does and the mere existence of transpeople is a demonstration of this that the ideology cannot tolerate.

All radfems I personally know are also transgender-friendly, or transgender themselves.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 14 2006 19:01
arf wrote:
its a quote used rather often by radical feminists. funny that.

i think thats the point he was making, that the originators wanted nothing to do with the 'radical feminism' of their time, if yours hails from the 60s/70s, that might be a good comeback wink

[/patronising bloke]

Topic locked