radical feminism

#152

redtwister

Offline

Joined: 21-03-05

Dec 18 2006 17:23

There are a few critical things missing, IMO from that list (I know, you can't include everything), but which come from a different perspective that should IMO be a part of a genuinely radical politics against oppression, or maybe a communist theory which is more adequately radical around sexuality and race:

The Sexual Contract - Carol Pateman (Great analysis of the conceptual foundations of modern "patriarchy" in the rise of capital and the Enlightenment.)

Materialist Radical Feminism:
Materialist Feminism – Ingraham/Hennessey

Promissory Notes – Kruks/Rapp/Young, Eds.

Of Marriage and the Market – K. Young, et al, Eds.

Feminism and Materialism – Kuhn/Wolpe

Radical Feminism and Race:
The Color of Privilege - Hurtado

White Women, Race Matters – Frankenberg

Chicana Feminist Thought – Garcia

This Bridge Called My Back – Moraga/Anzaldua

70's Radical Feminism:
Women and Revolution – Sargent, Ed.

Anne Oakley:
The Sociology of Housework
Subject Women
Woman’s Work

Materialist Queer Theory:
Homosexuality: Power and politics – Weeks

The Material Queer – Morton

Orthodox Marxist Radical Feminism (awkward term, but it seems about right for these two):
Ludic Feminism and After - Ebert (As nuanced a critique of post-structuralist feminism as a trotskyist can make.)

Marxism and the Oppression of Women - Lise Vogel

Autonomist Marxist Radical Feminism:
The Rapist Who Pays the Rent - Hall, James, et al

Sex, Race and Class - Selma James

Women, The Unions and Work - Selma James

Women, Development and Labor of Reproduction - Dalla Costa and Dalla Costa (The name says it all, I think.)

The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community - Selma James and Mariarosa Dalla Costa (An essential autonomist piece that grounded 'wages for housework'.)

Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation - silvia Federici (The title says it all)

The Arcane of Reproduction - Leopoldina Fortunati (A very problematic and difficult work, discussed at some length both by Harry Cleaver online and by Aufheben, but worth the effort IMO.)

Patriarchy and Accumulation on A World Scale - Mies (The name says it all, I think.)

cheers,
chris

ps - feel free, if you can find a way to do it, to add things from your list to my Revolutionary Reading Guide in the library. I do not get as detailed in my breakdown, and I do differentiate what I consider communist/anarchist and explicitly Marxist approaches to sex, gender and sexuality from bourgeois feminism, but as I have not updated that guide in over 2 years, it may again be structurally out of date as well as out of date on books. Or do you mind if I add the material in?

#153

redtwister

Offline

Joined: 21-03-05

Dec 18 2006 17:28

ticking_fool wrote:

Alright - what definition of radical feminism are you using, because it's clearly not one that anyone else would recognise. It has a very specific definition and refers to a very specific body of work and activism. If you're going to defend it, it would seem like a good idea to know what that is.
Radical feminism is a strand of third wave feminism descended from Dworkin and MacKinnon in North America and Jeffreys and the Leeds/London separatist axis in the UK. That's a matter of history, that's just what it is. It is particularly associated with anti-porn and anti-BDSM activity. It is transphobic as fuck as the slightest glance at all the major theorists and most of the blogs and publications you're lauding will reveal. If you haven't seen this you haven't been paying attention - that simple.

It defends these positions by arguing that heterosexuality is a system of power backed up by the state sanctioned violence of rape. It sees patriarchy as operating primarily through people's desires which must be deconstructed and rebuilt. This is consciousness raising, the central radfem tactic. There is disagreement over whether it is possible for men to go through this process, but all agree that most people's desires and responses are basically wrong, constructed by a patriarchal society to the individual's detriment for the perpetuation of male power.

Our criticisms are based on this and on the logics underlying it that many radfems would deny operate, in the same way that Trots would deny being elitist.

Ah, so autonomist feminist stuff would not fall in there at all...

Hm, well, so what about the materialist feminist stuff?

Chris

#154

ticking_fool

Offline

Joined: 12-03-05

Dec 18 2006 19:39

redtwister wrote:

Ah, so autonomist feminist stuff would not fall in there at all...
Hm, well, so what about the materialist feminist stuff?

Not from what I can see. It's quite a tight self-referential system - try chasing blog links and you'll be going round in circles within half an hour. MacKinnon specifically rejects Wages for Housework as incompatible with consciousness raising which is *the* radfem tool of choice according to her.

Not sure what you mean by 'materialist feminist' - stuff like Mies and whathaveyou seems to form a fairly loose strand of its own that I don't know as well as I should. It seems to be the most interesting because it's the most open minded, but I'm not sure of its specific history at all (more coming out of anti-racist/anti-imperialist struggles?).

#155

georgestapleton

Offline

Joined: 4-08-05

Dec 18 2006 20:30

Yeah I agree with red twister. And I'd imagine revol would as well. Autonomist/Socialist/Marxist/Anarcha Feminisms are not necessarily 'radical feminist'. Radical feminism refers to a specific strand of feminism arising out of third wave feminism that is centred around the theories of mckinnon, dworkin and jeffreys. What it says i think is fairly sumarised in my earlier post. And the problems with it have been accurately critiqued (although in a shit as usual manner) by revol.

That said the boundaries of radical feminism aren't clearly defined, for example would irigaray be a radical feminist? I'm not sure.

#156

Tojiah

Offline

Joined: 2-10-06

Dec 18 2006 22:12

I don't understand how it came about that the accepted definition of "radical feminism" in this discussion bears no resemblence to what I, or, say, wikipedia, would term radical feminism. I see no point in carrying on any arguments in this thread, and only wish to register the fact that when I term myself a radical feminist, I mean something a lot more akin to what is written in wikipedia (which posits that radical feminism is an offshoot of second-wave feminism), than to what became the concensus herein.

You may now proceed throwing "twat" and "phallo-centric" at each other at your leisure. I'm sure you'll come at a most inspiring and informative conclusion.

#157

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 18 2006 22:27

Quote:

I don't understand how it came about that the accepted definition of "radical feminism" in this discussion bears no resemblence to what I, or, say, wikipedia, would term radical feminism. I see no point in carrying on any arguments in this thread, and only wish to register the fact that when I term myself a radical feminist, I mean something a lot more akin to what is written in wikipedia (which posits that radical feminism is an offshoot of second-wave feminism), than to what became the concensus herein.

im with you.

#158

lem

Offline

Joined: 25-07-05

Dec 18 2006 22:34

It upsets me, or rather, I am worried that, people who disagree with your position are being seen as apologists for rape.That alone should maske your pov convincing. But isn't this just a discussion about tactics here.

fwiw i don't feel that the radfems should stop posting unless the discussion obviously isn't going anywhere.

#159

georgestapleton

Offline

Joined: 4-08-05

Dec 18 2006 23:02

treefjudas and arf would you agree with my definition given earlier?

georgestapleton wrote:

Feminism simply recongnises the subjugation of women through sexual inequality and declares that this subjugation and inequality should be brought to an end.
Radical feminism is a bit more precise than that.

Marx once said: "To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself." I think a fair summary of radical feminism would be to say that raidcal feminists believe that "To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for woman, the root is woman herself." And from that argue that, from a woman's standpoint, they argue that woman is oppressed by man through 'patriarchy'. Essential it argues that sexual opression exists in and of itself and needs to be takled as a defining oppresion in patriarchal capitalist society.

wikipedia wrote:

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that views women's oppression (which radical feminists refer to as "Patriarchy") as a basic system of power upon which human relationships in society are arranged. It seeks to challenge this arrangement by rejecting standard gender roles and male oppression. The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated, usually by detractors, with radical feminism. Often, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.
The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).

Feminism simply recongnises the subjugation of women through sexual inequality and declares that this subjugation and inequality should be brought to an end.

Because radical feminism is used to refer to a certain type of feminism and not just every radical feminist.

Feminism like socialism or communism has very very very large difference of opinion in it. And radical feminism referes to a certain type of feminism within the broad school of feminism. I dont see any benefit from denying that.

tojiah wrote:

I mean something a lot more akin to what is written in wikipedia (which posits that radical feminism is an offshoot of second-wave feminism), than to what became the concensus herein.

Err yeah you are right. I should have said part radical feminismn is part of 3rd wave feminism. It didn't arise out of third wave feminism. It, like all 3rd wave feminism, arose out of 2nd wave feminism.

Aside from that the definition we are using is essentially the same as the wiki definition.

Just that we are pointing out who the main theorists of it were: jeffreys, dworkin, mckinnon. And I suppose you could include firestone in there as well although she kind preceeded 'radical feminism' as a distinct strand.

I mean I view my self as a radical and a feminist and I view my feminism as being radical insofar as it tries to look at the roots of womens subjugation. But I'm not a 'radical feminist' because 'radical feminism' is a term used by a small but vocal part of the feminist movement to describe itself. And I'm not one of them.

#160

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 07:57

Quote:

And the problems with it have been accurately critiqued (although in a shit as usual manner) by revol.

oh come on Arf (or random as she was previously known) is a passive agressive manipulative prick and i think i've maintained my insults at a rather mild level considering the shit she insinuates.

#161

ticking_fool

Offline

Joined: 12-03-05

Dec 19 2006 08:55

tojiah wrote:

no resemblence to what I, or, say, wikipedia, would term radical feminism.

Except that the Wikipedia entry agrees with everything me and georgestapleton have said except for the Marxism and Feminism bit, which is wrong as a glance at MacKinnon's writings would demonstrate (the Marxist strain, whilst it hung around tended to get rejected).

Quote:

(which posits that radical feminism is an offshoot of second-wave feminism)

Which would make it part of the third wave, no?

#162

ticking_fool

Offline

Joined: 12-03-05

Dec 19 2006 09:07

Ok arf, treeofjudas too if you want to join in, given that all the widely accepted definitions of radical feminism are wrong, and that we're all tilting at windmills while you get on with the task of dismantling patriarchy, how about you tell us what radical feminism is and why the criticisms we've made of it as elitist and simplistic are wrong.

So far, as far as I can make out, the only people who actually understand the arguments you're making are the ones who've rejected them.

#163

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 12:26

i wouldnt disagree with george stapletons description, although there are a few other things i'd disagree with elsewhere - for example the wikipedia article claims that "While Radical feminism posits that the root cause of all other inequalities is the oppression of women," - thats not true of most radfems I know.

I would also disagree that "the main theorists of it were: jeffreys, dworkin, mckinnon.". They are all considered important in their areas, sure, but I think this is going a bit far. More likely, they are the ones that people outside of radical feminism have heard of, usually through anti feminist sources.

I would, however, completely disagree with revols definitions. It's all bluster for attention, like so much of what he writes.

#164

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 12:36

revol68 wrote:

oh come on Arf (or random as she was previously known) is a passive agressive manipulative prick and i think i've maintained my insults at a rather mild level considering the shit she insinuates.

is this a 'no flaming' forum? lol.

revol, i realise that you dont really like anyone (projection much?) but im almost flattered by how much you hate me. i think it says much much more about you and your motivations than it does about me and mine.

#165

Serge Forward

Offline

Joined: 14-01-04

Dec 19 2006 12:42

Unlike me, Arf, cos I like you more than I did. That means we can be friends now! But you will have to take back calling me a "fucking tosser."

#166

Refused

Offline

Joined: 28-09-04

Dec 19 2006 12:46

arf wrote:

(projection much?)

Let's not do the internet-psycho-analysis bit.

#167

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 12:49

Serge Forward wrote:

Unlike me, Arf, cos I like you more than I did. That means we can be friends now! But you will have to take back calling me a "fucking tosser."

okay i can do that - im sorry.

#168

Serge Forward

Offline

Joined: 14-01-04

Dec 19 2006 13:09

arf wrote:

okay i can do that - im sorry.

#169

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 14:27

arf wrote:

i wouldnt disagree with george stapletons description, although there are a few other things i'd disagree with elsewhere - for example the wikipedia article claims that "While Radical feminism posits that the root cause of all other inequalities is the oppression of women," - thats not true of most radfems I know.
I would also disagree that "the main theorists of it were: jeffreys, dworkin, mckinnon.". They are all considered important in their areas, sure, but I think this is going a bit far. More likely, they are the ones that people outside of radical feminism have heard of, usually through anti feminist sources.

I would, however, completely disagree with revols definitions. It's all bluster for attention, like so much of what he writes.

my definition is the same as Georges. Your of course correct that Dworkin, MacKinnon (not McKinnon) and Jeffreys are the ones most people have heard of but that's because they laid out the foundations on which other radical feminists have built. You only need to go through a dozen radical feminists blogs and sites and you can see the commonality that runs through them.

As it is you have no answers to any of my points because the ironic thing is that I grasp radical feminism at it's roots (oh how radical of me) much better than you do. I actually understand why radical feminists are opposed to trans politics, to S&M, to porn and penetrative sex and I would be opposed to them too if I shared their basic assumptions, which fortunately I don't.

#170

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 14:36

you know, it doesnt matter how many times you say it, it doesnt make it true.

for the last time revol - i dont care what you think. you're a screeching numpty with too much time on his hands and an outrageous sense of self importance. you need a new schtik sweetie, because this one is just so done.

(((poor, dull, revol)))

#171

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 14:41

arf wrote:

you know, it doesnt matter how many times you say it, it doesnt make it true.
for the last time revol - i dont care what you think. you're a screeching numpty with too much time on his hands and an outrageous sense of self importance. you need a new schtik sweetie, because this one is just so done.

(((poor, dull, revol)))

For 10 quid a page I'd be happy to write you an essay on why my thoughts are irrelevant and it is your duty to not care what I think all from radical feminist perspective, what you think? I will have to have a surcharge of 5 pounds for every Dworkin quote I use, as her turgid writing represents a health and safety hazard.

p.s. I'm being paid whilst I'm sitting here posting to you, what's your excuse?

#172

ticking_fool

Offline

Joined: 12-03-05

Dec 19 2006 14:50

arf wrote:

you know, it doesnt matter how many times you say it, it doesnt make it true.

I've said it dozens of times as well, as has georgestapleton. Care to tell us why we're wrong?

#173

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 15:27

revol68 wrote:

p.s. I'm being paid whilst I'm sitting here posting to you, what's your excuse?

i just enjoy it

#174

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 15:37

arf wrote:

revol68 wrote:

p.s. I'm being paid whilst I'm sitting here posting to you, what's your excuse?

i just enjoy it

you do realise that masochism is frowned upon by radical feminists? or does that make it even kinkier?

#175

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 16:40

not 'frowned upon' - subject to analysis. would you like me to explain the difference to you?

plus, you know, kinky isn't what it once was. these days everyones at it, which makes it kinda conventional. if kinky wants to stay kinky, it needs to be frowned upon by someone. these days celibacy is more 'kinky', non conformist i mean, than s&m.

something to ponder, anyway.

#176

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 16:54

brilliant radical feminist criticism as a means to kink up your love life, though I think you might have articulated by inability to just disengage from it totally. embarrassed

On a more serious note, S&M is open to analysis, infact many of it's practitioners do so, even Zizek talks about how the dominated actually dominates the scenario through their consentual submission, that the whole scene is dominated by the subs unspoken limits that the dom must navigate. Radical Feminism's modus operandi for analysis makes Stalinist Social Realism look distinctly post modern, and not suprisingly every analysis comes down to the same thing, it's objectively anti woman and needs to be overcome.

#177

Refused

Offline

Joined: 28-09-04

Dec 19 2006 19:01

Oh, is that what they're into? Should have told me earlier. I can be overcome on demand. cool

#178

arf

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Dec 19 2006 19:59

Quote:

Radical Feminism's modus operandi for analysis makes Stalinist Social Realism look distinctly post modern

what does this mean? i have no idea what social realism is. :-/

#179

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Dec 19 2006 20:05

arf wrote:

Quote:

Radical Feminism's modus operandi for analysis makes Stalinist Social Realism look distinctly post modern

what does this mean? i have no idea what social realism is. :-/

alas my wittisisms are lost on you, your just like all the other girls.