rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro) (01/03/91)
In article <m0iqNTn-0000YtC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >... >"Radical" feminists are just feminists who point out the problems in >society more agressively than others, hoping that someone will listen >to them, in line with the aphorism: "the squeaking wheel gets the >oil". Um, no. Radical feminism is not simply feminism that's radical. The name has been appropriated for a specific subgroup of feminism which is often contrasted with "socialist" or "post-structuralist" feminism. There *is* a strong lesbian-separatist component to Radical feminism, as well as a belief in essential, unchangeable social/moral/political differences between men and women. Radical feminism is, in fact, not very radical at all in its essentialism. Even so, that is what the term "Radical feminism" means, more or less. By way of contrast, other variants of feminism have been heavily influenced by marxism, or psychoanalysis, or "discourse theory" (ie Foucault et al). They would regard gender, and subjectivity, in an entirely non-essentialist way. Gender would be regarded as a social construction; any belief in, for instance, the innate moral superiority of women, would be seen as complicit with a gender system that subjugates women. This variant of feminism is interested in investigating the construction of gender, in exposing the social construction of what appears to be natural, undeniable, God-given (ie, the differences between men and women). They are interested in answering these kinds of questions: how does the subjugation of women happen? and especially, how does it happen in a social setting that regards itself as egalitarian? what are the specific mechanisms involved? In short, how is gender constructed? How do individuals become, in the full social sense, men and women? As can be seen, my sympathy is wholly with the (nominally) non-Radical feminist position. Only when we have some tentative answers to the questions they ask can we begin to do something. We won't even fully understand the nature, or the scope, of the problem until that happens. rs
fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) (01/15/91)
smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: > [. . .] > "Radical" feminists are just feminists who point out the problems in > society more agressively than others, hoping that someone will listen > to them, in line with the aphorism: "the squeaking wheel gets the > oil". rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > [. . .] > Um, no. Radical feminism is not simply feminism that's radical. The > name has been appropriated for a specific subgroup of feminism which > is often contrasted with "socialist" or "post-structuralist" feminism. > There *is* a strong lesbian-separatist component to Radical feminism, > as well as a belief in essential, unchangeable social/moral/political > differences between men and women. Radical feminism is, in fact, not > very radical at all in its essentialism. Even so, that is what the > term "Radical feminism" means, more or less. I doubt that feminist terminology is so well established (and suspect Richard would agree with me here). Eisenstein introduces _Contemporary Feminist Thought_ (1983) noting that . . . recent analysts seem to agree on the distinction between radical feminism, which holds that gender oppression is the oldest and most profound form of exploitation, which predates and underlies all other forms including those of race and class; and socialist feminism, which argues that class, race, and gender oppression interact in a complex way, that class oppression stems from capitalism, and that capitalism must be eliminated for women to be liberated. Both of these, in turn, would be distinguished from a liberal or bourgeois feminist view, which would argue that women's liberation can be fully achieved without any major alterations to the economic and political structures of contemporary capitalist democracies. A final category would be a cultural feminist position, which eschewed an explicit political or economic program altogether and concentrated on the development of a separate women's culture. But Eisenstein admits that the term's meaning is changing. In her conclusion she writes: In the evolution of feminist theory from Shulamith Firestone to Mary Daly, the word "radical" shifted in meaning. In its use among the feminists who broke with the New Left in the late 1960s, "radical" meant a commitment to a kind of social change even more fundamental than that espoused by the revolutionaries of SDS. In the definition offered by Mary Daly, however, "radical" meant metaphysical, that is, it referred to an inner voyage, and a retreat from political struggle, a withdrawal from the attempt to enter the structures of patriarchy on any terms. My guess is that there is no widespread agreement as to what these terms mean, and I am curious about Daly's definitions. How popular have they become? All this brings to mind the issue of reader knowledge. Referring to Simone de Beauvoir's _The Second Sex_, Betty Friedan's _The Feminine Mystique_, and Germaine Greer's _The Female Eunuch_, Eisenstein says: Since they are well known, I assume some knowledge of these feminist classics in the reader. I confess to having read and enjoyed _Contemporary Feminist Thought_ without first reading these or any other classics. And at this point, I would like to solicit recommendations for other books about feminism, especially feminist theory. Felix CSNET fwy@cs.brown.edu UUCP uunet!brunix!fwy
rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro) (01/16/91)
In article <61282@brunix.UUCP> fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) writes: >I doubt that feminist terminology is so well established (and suspect >Richard would agree with me here). Yes, I agree. The term "radical feminism" has meant somewhat different things over the course of the movement. >[Felix, quoting from _Contemporary Feminist Thought_] > ... > In the evolution of feminist theory from Shulamith Firestone > to Mary Daly, the word "radical" shifted in meaning.... > In the definition offered by Mary > Daly, however, "radical" meant metaphysical, that is, it > referred to an inner voyage, and a retreat from political > struggle, a withdrawal from the attempt to enter the > structures of patriarchy on any terms. I think I was taking Daly's definition, or something close to it. In any case, one thing it does NOT mean is "feminism that's politically radical", which was the real point I was making. In many ways, Radical feminism (as characterized above) is quite backward. >My guess is that there is no widespread agreement as to what these >terms mean, and I am curious about Daly's definitions. How popular >have they become? I don't know how popular any of these theoretical distinctions are, but I do think it's become something of a standard in the literature, at least as a rough characterization. There may be wider agreement than you think. On the other hand, feminists (like other progressive thinkers) have unfortunately been splintering themselves into sects. No doubt this sectarianism continues to contribute to the confusion.
jym@berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (03/08/91)
> Consider the "radical feminist" for example. In an earlier > discussion, Richard Shapiro and I presented two competing > definitions: one advocates the elimination of certain social > structures, the other advocates the creation of women-centered > spaces. ___ __ I believe I can help here. It is true that a number of _ different schools of feminist thought have made efforts to appropriate the "radical" label. ___ __ "Radical" means a focus on the root. (The words are related, _ as in the "radical" symbol for square roots and the word "radish.") Bear that in mind as I go over the following varieties of feminism. These varieties are derived, in part, from Jaggar and Rothenberg's _Feminist_Frameworks_ (2nd edition), which is a worthwhile but incomplete reader that tries to sort out these various schools of feminist thought.) Radical Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of _ the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. ___ __ Ironically, this get-to-the-roots movement is the most root- _ less variety of feminism. This was part of its strength and part of their weakness. It was always dynamic, always dealing with factions, and always full of ideas. Its influence has been felt in all the other varieties listed here, as well as in society at large. ___ __ The best history of this movement is a book called _Daring_to_ _ _be_Bad_, by Echols. I consider that book a must! Liberal Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ This is the variety of feminism that accepts the structure _ of mainstream society and works to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from the start, proposing equality for women. ___ __ As is often the case with liberals, they slog along inside _ the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. Marxist and Socialist Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes _ the oppression to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist system. ___ __ Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical _ feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg point to significant diff- erences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. I think that says it best. ___ __ Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical," but _ they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system. Cultural Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism _ got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jagger and Rothenberg don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) ___ __ The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas _ radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. ___ __ Some of this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis _ centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). Feminism and Women of Color ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In _Feminist theory from margin to center_ (1984), bell hooks > writes of "militant white women" who call themselves "radical > feminists" but hooks labels them "reactionary" . . . ___ __ Hooks is refering to cultural feminism here. At any rate, _ her comment is a good introduction to that fractious variety of feminism that Jaggar and Rothenberg find hard to label any further than to designate its source as women of color. ___ __ I regard this variety of feminism with some sadness. It _ is a most vital variety, covering much of the same ground as radical feminism and duplicating its dynamic nature. Yet bad timing kept the two from ever uniting. For more information you might want to also read Hooks' book and her earlier reader, _Ain't_I_a_Woman?_ Anarcho-Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ Anarcho-feminism was never a huge movement, especially in the _ United States, and you won't find a whole lot written about it. I mention it mostly because of the influential work of Emma Goldman, who used anarchism to craft a radical feminism that was (alas!) far ahead of her time. ___ __ Radical feminism expended a lot of energy dealing with a basis _ from which to critique society without falling into Marxist pleas for socialist revolution. It also expended a lot of energy trying to reach across racial and class lines. Goldman had succeeded in both. ___ __ Radical feminist Alix Schulman realized this, but not in time _ to save her movement. She's put out a reader of Goldman's work and a biography, both of which I recommend highly. Eco-Feminism ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ A misnomer that I include for completeness' sake. This is _ actually socially-conscious environmentalism with a tiny smattering of the radical and cultural feminist observation that exploitation of women and exploitation of the earth have some astonishing parallels. The rest of "eco-feminism" turns out to be (*sigh!*) recycled socialism. ___ __ The Green movements of Europe actually do a better job of _ promoting an environmentally aware feminism, even though it's more an environmental movement than a feminist one. * * * > I would add that if "feminism" is practically meaningless, > and I believe it is, then it makes little sense to try to > subdivide it. ___ __ I find that making those subdivisions helps me deal with _ feminism much better. <_Jym_> (Certified Anarcho-Green Radical Feminist)
fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) (03/17/91)
(This is also in response to Jeanette Dravk's posting under the
subject heading "Re: The Equality of Men & Women".)
In an earlier article, I said "... if `feminism' is practically
meaningless, and I believe it is, then it makes little sense to
try to subdivide it."
Jym Dyer (jym@berkeley.edu) responds:
___
__ I find that making those subdivisions helps me deal with
_ feminism much better.
I admit that I felt more comfortable about feminism once I had a
(slight) grasp of its subdivisions. But it doesn't take a terribly
long time to acquire such an understanding and I am not convinced
that one must understand the nuances separating socialist feminism
from Marxism in order to practice a brand of feminism that rests on
a solid theoretical foundation.
If there is such a thing as an "average feminist", she is someone who
emits "feminist" rhetoric on the one hand, while denying the "feminist"
label on the other. Such is the state of feminism today and I think
we can attribute the ambiguity surrounding feminism to its chronic
subdivision.
I agree with Jeanette Dravk's statement about there being common goals
and rather than focus on the differences between the various camps, I
would rather focus on what these common goals are. Feminism will never
enjoy a broad base of support if its liberals and its radicals refuse
to even agree to disaree. I feel that such an understanding can only
come about if we stop talking about differences and start talking about
our "common" goals. A society that gives men and women equal oppor-
tunities does not necessarily give women (men) the opportunities that
men (women) currently have. Shouldn't we agree on our destination
before we argue over which route is best?
A final digression: returning to our "average feminist", her refusal
to wear the "feminist" label can be compared to people refusing to vote
in certain parts of the world. I remember growing up and learning how
certain governments did not hold elections and how others insured that
their "candidates" would win. I remember thinking how nice it was to
live in a country where "free elections" were held. Now the candidates
seem more and more alike and many run virtually or literally unopposed.
How will we know when the situation has deteriorated to the point where
not voting becomes the "correct" choice? Have we reached this point
already?
Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and they should not be associated
with my host computer's generous owner. I apologize if
you found this overly extremist.
Felix
CSNET fwy@cs.brown.edu
UUCP uunet!brunix!fwyellene@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen Mitsue Eades) (03/28/91)
I'm really glad that Jym posted his analysis of differing types of feminism, as they are (in my opinion) central to understanding why soc.feminism continually is the site of misunderstandings and ad hominem attacks on "feminists" at large. Certainly there are posters here who will attack (or defend) any kind of feminism at the drop of a post, but I also think that there is a lot of ignorance about the history of feminism and the different philosophies of feminism which make it easy to label all feminists with the same brush. Ellen (who moves through every single position in the feminist rainbow except that of the liberal feminist and doesn't plan to ever include that in her repertoire :-)
bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Bradford Rodriguez) (03/29/91)
I believe Individualist Feminism was omitted from the list. When I have a good description or historical references I may post them; right now my only reference on this subject is "Freedom, Feminism, and the State" by Wendy McElroy. - Brad R.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/04/91)
bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Bradford Rodriguez) writes: | | I believe Individualist Feminism was omitted from the list. When | I have a good description or historical references I may post them; | right now my only reference on this subject is "Freedom, Feminism, | and the State" by Wendy McElroy. I haven't seen this book. But individualism, at least as it's usually enunciated on the net, seems to me to be greatly at odds with any movement or body of thought that focuses on the special problems and qualities of a category of persons, e.g. feminism or the black liberation movement. The whole point of individualism is to discount the validity, if not the effect, of that sort of categorization and the relations that may go along with it. Therefore -- since the book contradicts expectation -- it seems like it might be pretty interesting. Who's the publisher? -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (04/04/91)
------ In article <9104030712.11574@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > ... individualism, at least as it's usually enunciated on the net, > seems to me to be greatly at odds with any movement or body of > thought that focuses on the special problems and qualities of a > category of persons, e.g. feminism or the black liberation > movement. The whole point of individualism is to discount the > validity, if not the effect, of that sort of categorization and > the relations that may go along with it. Implicit in the above criticism is the idea that such categorization is part of the goal, not just part of the problem. It is precisely here that there is considerable divergence between different feminist groups. Is the goal of feminism to break down old gender categories? Or to also reinstate new ones? Is the goal a society where male/female is not an important category in determining how one is treated in pursuing an education, a career, etc? Or is the goal a society where this category is still important, though in a different way than before? Someone who espouses an individualist philosophy does not necessarily dismiss the validity of such categories in analyzing problems, especially if the problems stem from inappropriate social reification of the categories, ie, the society imposes rules that *because* one is female one *must* A and one *cannot* B. But they are more likely to see solutions in breaking down these categories, rather than maintaining them and merely changing the rules. Noting that A and B are unfair, and so replacing them with C and D, will not change the fact that the rule is still 'because one is female, one must <something> and one cannot <something else>'. Russell
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (04/06/91)
gcf> The whole point of individualism is to discount the validity, if > not the effect, of that sort of categorization and the relations > that may go along with it. ___ __ Except that feminism arose to counter the treatement of women _ as nonindividuals. I grant that cultural feminism was into categorization, but it's certainly not true of feminisim _per_se_. > Therefore -- since the book contradicts expectation -- it seems > like it might be pretty interesting. ___ __ I'll lay even odds that it's just a marriage of libertarianism _ and feminism, with libertarianism as the dominant partner. If you *really* want to contradict those expectations, check out Alice Echol's _Daring_to_Be_Bad_ (radical feminism) and Emma Goldman's stuff (anarcho-feminism). <_Jym_>
bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Bradford Rodriguez) (04/07/91)
The best statement I've found (so far) for individualist feminism:
"Feminists want women to be free -- free of the domination of men,
free to control their bodies and psyches as they see fit, free to
make their own decisions about their own lives independent of the
coercive domination of others.
. . .
[Individualist] feminists believe that we can't achieve a non-
authoritarian society by authoritarian methods. If our goals are
personal autonomy and individual freedom, we can't achieve these
goals by taking away individuals' rights to choose for themselves.
If we pass laws that force _our_ values on others, we are no better
than men who have forced _their_ values on us through legislation.
We merely substitute our tyranny for the tyranny of men. Women's
liberationist Susan Brownmiller advocating anti-obscenity laws is no
better than Conservative James Buckley advocating abortion laws."
-- Sharon Presley and Lynn Kinsky,
as quoted in "Freedom, Feminism, and the State",
edited by Wendy McElroy
"Freedom, Feminism, and the State" is being reprinted by Holmes and
Meier, 30 Irving Place, New York NY 10003. You should probably
inquire of them directly as to where and when it can be found.
For more of the history of individualist feminism, I strongly recommend
the introductory essay of the book, "The Roots of Individualist Feminism
in 19th-Century America." You might also investigate the writings of the
18th and 19th Century feminists Mary Wollstonecraft ("Vindication of the
Rights of Woman"), Voltairine de Cleyre, Sarah Grimke, or Lillian
Harman.
- Brad
P.S. Thanks for pre-criticizing the book, Jym. Would you like to read
it sometime? (Talk about pre-judgment...sheesh.)
Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing)
B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
"Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic)rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (04/09/91)
In article <27FE2636.10564@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Bradford Rodriguez) writes: > > > "... want women to be free , > free to control their bodies and psyches as they see fit, free to > make their own decisions about their own lives independent of the > coercive domination of others. > . . . This statement applies equally to men as well, who have been just as socialized as women. For every woman conditioned to be a 'Damsel in Distress' there is a man who is conditioned to be a 'Knight In Shining Armor'. Both roles are tiring, unfair to the participants in different ways, and (in the total abscence of dragons) impractical role models to hold before our childrens eyes as we enter the Third Millenium. Michael