Comments Lounge
Word.
I think the case could be made that radical feminism has helped feminism , even if we're not where we dreamed we'd be.
thank you, flea, for being unafraid to speak with conviction. hear hear.
This reminds me of those who complain that drag queens and the fabulous hurt the fight for gay rights and if everyone would just behave and wait their turn, everything would be much better.
But Stonewall would never have happened without the drag queens getting fed up of being harassed.
That said, if you want to look for who has harmed feminism from within, look for those that would exclude others from it. There are those that would narrow the definition of a feminist with entrance requirements that exclude men, those women who never got to be girls, or to women who do not meet certain standards of behavior or ideology.
Some of these are radical feminist, some are quite mainstream. Some are professors who assign divisive theses instead of encouraging students to envision a better way.
Amen.
Amen, sister.
I want to know what school has a professor assigning students an essay on how radical feminism has hurt the cause of feminism, because that sure as hell doesn't sound like that liberal-bias-at-universities that David Horowitz's right-wing contingent is always railing against.
P.S. Any divisiveness between mainstream and radical feminists arises not from rad-fems hurting the cause, but from mainstreamers being too uncomfortable to embrace the more radical tenets. For example, I'm married and staying home with a kid, doing some freelance work. I'm not going to ditch my husband or work full-time right now, and I know those are concessions to the patriarchy (and concessions for which I receive ample societal approval). But as feminists get older, don't they generally tend to get more radical as they peel the wool from their eyes? I view rad-fems as the standard bearers, keeping the good fight alive when less brave individuals are content to cave in.
Wait, radical feminism has hurt feminism as a whole? In what way? Like Isaiah hurt Judaism?
Right the eff on.
Perfect answer.
*applause*
I am clinging to the hope that the letter writer is simply badly paraphrasing the essay topic but I suspect that hold is not very solid.
Hey, flea, you always seemed like a good feminist to me. I'd be more interested in the topic you suggest, or perhaps one on the effect and motivations of prominent anti-feminist women, or the shifting definition of "radical" in the history of feminism. How about the role motherhood has played within feminism? What about how radical Christians have hurt Christianity? How radical capitalists have damaged the economy? What kind of a political science class is this, anyway?
I'm not up on feminist reads but Sars at Tomato Nation is.
This link to her comment section has a lot of reader input for feminist reads: http://tomatonation.com/?p=1271
and this is a link to a search for the word "feminist" on her site:
http://tomatonation.com/?s=feminist
I also like CUSS (Campaign for Unshaved Snatch): http://www.cussandotherrants.com/
If that's what the essay has to be, the thesis could be something like "since radical feminists have enabled women to make so many gains over the years, feminism as a whole is attracting fewer women because more young women think the battle is already won."
Which would be kind of a fun way to spin the topic, but is unlikely to get you a good grade.
preach on.
who the hell is assigning this essay anyway?
Good thinking. I also agree with Lee about the divisiveness of some feminists being problematic. Positive feminism should be inclusive -- not exclusive. Otherwise, it's the flip side of the same discriminatory coin.
I'm pretty new here, but I just added you to my blog roll. All me best! - Melissa
Hi,
I guess I came across wrong in that email. The professor gave us a number of thesis statement to choose, and we may also choose the reverse of each. I am looking for a starting point for my research.
I'm a bit confused on this topic as well, along with some of the comments. Isn't the question 'how one branch of feminism has hurt feminism'? And isn't that a totally illogical question? And aren't additional statements to the same effect also somewhat illogical? I can't even think of an analogy to such a question, and that's usually my strong suit.
You know, I have to at least be thankful that the kids these days still know from Andrea Dworkin. God, when I was in college and thought in terms of RIGHT!! and WRONG!! I thought she was just the best thing ever.
Like Isaiah hurt Judaism?
HA!
Haley - as you can see there's some pushback on the premise you chose, so if you'd like some help maybe the next thing is to ask why you thought to approach the topic from this direction.
Do you think radical feminists have hurt feminism?
If so, how?
And why is that more interesting to talk about than other things?
And if you aren't quite sure of this topic you've chosen, or aren't quite sure what radical feminists say/think/do, are you doing this project to educate yourself about that, or to get enough information to prove your pre-arranged thesis?
Until you think about and answer *those* questions, I doubt you'll get much help (and I wouldn't trust any help you do get, were I you).
thanks funnie,
To clarify, I chose this topic out of 6 selections (none of the others had anything to do with feminism) The Prof gave us a thesis statement and we have the option of arguing its opposite.
I chose this topic over others because in addition to feeling strongly that pioneering women have made huge gains in society on my behalf, I do wish to educate myself on radical feminism as a whole. It is not my opinion at this point that Radical Feminism has hurt feminism. I do feel as though I should research the topic at hand before coming to any comclusions on my own. I asked for flea's help in pointing me towards feminist authors. I didn't really know of any until she mentioned Ms. Dworkin many months ago. Perhaps instead of mocking the thesis statement that my Professor gave to the class, someone could point me in the direction of some texts or journals that could disprove the thesis statement. That is the help I am seeking
Let me guess:
The teacher is a graduate of Liberty University, right?
I suggest starting by going to the library. Or Googling "radical feminism," seeing whose names come up and then going to the library.
I agree with Lee about narrowing the definition of feminism to meet entrance requirements, and it seems that something very simliar is going on here. I think the tone of this post (and certainly of the comments) is mocking in a way that makes me uncomfortable. What's wrong with the thesis that radical feminists have hurt feminism? I don't understand the defensiveness here, nor the lack of support for Haley. Not everything about historical feminism is shiny and perfect. There is a dark side to any historical movement, even if the overall outcome was positive.
You're kidding, right? Who in their right mind would assign such a harebrained essay topic? It's the radicals who start movements, not the moderates, for crying out loud.
That professor is lucky I'm not in the class.
I strongly take issue with saying the tone of my post was mocking. I do not enjoy being rude or making fun of people, and I made a genuine effort to disagree with the question while still remaining respectful to the questioner.
I even apologized in the middle of the post if I seemed harsh.
Jeez.
Also, I think these questions from funnie are worth considering:
...if you aren't quite sure of this topic you've chosen, or aren't quite sure what radical feminists say/think/do, are you doing this project to educate yourself about that, or to get enough information to prove your pre-arranged thesis?
Haley,
I would suggest beginning be defining what you mean by radical feminism. This will help your thesis, and I think I've just reiterated funnie.
Reading is the best place to start, Stanford have a great resource on feminism as a whole: http://plato.stanford.edu/entrie...eminism-topics/
the bibliography and other internet resources are a good place to start. I would suggest reading widely, then forming your own opinion and arguing. So ask your University librarian, they will be able to help.
Haley,
The Norton Book of Women's Lives (Paperback)
by Phyllis Rose (Editor) is a very readable collection of women's life experiences that might be useful in illustrating any conclusions you draw in your paper. A well formed opinion is generally both reasoned and felt.
I think the book she is looking for, or at least one which uses this thesis, is called "Who stole feminism" by christina hoff summers. It is a good book, (although a terrible audiobook.) However, it is not a good summary of feminism or radical feminism. So, preferably, she should also balance it out with other books.
Hmmm...I'm suspicious. Someone intellectually capable of the superciliousness involved in asking that "perhaps instead of mocking the thesis statement that [her] Professor gave to the class, someone could help point [her] in the direction of texts or journals" is surely also capable of just using the library to look up "radical feminist literature." I think it's more likely that Haley is looking for discussion around this subject to give her some angles for her essay. In which case, Haley, go check out the reliable I Blame the Patriarchy - you'll find digging around in Twisty's files to be fruitful.
I would deeply distrust any book by Hoff Summers, who is dishonest in her research as well as her motives. I assume I don't have to mention that to people on this blog, but I'll mention it anyway.
Flea, I take issue with your assertion that you might not be a very good feminist. I think you are a fabulous feminist, and all I have to do to back that claim up is to point to the blog entry regarding a conversation you had with the boys about not letting others bully small people. Sticking up for others is, in my view, the epitome of feminism, and I only wish I had been able to jump ahead in time, print off that essay and give it to my son years ago when he really needed it.
Hoff Summers' book is unsubstantiated drivel. Don't waste your time.
For a historically substantive discussion of "radical feminism," try Alice Echols' _Daring to be Bad_. Then read Becky Thompson's corrective essay, "Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology, in _Feminist Studies_ 28:2 (2002), 337-360.
You might be surprised.
s.
Frankly, I suspect that this entire post was composed specifically to drive angry pro-and anti-feminist traffic to Flea's blog, since she so obviously lacks readers.
Oh, hey, I'm kidding.
I would add to all of this that we should avoid being divisive, lest the Man bring us down from the inside.
Crap, there I go again. Okay, how about this? Haley is certainly capable of Googling "Radical Feminist Authors." However, she obviously admires Flea, who despite her self-degredation is definitely a wonderful feminist of her own fashioning. And remember, sometimes the best way to prove your point is to disprove the opposite view.
Bravo Haley for having the guts to reach out to someone whose views you find interesting and/or admirable in the hopes that you find more fodder for your studies. Certainly that's a lot more fun, thought-provoking and creative way to do research than to pull links off of Wikipedia (laugh not - I had a student who plagarized Wikipedia once, and didn't know why that was wrong).
Good luck in your thesis, Haley.
Yes, Haley and I are in cahoots. Don't trust us!
I completely agree with Flea. My own work takes issue with the positions of a number of radfems, but I consider it an intra-family squabble, and I'm grateful for what they give and have given to the movement(s).
As far as the essay goes... one of the keys to doing a good job on this essay will involve being very precise about how you define both "radical feminism" and "feminism." Also, remember that "radical feminism has hurt feminism as a whole" is not itself a thesis statement, in addition to bringing in the whole bag of criticisms that Flea rightly points to.
Here are some pieces off the top of my head that might help you get started thinking about radical feminism, some of the divisions that movement created among feminists, and some of the contributions that rad fems make/made:
Susan Brownmiller: In Our Time - Memoirs of A Revolution (this is for context--Brownmiller's Against Our Will is more primary source material)
Shulamith Firestone - The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution
Mary Daly - Gyn/Ecology
If you discuss Catherine MacKinnon, I also recommend that you discuss Wendy Brown's criticism of MacKinnon, which is applicable to much radical feminism. In fact, go read Brown's State's of Injury, regardless.
See also Pleasure and Danger: exploring female sexuality, ed. Carol Vance for "sex-positive" responses to rad fem anti-pornography/prostitution movements
Haley,
I hope this is not too late to be helpful to you. Here are a couple of issues that you might want to consider as you work on your paper. First, the paper topic as you have described it is very broad. As you can probably tell just by reading these comments, there are many different authors, points of view, claims, and arguments that get called "radical feminist" claims, arguments, and so on. Maybe it might be worth talking with your professor a little to see if you can't work to narrow down the topic a little? Second, and however that first issue might turn out, it's worth reminding yourself as you read that the question "has radical feminism hurt the cause of feminism?" is an ineliminably historical question. Self-identified radical feminists of the late 20th century like Catherine Mackinnon emerged (which is to say published and worked as activists) at a particular moment in what is generally referred to (somewhat inaccurately) as "second wave feminism". As much as any of us today, or anyone before them, feminists like Catherine Mackinnon were responding to what they saw as the flaws in the work of feminists before them. So, one question you really do need to ask to answer the question of whether radical feminists hurt or helped the cause is whether the vision of feminism we get in folks like, say, Catherine Mackinnon, is better or worse than the vision of feminism we get in those to whom Mackinnon was responding.
I, for one, think the answer is "on the whole, better." Some people posting here (perhaps most!) may be too young to remember this, but when Mackinnon published the book that made her famous-- Feminism Unmodified_ the vision of feminism that was most in 'vogue' was that which was advocated by Carol Gilligan and her ilk. Very very roughly speaking, Gilligan claimed that women (in general) see the world from a "care" perspective (a perspective that focuses primarily on relationships, and primarily care-taking relationships at that), while men (in general) see the world from a "justice" perspective. Gilligan and her followers argued that a "woman's" perspective of "care" had been undervalued, and that remedying sexism ought to consist, largely if not entirely, in valuing this "care" perspective. Gilligan's most well known work is called _In A Different Voice_.
Along came Mackinnon. Among other things that Mackinnon pointed out was that to the extent women (in general) do adopt a "care" perspective, that's really not all that surprising, since women--especially the middle class white women and girls the studies on whom Gilligan based her conclusions-- had the job (generally speaking) of taking care of everyone in their families. But the fact that [white, middle class, het] women generally speaking had that job was (and is) itself part of *sexism*. To put it crudely, women don't "care" all the time because we're built that way; we "care" for others all the time because the Patriarchy punis
oh dear, I'm afraid my comment above was so long it got cut off!
Here's the rest of what I was trying to say --
.. because Patriarchy punishes us when we do not. And to that extent, to reinforce the notion that "women" speak in a "different voice" which is the "voice of care" isn't a cure to sexism- it just reinforces sexism. That, again very very roughly, is why Mackinnon wrote "Women don't speak in a different voice. A lot, we don't speak... get your foot off our throats and we will hear in what voice women speak!"
But DO NOT take my anonymous word for any of this. You can check out Gilligan's book and any of Mackinnon's at the library (I'd particularly suggest _Feminism Unmodified_). And while you're there (even if you don't have time to read both those books), ask the librarian to help you get on lexus nexus and then tell it to search the Cardoza Law Review for the words Mackinnon and Gilligan. I wish I could remember off hand the exact year and volume, but it shouldn't be too hard to find--there is an issue of the Cardoza Law Review which contains a complete transcript of a live debate between Carol Gilligan and Catherine Mackinnon themselves. So you can look and see for yourself whether feminism would have been better off left in the hand of Carol Gilligan and her ilk!
Best of luck
radicals can hurt a movement, even though they may be required to start it... just look at what 'radicals' have done to Christianity. I'm not going to go around praising them for supporting the cause. So ya, 'radical' needs to be better defined.
Haley,
I've posted this comment elsewhere but I also hope this is not too late for you.
As someone mentioned earlier, your professor may be pushing the students to consider how fringe/radical and mainstream components of movements interact and push each other forward. Especially since this is a political science class, I would guess this is what the prof is getting at, especially if the other topics you had to chose from where similar questions about other movements.
As someone who studies political sociology, and spends a lot of time reading political scientists, this question is meant to get the student thinking about how radical political positions can often move a movement forward (any movement btw)- sometimes by making the mainstream movement a compromise position for its opponents, other times by challenging the mainstream movement regarding particular issues, etc. As movements obtain their objects, sometimes what was once a "radical" position becomes the new mainstream movement objective (and the old mainstream becomes, well, old). Someone else mentioned that movements are often founded by radicals, who then get pushed out as political compromises and alliances are made. Such schisms may also hurts movements with political objective (and I'm assuming, due to the class, you probably learned about the feminist movement as a movement with political goals, and the accomplishment of these political goals may be what your prof is concerned with. Obviously the feminist movement is more than that, but due to the field, this is what the prof would be concerned about).
The prof may also want the student to think about how radical fringes can hurt movements by engaging in tactics that the mainstream movement must disavow (like, let's say the Sierra club must disavow ELF fringe movement destruction of property) or that are extremely distasteful to the general public (tactics like Palestinian and Irish bombings of public places in Israel and England hurt the political causes they endorse and de-legitimate movement leaders in the eyes of the public and their political allies on the opposition side) and which actually do hurt the mainstream movement, and causes the mainstream movement to have to distance themselves even further from all radical groups that seem extreme in order to keep legitimacy.
The problem with the question you have chosen to answer, as constructed, is that feminism doesn't have the kind of extreme movements that other political movements do. The thing to think about is how formerly radical ideas, especially in feminism, have become mainstream, particularly regarding issues of the family and gender.
I apologize for not reading through all the comments to date... what I did read were GREAT! I want to recommend some stuff... and an alternate topic: how liberalism harms feminism. I agree... the white male right has done far more to hurt feminism and women, including radical feminism and radical feminists, personally, than any radical feminist has hurt feminism! Catharine A. MacKinnon has some excellent material on how liberalism-as-feminism has hurt [radical] feminism, or, as she has called it, feminism unmodified. See the book with that title: "Feminism Unmodified," (especially chapters 2, 7, and 15)and its more academic companion, also by C.A.M., "Toward A Feminist Theory of The State"(see especially chapters 3, 4, 7, ,8 and 12). Great analysis in those two books about how [white] liberalism harms women (as does [white] conservatism, of course). See also chapters 2, 5, 9, and 21, in C.A.M.'s book In MacKinnon's book: "Women's Lives, Men's Laws" see chapters 2, 5, 9, and 21.
For me, the difference between radical feminism and liberal feminism is that radical feminism asks and confronts the much more difficult questions, about ourselves and society; radical feminism, at least sometimes, does a better job of also tackling the problem of white supremacy, especially in Andrea Dworkin and Andrea Smith's work. [White] Liberalism seems content to basically leave things as they are, and fit women into patriarchy more equitably. That's not going to end rape; it'll just allow [race and class privileged] women more opportunity to do what privileged men do that needs to be critiqued rather than accepted as inevitable. "Letters From a War Zone" is a great "first book" if you're going to read Andrea Dworkin, also "Life and Death."
See this, also, from Letters From a War Zone. This sort of intelligent deep questioning, analysis, and making of connnections, tends not to happen in liberal feminism in my experience.
What follows is by Andrea Dworkin, a small portion of her speech: "I Want A Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape." This was a speech she delivered to 500 antisexist men.
[...] I mean that there is a relationship between the way that women are raped and your socialization to rape and the war machine that grinds you up and spits you out: the war machine that you go through just like that woman went through Larry Flynt's meat grinder on the cover of Hustler. You damn well better believe that you're involved in this tragedy and that it's your tragedy too. Because you're turned into little soldier boys from the day that you are born and everything that you learn about how to avoid the humanity of women becomes part of the militarism of the country in which you live and the world in which you live. It is also part of the economy that you frequently claim to protest.
And the problem is that you think it's out there: and it's not out there. It's in you. The pimps and the warmongers speak for you. Rap
And the problem is that you think it's out there: and it's not out there. It's in you. The pimps and the warmongers speak for you. Rape and war are not so different. And what the pimps and the warmongers do is that they make you so proud of being men who can get it up and give it hard. And they take that acculturated sexuality and they put you in little uniforms and they send you out to kill and to die. Now, I am not going to suggest to you that I think that's more important than what you do to women, because I don't.
But I think that if you want to look at what this system does to you, then that is where you should start looking: the sexual politics of aggression; the sexual politics of militarism. I think that men are very afraid of other men. That is something that you sometimes try to address in your small groups, as if if you changed your attitudes towards each other, you wouldn't be afraid of each other. [from this website: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/
...eChaptIIIE.html ]
See also this:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/...U/dworkin/levy/
Julian, that's a great speech of Dworkin's. Thanks for reminding me!
You're welcome! I'm sorry for the typos in my earlier post!
Good luck with this paper.
Commenting by HaloScan
