Feminist: We can't have a feminist future without abolishing the family.

[Silmarien]

Except that the radicals have the megaphone, and more moderate feminists are loathe to take it from them.

This is not true, actually. Radical feminism is a specific thing, not just extremist feminism--there was a schism in the feminist movement some time ago over the sexual revolution, and the radical feminists were the ones who lost it. It's the liberal feminists who have the megaphone now, and while they can be extreme too, the sort of thought associated with radical feminism is not at all mainstream.

I actually prefer radical feminism to liberal feminism, since I think they get more things right (e.g., the sexual revolution was a trick of the Patriarchy to have increased sexual access to women), but that's not the sort of thing you say in polite feminist company.

 

[tall73]

the sexual revolution was a trick of the Patriarchy to have increased sexual access to women

Who do you see as "the patriarchy" for the purpose of forming these "trick" strategies?

 

[Silmarien]

Who do you see as "the patriarchy" for the purpose of forming these "trick" strategies?

I think you meant to quote me? The general idea, amongst radical feminists, is that due to the inherent power imbalance between men and women, women are never empowered through sexual activity with men, but are always used. Radical feminists also hold that the relationship between men and women is inherently coercive, which leads to the infamous idea that all sex is rape.

The sexual revolution, therefore, becomes somewhat subversive to the underlying goal of feminism, since women are told by popular culture that they are more free when they make themselves sexually available to men. Radical feminists would point out that it isn't precisely the women who are benefiting from this new cultural standard.

The whole idea is... well, radical, but anyone who's run into a version of the "loosen up, don't be a prude" pick up line knows that there's some real truth behind it.

 

[tall73]

I think you meant to quote me?

Yes, and I am not sure how I quoted the other instead. Sorry about that, edited.

 

[tall73]

The general idea, amongst radical feminists, is that due to the inherent power imbalance between men and women,

By inherent, you mean it comes about naturally, or cannot be otherwise?

women are never empowered through sexual activity with men, but are always used. Radical feminists also hold that the relationship between men and women is inherently coercive, which leads to the infamous idea that all sex is rape.

You indicated you had somewhat more in common with the radical feminists than the liberal. Do you agree that women can never be empowered through sex?

And do radical feminists think sex in general is bad, even to further the species (as far as you can summarize their views)?

The sexual revolution, therefore, becomes somewhat subversive to the underlying goal of feminism, since women are told by popular culture that they are more free when they make themselves sexually available to men. Radical feminists would point out that it isn't precisely the women who are benefiting from this new cultural standard.

But the question was who do you think constitutes the patriarchy that planned this trick?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, and I am not sure how I quoted the other instead. Sorry about that, edited.

Ah. Hence the notification I got. No worries, though.

 

[Silmarien]

By inherent, you mean it comes about naturally, or cannot be otherwise?

It's been about a decade since I read any of them, though I suspect that they would think that patriarchy has a biological origin rather than merely a social one--the article in the OP certainly reflects such a view.

You indicated you had somewhat more in common with the radical feminists than the liberal. Do you agree that women can never be empowered through sex?

No. I'm somewhat more in line with Pope John Paul II's theology of the body--I think the danger of sexual objectification is omnipresent, but not insurmountable. I would say that radical feminists are engaged in reductionism, and thus go too far in declaring that sex is always coercive, but that liberal feminists naively overlook the darker side of sexuality and the ways in which social pressure plays a role.

And do radical feminists think sex in general is bad, even to further the species (as far as you can summarize their views)?

It would depend upon the radical feminist--that would be very extreme, but there are probably some anti-natalists out there. Many are lesbians, though, which is a bit of a problem, given that they're effectively talking about sexual relationships between men and women without really having any understanding of what it means to be attracted to men. They tend to claim that only lesbian relationships are acceptable (which then overlooks abuse between women).

But the question was who do you think constitutes the patriarchy that planned this trick?

Oh, I don't think that there was an actual conspiracy. I'd say that it was the double standard between men and women, along with really bad attitudes towards sexuality and a touch of Romanticism, that led to the sexual revolution. The problem was that none of the issues that led to the double standard were successfully addressed, so if anything, we have larger problems with male entitlement and abuse than we did before.

Hence, the Patriarchy always wins, and the whole thing was subverted to be the opposite of what it was meant to be. That's the trick I was talking about. "Patriarchy" in feminist jargon refers to the social structures that lead to inequality between men and women, not an actual group of people. It's part of the leftist tendency to personify all sorts of social patterns. Useful shorthand, but disastrous if taken too literally.

 

[RDKirk]

This is not true, actually. Radical feminism is a specific thing, not just extremist feminism--there was a schism in the feminist movement some time ago over the sexual revolution, and the radical feminists were the ones who lost it. It's the liberal feminists who have the megaphone now, and while they can be extreme too, the sort of thought associated with radical feminism is not at all mainstream.

I actually prefer radical feminism to liberal feminism, since I think they get more things right (e.g., the sexual revolution was a trick of the Patriarchy to have increased sexual access to women), but that's not the sort of thing you say in polite feminist company.

Okay, now you're throwing in a lot of additional split hairs: "Radical feminism," "extreme feminism," "liberal feminism"....and we already have at least four "waves" of feminism.

No.

Clearly women calling themselves feminists don't actually know who they are or what they want as a group. You each have your own idea of who you are and everyone claims not to be one of those who has the megaphone.

 

[tall73]

It's been about a decade since I read any of them, though I suspect that they would think that patriarchy has a biological origin rather than merely a social one--the article in the OP certainly reflects such a view.



No. I'm somewhat more in line with Pope John Paul II's theology of the body--I think the danger of sexual objectification is omnipresent, but not insurmountable. I would say that radical feminists are engaged in reductionism, and thus go too far in declaring that sex is always coercive, but that liberal feminists naively overlook the darker side of sexuality and the ways in which social pressure plays a role.



It would depend upon the radical feminist--that would be very extreme, but there are probably some anti-natalists out there. Many are lesbians, though, which is a bit of a problem, given that they're effectively talking about sexual relationships between men and women without really having any understanding of what it means to be attracted to men. They tend to claim that only lesbian relationships are acceptable (which then overlooks abuse between women).



Oh, I don't think that there was an actual conspiracy. I'd say that it was the double standard between men and women, along with really bad attitudes towards sexuality and a touch of Romanticism, that led to the sexual revolution. The problem was that none of the issues that led to the double standard were successfully addressed, so if anything, we have larger problems with male entitlement and abuse than we did before.

Hence, the Patriarchy always wins, and the whole thing was subverted to be the opposite of what it was meant to be. That's the trick I was talking about. "Patriarchy" in feminist jargon refers to the social structures that lead to inequality between men and women, not an actual group of people. It's part of the leftist tendency to personify all sorts of social patterns. Useful shorthand, but disastrous if taken too literally.

Thank you. And John Paul II's treatment was very thorough and thought provoking.

 

[Silmarien]

Okay, now you're throwing in a lot of additional split hairs: "Radical feminism," "extreme feminism," "liberal feminism"....and we already have at least four "waves" of feminism.

Oh, I was just explaining my use of the term "radical feminism," since you seemed to assume that I was implying that it was an extreme form of feminism that I thought was crazy and didn't like. It is the proper term for the school of thought that this article is associated with.

If you want to know the history, second wave feminism ended with the war between the liberal and radical feminists over whether things like prostitution and inappropriate contentography were liberating or oppressive. After that, things kind of spiraled out of control.

Clearly feminists don't actually know who they are or what they want as a group. You each have your own idea of who you are and everyone claims not to be one of those who has the megaphone.

No, it isn't a particularly united movement at this point, but even so, radical feminism is really not mainstream.

That doesn't mean that mainstream stuff can't get wild too, but the type of feminism represented in the article is much more controversial even within the movement.

 

[Silmarien]

The feminists you know typically vilify women for their own choice to be stay at home moms? Wow thats pretty out-there in my experience. And I hang with a fairly liberal bunch.

Do you have any stay-at-home moms in your group of friends? I have one who left a career in law to raise her kids, and she did face some "when are you going back to work? What are you going to do with your life?" style questions.

No outright vilification, but people do sometimes (often?) have trouble understanding it. And in certain dark corners of the feminist movement, they absolutely would tell you that you've been brainwashed by the Patriarchy and are being oppressed. I've actually run into something similar even with liberal Christian feminism, since if you're just a little bit too orthodox for them, it's because you've been misled by the Patriarchy and don't know what's good for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And someone published it, and enough people read it to make it worthwhile to publish additional editions. And professors are teaching it in colleges.

Right.

Realistically ,the only way to know if a belief is in the minority and considered "extreme" is to do a survey of feminists.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you have any stay-at-home moms in your group of friends? I have one who left a career in law to raise her kids, and she did face some "when are you going back to work? What are you going to do with your life?" style questions.

No outright vilification, but people do sometimes (often?) have trouble understanding it. And in certain dark corners of the feminist movement, they absolutely would tell you that you've been brainwashed by the Patriarchy and are being oppressed. I've actually run into something similar even with liberal Christian feminism, since if you're just a little bit too orthodox for them, it's because you've been misled by the Patriarchy and don't know what's good for you.

My good friend's wife left a career in law to raise kids too. I have two more friends who stay home with kids and do some (very small) farming. Another who stayed home for like 3 years and is just venturing out to work a few hours at the radio station here and there.

I know about the dark corners too. But the person I replied to makes it sound like all feminism in principle is a "dark corner". I get that. It threatens a particular biblical view of the place of women.

 

[Silmarien]

My good friend's wife left a career in law to raise kids too. I have two more friends who stay home with kids and do some (very small) farming. Another who stayed home for like 3 years and is just venturing out to work a few hours at the radio station here and there.

I know about the dark corners too. But the person I replied to makes it sound like all feminism in principle is a "dark corner". I get that. It threatens a particular biblical view of the place of women.

Well, I'd say that it's a bit more complicated than that, since views are being threatened in multiple different directions. There are actually strands of feminism like complementarian feminism, which does hold that men and women are different and are better suited for different roles, but then challenges the conception that "feminine" work is of lesser value than "masculine" work.

If complementarians dropped the hierarchical nonsense and worked towards this type of vision, they would be in much better shape, but mainstream feminists would still view them with skepticism and hostility, since it's the "wrong" type of feminism.

I would say that all of feminism is a "dark corner" insofar as it largely operates under the assumption that if you don't accept a particular narrative of what equality entails, you are the enemy. There is limited freedom of choice at the ideological level, so a woman who chooses to stay home for the "wrong" reasons is going to automatically draw disapproval (though probably not vilification).

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I'd say that it's a bit more complicated than that, since views are being threatened in multiple different directions. There are actually strands of feminism like complementarian feminism, which does hold that men and women are different and are better suited for different roles, but then challenges the conception that "feminine" work is of lesser value than "masculine" work.

That's what "second wave" feminists were saying in the 60s. They pushed for female activity in law, medicine, government, et cetera, precisely because women are different from men, and all social areas need that difference.

 

[Silmarien]

That's what "second wave" feminists were saying in the 60s. They pushed for female activity in law, medicine, government, et cetera, precisely because women are different from men, and all social areas need that difference.

Yeah, that could probably be considered a form of complementarian feminism. If you look at someone like Edith Stein, for example, she was a fairly traditional Catholic who pushed for women's presence in the workplace, but held to the understanding that they were different than men. I haven't read her thought specifically on the roles of men and women in marriage, but I would be surprised if there weren't at least some level of division of labor according to what she would view as the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each gender.

That is, of course, heresy in modern feminism. There's a considerable amount of dogmatism attached to the idea that men and women are identical, so saying anything else will get you chased out of town, even if you are a feminist. And it's not just the fringe outshouting everyone else--it's really the majority of the movement.

 

[public hermit]

There's a considerable amount of dogmatism attached to the idea that men and women are identical

Do you think this idea that men and women are identical is changing among some strands of feminism, such as trans-exclusionary groups like WoLF? Or, if not, how does that work?

 

[Silmarien]

Do you think this idea that men and women are identical is changing among some strands of feminism, such as trans-exclusionary groups like WoLF? Or, if not, how does that work?

No, I don't. The trans-exclusionary groups are radical feminists, so they're already ideologically different than mainstream feminists in the first place. I don't think the ones who are saying this sort of thing were ever on board with the claim that men and women were identical, so it's probably more of an outgrowth of old divisions than a new one.

 

[All Englands Skies]

Do you have any stay-at-home moms in your group of friends? I have one who left a career in law to raise her kids, and she did face some "when are you going back to work? What are you going to do with your life?" style questions.

No outright vilification, but people do sometimes (often?) have trouble understanding it. And in certain dark corners of the feminist movement, they absolutely would tell you that you've been brainwashed by the Patriarchy and are being oppressed. I've actually run into something similar even with liberal Christian feminism, since if you're just a little bit too orthodox for them, it's because you've been misled by the Patriarchy and don't know what's good for you.

Sounds like much of the feminist movement causes more division than it solves, thus it serves the bourgeois in its role of dividing the masses, another tool of the Capitalists.

Men and Women need to channel energy into something useful, a new form of Social-Syndicalism!

 

[RDKirk]

No, I don't. The trans-exclusionary groups are radical feminists, so they're already ideologically different than mainstream feminists in the first place. I don't think the ones who are saying this sort of thing were ever on board with the claim that men and women were identical, so it's probably more of an outgrowth of old divisions than a new one.

So then at this point, there is no usefully consistent meaning for the term "feminism." A woman calling herself a "feminist" could mean as many different things as there are women calling themselves "feminist."