Radical Feminism: Discuss

But seriously, if this thread is indeed serious, there is no ONE radical feminism.
in general, *radical* refers to the belief that society cannot be changed to include women equally socially, economically, or culturally, therefore social/cultural/economic revolution is needed.

Radical Feminism differs according to what school of thought you read. The first three have radical variants:

1. Marxist-feminist: the economy is what produces inequality. If you want to destroy inequality then destroy capitalism.

2. Lesbian-feminist: patriarchy is the root of inequality. Dismantle patriarchal social and economic relations and you will create a just and equal society. Compulsory heterosexuality is a part of patriarchy.

3. Cultural-feminist: the most utopian version. If we transform culture to valorize the female, then we will transform society.

4. Liberal feminist: We can change things using the present system. Liberal feminist theorists have said that extreme radical feminist positions are useful because they make mainstream feminist organizations like NOW look more reasonable in comparison,

5. Womanist: Black feminists who point out that "feminist" excludes race issues because it is assumed all women are white. Colonial history and relations of domination based on color are central concerns.

Knowing is half the battle

Having read several long threads here that have in some way involved feminism recently, I've come to realise I don't feel comfortable at all calling myself "a feminist". I think this comes from a vague disquiet I get when confronted with another woman saying I MUST be offended by certain wordings, certain attitudes, the existence of men, or whatever. I find I am far more intimidated by a "radical feminist" than I am by any male, be he sexist or not.

When I see feminist discourse like the above list (and seriously, I mean no offense to you, Orbit, I refer only to the text above on its own merits), I feel a bit sorry for people who spend their lives thinking in this way. Obsessing over every tiny detail of words, of meanings, of "the gaze", of media, whatever. It isn't all that far removed from a fundamentalist christian obsessing over pornography in the media, to bring in a (perhaps clumsy) parallel. If you immerse yourself constantly in this indignant angry "the world is fucked because men run everything and we are being shat on" attitude, then really, what kind of life is it?

I realised this when I saw that the strongest, most confident vocal women on ILX are the same ones saying "I really don't see a problem or feel intimidated by sexism".

I know this isn't an answer to the thread topic, but it felt like a good place to voice a view thats been percolating in my mind over the last week or so with various threads that have popped up.

I'm not sure I've well articulated my thoughts, which is a bit frustrating.

I have a pretty strong interest in politics and am currently doing what I can to help the Dean campaign in my city, and while uncompromising and radical viewpoints might indeed serve to make other political groups more centrist & mainstream, I have difficulty understanding.. uh.. how one can really espouse radical views for any length of time without stagnating.

It is interesting to note that according to what you have written, liberal feminists, (perhaps I should include myself in that category,) think radical feminism is helpful only insofar as it makes liberal feminists look reasonable. Which is to say, radical feminism is only helping the mainstream feminist cause, in this schema, by the negative effects & reactions it provokes.

Of course the come back is, 'well you can't agree on everything'. Of Course you can't but there are so many groups fighting for equality a a central plank then we might all as well fight for it together rather than apart. Single issue politics are the enemy of social progress. Yeah sure you can have your passions but in the end a few hundred people can't shout as loud as a few millions.

Orbit, I wasnt referring to any one thread (I actually had about 4 in mind, one of which I don't even recall you commenting on). My opinion above was actually a general one in my own life, not just online (I was thinking of people I knew who were feminist cinema theory students, for example).

The fact it is being discussed here has merely helped me to mull over why I feel the way I do, and while I respect anyone's view on the subject, I really don't understand why you seem to have such a persecution complex and think everything said is some direct attack on you. I even made a point of saying I was commenting on what you listed (which I found quite interesting) and not on you personally - ergo, I never implied you were in any way speaking for me.

Actually this just underlines why this topic makes me want to back off screaming. So I will. Ugh. Sorry everyone, I'll let those with more knowledge continue.

I used to find it neccessary to wave my feminism high like a flag. I was the chairperson of NOW at the largest uni in America throughout my college career and regularly spoke in front of crowds of tens of thousands folx, protested, once got punched by a priest in front of an abortion clinic, etc.

Then, I grew up.

I think we should speak of the post-identity politics personality as a 'patchwork' or 'paella' personality. For instance, a person might make the following statements about her identity:

I am a woman.
I am white.
I am middle class.
I am an English speaker.
I am an asthmatic.
I am a nature lover.
I am disabled.
I am rich.

and so on. Now, each of these mini-identities (and they could be extended infinitely) is pegged somewhere different on the scale of satisfaction, the scale of 'equality', the scale of objective advantage, pegged to earning capacity, pegged to social credibility, and so on. Let's imagine a revolution happens which benefits the disabled. Does it also benefit the rich? No, they have to pay more taxes so that wheelchair ramps can be built. Let's imagine black middle class asthmatics start a party which is swept to power. They immediately begin a program which benefits people like themselves at the expense of white working class paraplegics. And so on.

It's not that identity politics is wrong, it's that the world is 3D and shoe-horning something as complex as a human being into a single issue identity is never going to work.

also, perhaps a variety of patchwork politics is better than an overarching political stand, (which is actually a fallacy, because general politics is identity politics anyway)

Like Trayce I'm not university trained (not in this anyway) but I don't mind theoristy talking, as long as it's properly explained so we can understand it without too much prior knowledge. So far that's happening, so good.

Your list of 5 types of feminism is very useful Orbit.
There are obvious differences but they all seem to have the same goal of 'equality' between the sexes.
What strikes me is how, while seeking equality, they all intrinsicly treat males and females differently, somehow attempting to raise the esteem and opportunites given to women to be the same as that given to men. (I personally don't necessarily think that men have more opportunities or greater social standing).

I think what I'm trying to get at is that men and women _are_ different in so many ways. I bet you've at least consiodered my gender whilst reading this.
In my experience, for example:

Women are more playful;
more likely to be interested in flowers;
able to give birth.

Men are more likely to get physically agressive;
taller;
more interested in microelectronics.

Most of those things are general tendencies, obviously there are violent women and men who grow roses.
By treating 'men' as one group and 'women' as another feminists are confirming that they are different.

So what does equality mean?
In maths, 1+1+1+1 = 2 + 2 = 1 + 3 = 3 + 1 = 4 = 8/2 = etc.etc.etc.,
but whole numbers have just one property, namely what number they are.

How can such complicated things as human beings ever be equal?

Orbit, when you said this:
dunno.
-- Orbit (cstarrcstar...), August 31st, 2003.

I think that's great and it's the sort of answer that we need more of on ILE. Admitting you (I don't just mean you, I mean anyone) don't know something, or maybe haven't made up your mind or might change it should be such an easy thing to do but it rarely happens here, or anywhere else. It's also great that Orbit and Trayce had a misunderstanding and got over it and made up.
I'm glad you're staying.

Maybe all this makes me sound like a chair-person or something but all I'm trying to do is point out what I think are good things in simple language. Please take what I say at face value and I'm not trying to be patronizing (or matronizing!)

But if you put 'gay' in front of men, does all that remain true?

General statements about gender tend to cleave to stereotypes and to conjure a male whose maleness is not just stereotypical, but is his 'master identity' rather than just another petal in his 'identity bouquet'.

throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a good idea though.

i definitely identify as a feminist, i guess i am a cultural feminist. i used to have a lot stronger opinions about feminism but these days i am more about asking questions than giving answers. i might write something better on here when i'm less tired and distracted.

Personally, regarding this radical feminist thing, I'm not convinced that history has given us lots of examples of revolutions that achieved their aims, and I think there are still lots of gains to be had in the current sociopolitical structure, so I'm still in favour of pitching for gradual change. There is still loads for feminism to do - the number of countries with equal pay for women: zero. The number of women killed by their partners a week in the UK: two. The number of women victims of domestic violence, a crime still not taken very seriously by much of the legal and political establishment: MILLIONS!

I'm as quick to jump on language (for instance) that I think is sexist (or racist or homphobic, etc.) as anyone, and I frequently get angry about such things, even here, but I think the general atmosphere, the ground attitude, here is about as anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homphobic and so on as anywhere I've ever been, and far better than almost anywhere. There's the odd misogynist (or racist or homphobic) person who turns up, but they are not welcomed and it's rare that they stick around. If the best someone can cite as ILX's hostility to women is someone saving IM chats involving women that's pretty good, I think. (That it turned out that he just saves chats generally is a separate point.)

Some liberal feminist theorists may highlight extreme radical feminism as a boon to the liberal cause. Just as Orbit says, "[radicals] make mainstream feminist organizations like NOW look more reasonable in comparison". What they also do - not intentionally, but by allowing a target for easy exaggeration by anti-feminist media - is create a highly negative and all-pervasive image of "The Feminist", that boiler-suit-clad bulldyke bugbear of the eighties, all pamphlets and man-hatred. And even after this fades from the public consciousness you're left with the idea that there is only one feminism and to disagree with one of its precepts or behaviours is to be a non-feminist. Which is the equivalent of saying "a woman is a human being who wears skirts: I do not wear skirts, therefore I am not a woman."

I consider myself a feminist, and I'm grateful for the things which previous generations of feminists (including in this def. suffragists and anyone who has supported the equality of women) have given me the possibility to do: vote, work as a plumber, plan to go to university and get a degree, support myself without losing social status, &c. What they've given me is a greater equality of opportunity than I might have had in other eras. Ideally, equality of opportunity should work across the board, for all people, regardless of gender or race or economic status: feminism is only part of the struggle, can alone only deal with one set of problems tied to one factor.

I think, Mei, it's not really a question of "how can such complicated things as human beings ever be equal?" - people will never all be of equal economic status, equal interest in film, equal map-reading ability. But they should, and I believe can, be given an equal right to choose what to do with their lives; to be constrained by temperament and personal ability, not by a blanket definition of what 'their type of people' should do, how 'their type of people' should live. If a woman wants to be a housewife, she should be allowed to; if she wants to be an academic, if she wants to be a sex worker, if she wants to clean toilets, if she wants to drive trucks, if she wants to be the CEO of a lucrative company - if it's within the bounds of ethics and within her ability, a woman should not be prevented by her gender from doing anything that she wants to, or needs to, do. That, to my mind, is the heart of what feminism is about.

she shouldn't be forced to be financially dependent for this, either, of course.

if it's within the bounds of ethics and within her ability, a woman should not be prevented by her gender from doing anything that she wants to, or needs to, do. That, to my mind, is the heart of what feminism is about.

This I agree with 100%, so I thank you for saying this cis, you've helped clarify my thoughts even further.

I have two brothers and no sisters, and so I've grown up very comfortable and "I can hold my own" around men of all ages and attitudes. I'd just as happily call out a brother, boss or stranger if I felt my personal rights were being impinged upon. I won't let anyone get away with shit at a personal level. Obviously though I'm less able to influence things like my level of pay compared to men, media attitudes, or sex selling cars on TV. I think I feel there's the personal and the universal kind of feminism, and my life view, selfish as perhaps it may be, tends towards the personal, and in that arena I feel I can be and am being all I want to be.

I hope I'm not being too muddled here! Heh.

Surely this statement is in itself slightly misandrist (sp.?). Why can't we put identityback where it belongs, i.e how we define ourselves, instead of using it to define our tribal selves against one another.

good feminists are already aware of this.

ed, i don't see how thats a misandrist statament at all.

Does Momus read his own posts and ask "is this actually germane to the discussion, or is it just me again, trying to put spin on something that makes me feel uncomfortable?"

I don't think we can define ourselves as *ourselves* until we stop defining ourselves so much as part of a tribal self, and the only way to lessen the impact of the tribal-self concept is to try and ensure that no tribal self is strengthened above any other.

i have run into many bad feminists in that case. i'm really not trying to pick any kind of argument or anything here, just that after several years in academia doing an arts degree at within a gender and sexuality-obsessed faculty, i react reasonably badly to capital "F" feminism simply coz i found a huge amount of it kneejerk, nonsensical and vastly counterproductive in the sense that it obscured debate on wider issues such as class and race, which i happen to think were far more germane in a predominantly white middle-class environment (as most university english departments are!), especially when no one in three years made any discernible misogynist or homophobic statements. to be fair, no one ever stood up and said "hello my name is heinrich and i am a committed national socialist" either, but i hope you can see what i am saying in relation to concentration on an issue which i see as having already won many of its ideological and practical battles preventing an insititution/group looking at itself and noticing how its predominantly white, middle-class bias was indicative of other social issues which needed addressing far more urgently... i think this works in the context of society as a whole, too, not just my own academic experience. i suppose we all have our own concerns/biases/chips on shoulders etc which make us want to prioritise certain issues (mine being fairly transparent here) but the fact that i think class and race are for more important issue than sexism now solely focuses on the fact that i think feminism has, for the most part, achieved its goals. not that there aren't still certain inequities, but they're now much less pressing than those of poverty, racial prejudice etc in my view. of course, i consider myself a reasonable human being and as such would say that i am a pretty decent advocate of women's rights (or as decent as i can be!) but only as part of the bigger picture...

Hey nice floral metaphor btw.

Feminism, although it's a social science like economics, has a much different history because of the ideas/tradition of social change and consciousness-raising that's gone on in the various 'waves' of feminism. Because feminists in leadership positions promoted their ideas as something everyone could participate in, there is a sort of popular language and understanding of feminism (for better or worse) as an activist/participatory culture. Everyone sort of understands economics a little bit, but no-one is having kitchen table meetings to talk about how they can affect the demand curve.

This could be a terribly faulty comparison; the point I'm trying to make is that feminism is in a difficult place because it's at once tied up in the language of academia and the issues of everyday people.

Aw, this is too bad. Can you imagine the heated debates over diminishing marginal utility and how much it *should* affect the demand curve? *grins* Besides, it is sorta nice in a math/econ geek sort of way to think of giant whiteboards being installed in kitchens everywhere across the country so that P-Q plots can be drawn up.

yes it is it is...

--academia -- academic feminists participate in activism and grassroots organizing. they also participate in policymaking and advocacy for those who don't have the power to protect their rights. there may be a difference in film crit/lit crit, where they might not to the extent that the social science people do.

-sex vs. gender: Gender is the social meaning given to biological characteristics (sex)

-theory vs. praxis: Is feminism a philosophy, and therefore useless mental circles that can't change anything OR is feminism something that happens in women's everyday lives, and is about activism and changing the world that is immediately around *you*?

-the gender binary: current thought is this--gender is a two sided coin. you can't talk about women's oppression without realizing that men also contribute to excluding women AND other women exclude each other as the price of being accepted in a make world.

patriarchy oppresses men by imposing an oppressive masculinity that estranges them from culturally unacceptable feeling (emotions) and expects them to act in callous ways (the locker room, the can't-you-take-it [pussy] attitude, equating women with weakness, women are an insult (bitch, cunt, pussy, whore, ho, skank, slut vs. the one word we have for men: dick and no word that is equivalent to the others).

Patriarchy (meaning society is set up by and for men because we can't escape the history that made it that way--it's in place, what we inherited) oppresses men and women by demanding compulsory heterosexuality.

--gender and sexuality are now discussed as a continuum, where there are degrees of:

1. conforming to the gender stereotype of the culture you live in
2. conforming to the biological sexuality you have (e.g. intersexed babies, ambiguous chromosomes, sex assignment at birth surgery, transsexual)

--diversity and inclusion: see bell hooks "All of the men are black, all of the women are white, but some of us are brave". recent feminism has indeed pointed out that every individual is a collection of difference social, economic, cultural, and historical standpoints, and people and institutions in society treat them differently as a result. feminism has grown into a movement that seeks a more just society in general, and race, class, and gender all intertwine.

--feminism and change: feminism is about viewing things simultaneously from your standpoint and connecting your experience to that of women as a group. There will be some things you share and some things you don't. For example, women still make about 75 cents to the man's dollar in wages for doing the exact same job. [these are US gov't figures, so look it up, don't de-rail by asking me to look it up for you. start at www.fedstats.gov]. If you are a woman, you share that with other women, even though you might not share other ideas about sexism, or what is and isn't sexist. So you might want to join other women in actions that aim to close the wage gap.

--privilege: sexism like racism, is institutional. meaning
prejudice: the beliefs an individual holds
racism/sexism: social institutions and laws are set up in a way that systematically denies opportunities/ignores the concerns and realities of the lives of the group involved. Example: gay marriage. That is is illegal in most of the US ignores the reality of lesbian and gay lives. The structure is not set up to take them into account. This is just one example.

--privilege: no one thinks they participate in a racist/sexist system, and no one thinks they have privilege. Example: a black person applies for a job and doesn't get it. they wonder "is it because i'm black?" if you are white you never have to ask the question. You are free from that and you don't even realize it. if you are male and you tell a sexist joke you don't have to wonder how it might make women around you feel, because the social pressure on them is so great you know they won't say anything about it. This is called "silencing". Silencing the voices of others includes belittling them, trivializing thenm (don't you have a sense of humor?) [when it comes to serious issues being trivializes, and as domestic abuse and childhood abuse survivor NO I DON'T because it is not funny. Do I have a sense of humor when people are not trying to trivialize serious things? YES I DO].

--being a woman doesn't mean you have a feminist political awareness (meaning are you really up in it, do you know what people are discussing or just your stereotype of it)

--there are all kinds of feminists, feminisms, and definitions of feminism and the good thing is when people talk about them.

"two weeks."

In that case I might just be a feminist, because I too believe any woman should have the right to do all those things.

I'm trying very hard to think of examples of something men can do that no woman can, or vice versa, and failing. Child birth maybe.

what is "equality"?

I think what I'm trying to get at is that men and women _are_ different in so many ways. I bet you've at least consiodered my gender whilst reading this.
In my experience, for example:

Women are more playful;
more likely to be interested in flowers;
able to give birth.

Men are more likely to get physically agressive;
taller;
more interested in microelectronics.

other than the biological characteristics, this is complete bullshit, even given your qualifiers. i'm willing to believe that these characteristics are prevalent within your experience (outside the US?), but your experience is filtered through what you are taught just as people fill gender roles based upon what they are taught, how they are socialized. thus, saying "men are" or "women are" suggests something innate too easily.

ppl talk like there's only one type of gay guy, the faggy, campy hairdresser/florist type. What about all the footy playing, hairy, macho gay guys n bears?

which is just another stereotype, though many ppl play the role. what about the guys (or girls) who are not satisfactorily depicted by any stereotype (like almost everyone on earth) but happen to be gay?

it is sorta nice in a math/econ geek sort of way to think of giant whiteboards being installed in kitchens everywhere across the country so that P-Q plots can be drawn up.

popular discussions of anything academic would be interesting, but as respects econ 101 (which admittedly i never had much success in, and should know more about) most people sate their need for certainty in less complicated ways. < /zing>

Patriarchy (meaning society is set up by and for men because we can't escape the history that made it that way--it's in place, what we inherited) oppresses men and women by demanding compulsory heterosexuality.

who exactly is a "Patriarchy" (or, what does it mean that society is "set up by and for men"; what is "society")? how is heterosexuality "compulsory" and who demands that it be so?

no one thinks they have privilege

this is complete bullshit. i am intensely aware of being privileged as a matter of class, and in other respects. you're presuming to speak for everyone in the world here.

More recent feminism, and some things that link with music and popular culture =

Works Cited

Ang, Ien. 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London and New York: Routledge.
Appadurai, Arjun. ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1973. Mythologies. London:Paladin.
Bayton, Mavis. 1997. Women and the Electric Guitar. . Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. Shiela Whiteley, ed. New York: Routledge.
Becker, Carol, ed. 1994. The Subversive Imagination: Artists, Society, and Social
Responsibility. New York and London:Routledge.
Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. [1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buker, Eloise A. 1996. “Sex, Sign, and Symbol: Politics and Feminist Semiotics”. Women
& Politics Vol.16(1). Pp. 31-54.
Cohen, Sara. 1997. Men Making a Scene: Rock Music and the Production of Gender.
Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. Shiela Whiteley, ed. New York: Routledge.
Conal, Robbie. 1992. Art Attack: The Midnight Politics of a Guerrilla Artist. New York:
Harper.
Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, eds. 1995. Cultural Politics and
Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple.
Duncombe, Stephen. N.d. (Circa 1996). “Revolution Grrrl Style Now”. Presented at the
Annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
Duncombe, Stephen. 1997. Zines and the Politics of Alternative Culture. New York:Verso
Eagleton, Terry. 1990. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Ewen, Stuart. 1988. All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture. New York:Basic.
Felshin, Nina, ed. 1995. But is it Art?:The Spirit of Art as Activism. Seattle:Bay Press.
Foucault, Michele. 1980. The History of Sexuality: Vol 1, An Introduction. New York: Vintage.
Frith, Simon. 1981. Sound Affects:Youth, Leisure, and the Politics of Rock’n’Roll. New York:Pantheon.
Gans, Herbert. 1974. Popular Culture and High Culture.New York: Basic.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. [1932]. Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Griswold 1987. The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary Interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. American Journal of Sociology. 92 (2987): 1077-1118.
--- 1981. American Character and the American Novel: An Expansion of Reflection Theory in the Sociology of Literature. American Journal of Sociology. 86: 740-65.
Guerilla Girls. 1995. Confessions of the Guerrilla Girls
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture:The Meaning of Style. London and New York: Methuen.
--- 1988. Hiding in the Light. New York: Routledge.
Hennesey, Rosemary. 1993. Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse. New
York and London:Routledge.
Hooks, Bell. 1994. Outlaw Culture:Resisting Representations. New York and London: Routledge.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. 1987 [1944. ]Dialectic of Enlightenment trans.
John Willett. New York: Continuum.
Johnston, Hank, and Bert Klandermans, eds. Social Movements and Culture.
Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Juno, Andrea. 1996. Angry Women in Rock Vol. 1. New York: Juno Books.
Kearney, Mary Celeste. 1997. “The Missing Links: Riot Grrrl – Feminism – Lesbian
Culture”. Pp. 207-229 in Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. London and New York:Routledge.
Leonard, Marion. 1997. “Rebel Girl, You are the Queen of my World: Feminism,
Subculture, and Grrrl Power”. Pp. 230-256 in Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. London and New York:Routledge.
Long, Elizabeth. 1985. The American Dream and the Popular Novel. Boston: Routledge.
Lupoff, Richard. 1965. Edgar Rice Burroughs: Master of Adventure.
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London:Routledge.
McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements:Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures
and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McKay, George. 1996. Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance Since the Sixties.
New York: Verso.
McRobbie, Angela. 1991. Feminism and Youth Culture:From Jackie to Just Seventeen. Boston:Unwin Hyman.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. London, Oxford, and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Penley, Contstance. 1992. “Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and the Study of Popular Culture”. Pp.479-94 in Cultural Studies, edited by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A. Treichler. New York:Routledge.
McKay, George. 1996. Senseless Acts of Beauty:Cultures of Resistance since the
Sixties. London and New York: Verso.
Melucci, Alberto. 1985. “The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements”.
Social Research. Vol. 52 No. 4. Winter. pp 801.
Moscowitz, Samuel. 1952. Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom.
Meyer, Davis S. and Nancy Whittier. 1994. “Social Movement Spillover”. Social
Problems. Vol. 41(2), May. Pp. 277-298.
Nelson, Cary and Grossberg Lawrence. We Gotta Get out of This Place.
Penley, Constance. 1992. “Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and the Study of Popular
Culture”. Cultural Studies. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A. Treichler, eds. New York and London: Routledge.
Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature.
Raphael, Amy. 1995. Grrrls: Viva Rock Divas. New York: St. Martin’s.
Scott. James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everydya Forms of Peasant Resistance.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic:A Feminist Sociology.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Straw, Will. 1997. Sizing up Record Collections: Gender and Connoisseurship in rock
music culture. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. Shiela Whiteley, ed. New York: Routledge.
Swedberg, Richard. 199X. “Markets as Social Structures”. Handbook of Economic
Sociology.
Taylor, Verta and Nancy Whittier. 1992. “Collective Identity in Social Movement
Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization”. Pp. 104-130 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven and London:Yale University Press.
Turner, Victor. Drama, Fields, and Metaphors.
Vale, V. 1996. Zines! Vol. I. San Francisco, CA:V/Search.
Warner, Jr., Harry. 1969. All Our Yesterdays.
Wertham, Fredric. 1973. The World of Fanzines:A Special Form of Communication.
Carbondale and Edwardsville IL:Southern Illinois University Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.

if you are male and you tell a sexist joke you don't have to wonder how it might make women around you feel, because the social pressure on them is so great you know they won't say anything about it

not where I come from.

and gabb, that was an example. and you are not the whole world either, and can't speak for others. i was sumarizing, not speaking for others.

, and actually i can post another more selective bib if you like, more hooks, pat hill collins etc etc. but this was the one most handy.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, for example:

Women are more playful;
more likely to be interested in flowers;
able to give birth.

Men are more likely to get physically agressive;
taller;
more interested in microelectronics.

Most of those things are GENERAL TENDENCIES, obviously there are violent women and men who grow roses.

other than the biological characteristics, this is complete bullshit, even given your qualifiers. i'm willing to believe that these characteristics are prevalent within your experience (outside the US?), but your experience is filtered through what you are taught just as people fill gender roles based upon what they are taught, how they are socialized. thus, saying "men are" or "women are" suggests something innate too easily. -- gabbneb (gabbne...), August 31st, 2003.

I do live outside the US but I don't know why that would make a difference.

Yes my experience is filtered through what I am taught I guess, but these things are my own observations.
I've been told (news, newspapers, documentaries, etc.) that men are more likely to get physically agressive and that tallies with my observations.
I'm sure someone must have told me at some point that women are able to give birth, I've never seen it actually happen except on TV.

The other four things above no one has ever told me, I've just seen it.

people fill gender roles based upon what they are taught,
Very true, that helps explain WHY men and women behave (generally, in my experience) in different ways but it DOES NOT contradict my assertion that (generally, in my experience) they DO behave differently.

thus, saying "men are" or "women are" suggests something innate too easily.

I think you're guilty of jumping to conclusions here, based on what you've been taught or experienced. I am not trying to suggest anything innate at all. Though I do believe there are some (generally, in my experience) innate differences I've not said anything about them in what I've written so far.

"twooo weeeeeeks."

"but whole numbers have just one property, namely what number they are."

------------------------
That's not fair to the integers--they have lots of fun properties. 2, say,
has the properties of being 2, the {square root of 2} squared, the square root of 4, the set of all numbers that satisfies
(-infinity, 2) < x < (2, infinity), etc etc.

As far as feminism goes, Cixous can do but er um bell hooks is smartre.
-- adam (hexenductio...), August 31st, 2003.
------------------------

Okay, I was trying tacitly to _keep_ it to integers which would rule out yr root two problem but yes I should have used a better word than 'property'.

What I really want to say is that any number (cardinal, integer, rational real, or indeed any number (ONE DIMENSIONAL) NUMBER PEDANT!!! :-) )) _is_ (can be completely defined by/represented by) just a single number.

But saying a number is just a number whilst being true seems too tautological and I don't think illustrates what I was trying to get at. Once you know that the number you're talking about is, say, two then you know EVERYTHING about it.
All the properties you listed immediately follow.

BTW this:

the set of all numbers that satisfies (-infinity, 2) < x < (2, infinity)

Is well dodgy. You're confusing numbers and sets.

I'm going to ignore the (slight) possibility that you're using x to represent a set here and defining < to operate on sets because you were talking of the _number_ 2 immediately above.
(Yes, I know the integers can be defined as sets...)

Firstly you've not said what x is, reword to:
the set of all real numbers x that satisfies
(-infinity, 2) < x < (2, infinity)

I've said real to rule out the possibilty that something like
2<= 2 + i <=2 could cause a problem.

You want to include 2 in the ranges, so:
the set of all real numbers x that satisfies
(-infinity, 2] < x < [2, infinity)

But the less than relation is usually defined as being between two numbers, not a number and a range as you've shown, so you should have something like:
the set of all real numbers x
that satisfy 2 <= x <= 2

But this is still a set not a number, so what you really want is:
2 is the unique member of the set of all real numbers x that satisfy 2 <= x <= 2

I bet I've made a stupid mistake in there, hope you have as much fun spotting it!

***MATHS SUB-THREAD ENDS***

I've no idea how this is going to look cos i can't get it past the HTML checker for now, but anyway...

I'd like to know too. I think women play just as big a part in Patriarchy as men, whatever it is.

"if you are male and you tell a sexist joke you don't have to wonder how it might make women around you feel, because the social pressure on them is so great you know they won't say anything about it"

not where I come from.
-- gabbneb (gabbne...), August 31st, 2003.

Certianly not round here either.

--being a woman doesn't mean you have a feminist political awareness (meaning are you really up in it, do you know what people are discussing or just your stereotype of it)

I think the second paragraph here is gently 'silencing' women who are not active feminists.
Perhaps the men who tell these jokes aren't doing it on purpose?

And about RJG's trolling. I think that's the disguise Arnold Swarzenegger's character wears in Total Recall when he's trying to get past customs, he says he's staying for "two weeks".
When he's found out the woman's face splits open and reveal a man inside.

Still don't really see what that has to do with anything.

oh yeah and i am in the USA, where the majority of women who are murdered are murdered by their spouses, domestic partners, or boyfriends.

just raising questions - i wonder about the sex breakdown of US murder victims. i wonder whether the majority of men who are murdered are murdered by someone they know. i imagine that the majority of murderers are men. i wonder if the last is the best way to view this subject.

when it comes to serious issues being trivializes, and as domestic abuse and childhood abuse survivor NO I DON'T because it is not funny

this may be inappropriate and if so i apologize in advance and anyone is welcome to get rid of this part of my post, but you raised the point so i'll go with it in one direction - do you think feminism is more important than childhood abuse? is the latter part of the former and is it discussed enough?

Do I have a sense of humor when people are not trying to trivialize serious things? YES I DO

i find it disturbing when people trivialize serious things as well. i once almost got into a physical fight (which would be like unheard of from me and which i would undoubtedly have lost resoundingly) with a friend - the grandson of a former supreme court justice, no less - who didn't vote in a national election because the line was too long. but joking about a serious subject does not necessarily trivialize it, and intentions can be misread on here if you're unfamiliar with someone or can't discern their tone. some of the most outspoken political people i know are quite willing to be funny or ironic about things that are quite important to them.

also, because thrice is nicer than twice - "this is complete bullshit"

RJG is being TRULY offensive and disrespectful, and further he is creeping me out.

Why on earth should we have to think about which of those two things is more important? They both are!

(gabbneb, if I understand what you're getting at, you're suggesting that someone might become a feminist _because_ they were abused. If that is what you're hinting at then please start another thread, this one is complicated enough already)

for instance sometimes you start thinking of women in a context separate from every other reality. like saying on this list, women should be able to do anything they want: be a housewife or a brain surgeon or a sex worker or a pro athlete. well, can anyone regardless of sex do those things? or are the class, economic, legal, and skill-set obstructions? then you get into all the other messy factors of life that prevent people everyone from achieving what they want to do. and can we judge whether what they want is valid or not and worth fighting for (ie. what does a housewife do)?

Lolita, youre second paragraph particularly sums up very nicely a lot of what I think. Thanks.

RJG, was I right about it being from Total Recall?

I have a whole spiel about theorising killing identity politics (and socialism which is the catchall for all equality issues) by taking control of the fight away from people most affected by inequality and reducing it to factional bickering by people who weren't really that oppressed in the first place, but we'll come to all of that tomorrow.

Radical Feminism: sees male supremacism (patriarchy) as the root of societal ills; strong focus on the politics of biology. One version of radical feminism is political, rationalist, and theoretical; feels women's biology (birthing, menstruation, etc.) under patriarchy limits women's access to and power in the public sphere; rejects viewing women as closer to nature.

This is from an "eco-feminist" web site (ugh), but it's close enough.

Most people use the term disparagingly, because they don't know what it is at all.

I don't have time to write about this too much, but the key book is Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. I don't think there are too many radical feminists around these days, in spite of what conservatives say (the ones they call "radical" are in fact "liberal"). Radical feminists used to question economics and the nuclear family - all sorts of things. Radical doesn't mean "extreme", it just means getting to the root of something.

Liberal feminism - see "PC". Liberal feminists don't question institutions too much - many of them are far too in love with our criminal justice system IMO, to give one example.

Very good point Di, but I have to argree with Ed also in the sense that this goes back to me saying I don't feel confident in discussions like this (in fact I have a thread topic on this subject I will start later today) due to my not-so-hifalutin education.

It isnt so much a matter of social positioning, as I know a lot of people from less well-off backgrounds can get uni education but I feel personally that having had a university education gives people an advantage when it comes to defining the feminist canon (or whatever else). You'd hardly see a Bolivian factory worker coming in here espousing like someone like Momus (and thats a damn shame), and Ed's OTM - aren't the dispossesed the ones who need the voice most?

If that came across in any way patronising I didn't mean it too. Dammit I feel like what I want to say doesn't come out how I want it to grr.

heh.

Er, best not derail this very good thread, do carry on :)

However I am super-sympathetic towards many aspects of radical- and eco-feminism, especially insofar as they helped me to politically contextualise my own homosexuality. I think the root'n'branch critique of patriarchy and gender relations is urgent and key, and it ties into the more general processes by which we are all interpellated as subjects. The mistake of dumbed-down radical feminism is to ignore the fact that patriarchy is only a second-level simulacrum of the insubordination of society (by which I mean that gender oppression is a sub-set of oppression of the subject), and thus to assume that it really is just a case of womanhood vs the patriarchy.

I assume this happens for three reasons: a) the comforting thought that liberation from patriarchy is the loose end trailing from the ball of string making up liberation of the subject (radical socialists also do this vis a vis class liberation); b) a sense of intellectual security gained by devising a heirarchy of oppressions which confers upon its deviser an unambiguous response to any ambiguous (read: complex) problem (radical socialists also do this etc.); and c) a desire to effect liberation now prior to skillzing up on all these issues.

Of course this is all dumbed-down radical feminism, and I've read a lot of not so dumbed-down radical feminism which doesn't fall into these traps: its focus on the patriarchy and gender relations is not necessarily arguing for the heirarchical pre-eminence of this particular conflict, any more than a political commentator who writes an article on the economy one week and foreign policy the next is saying that the former or the latter is the most important issue in political debate.

gender oppression is a sub-set of oppression of the subject

you're right, it doesn't deserve to be given more prominence than other forms of oppression, but gender oppression isn't a subset of anything.

As for radical feminism -- love the second part, not so crazy about the first. Radical anything is guaranteed to annoy me, because all it really means is that some people managed to get together and convince each other that their theory is above the need for empirical support. Nothing is above the need for empirical support. Except possibly Ganesh. And Andrew WK.

What do you think of The Onion?

Could you explain what this phrase means please?

I found myself with a fleeting thought of "does this mean I'm being dismissive merely because I'm using humour?". And I'm not, that's never the purpose of me cracking a joke, *especially* in a serious conversation. It's usually, if anything, to try and loosen up the mood to avoid tension and thus unneccesary aggro that would derail the argument. Method of diffusion. I assume that may be why some people on ILX use humour, and they're *perhaps* being unfairly branded as "silencing" or "being dismissive".

Serious, well considered discussions are fantastic, but if they get too tense and ponderous, you lose part of your audience.

Humour CAN be dismissive and trivialize an issue as Orbit said, I do agree - like when someone mocks you with "gee youre so funny when you're mad!" stupidly.

I just don't want to think I'd be thought worse of because I might crack a funny now and then - its the kind of person I am.

But its those who never DO get there - those who for whatever reason are denied a chance at a better education - that are left out when it all goes theoretical.

Feminism would have to be the most boring topic to ever arrive on ILX. Lets get back to talking about sex - at least it's a bit exciting and imaginative.

I'm not so sure - the fact of two sexes is the condition of possibility for its existence, true, but in a very broad sense its operation is quite similar to the way in which oppression of race/culture, animals and the environment work in that it follows the operation of platonic dualism (ie. a binary opposition wherein each side of the binary is presupposed to *totally* opposed and different to the other, and one has to instrumentalise the other). Thus it is our mode of thinking about the *world* which encourages us to entrench gender inequality.

I guess I'm very swayed by eco-feminisists wrt this line of argument.

What people who do this then do is read other oppressions as a subset (I use the word deliberately this time) of the one they're interested in, which can be useful up to a point but then very quickly becomes distorting. I guess my beef is with the idea of there being a heirarchy of oppressions, when I would argue that what *is* common among different forms of oppression (eg. platonic dualism) never finds a pure expression of itself anywhere. It can only be seen in the various individual manifestations oppression but is not originally *derived* from any one form.

A lot of radical feminists I used to know would insist that the "root" of all oppression was gender oppression; likewise a lot of marxists would say the same vis a vis class oppression. I would contend that the "root" of oppression is always absent, invisibly shaping different oppressions because it is entrenched in language and consciousness rather than in any *particular* social or interpersonal operation of opression.

BECAUSE I can't smile when my girlfriends are dying inside. We are dying inside and we never even touch each other; we are supposed to hate each other.

BECAUSE we need to talk to each other. Communication/inclusion is the key. We will never know if we don't break the code of silence.

BECAUSE we are being divided by our labels and philosophies, and we need to accept and support each other as girls; acknowledging our different approaches to life and accepting all of them as valid.

BECAUSE I need laughter and I need girl love. We need to build lines of communication so we can be more open and accessible to each other.

BECAUSE we need to acknowledge that our blood is being spilt; that right now a girl is being raped or battered and it might be you or your mom or the girl you sat next to on the bus last Tuesday, and she might be dead by the time you finish reading this. I am not making this up.

BECAUSE we will never meet the hierarchical BOY standards of talented, cool, or smart. They are created to keep us out, and if we ever meet them they will change, or we will become tokens.

BECAUSE in every form of media I see us/myself slapped, decapitated, laughed at, objectified, raped, trivialized, pushed, ignored, stereotyped, kicked, scorned, molested, silenced, invalidated, knifed, shot, choked, and killed.

BECAUSE I am tired of these things happening to me; I'm not a fuck toy, I'm not a punching bag, I'm not a joke.

BECAUSE I am still fucked up, I am still dealing with internalized racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, etc., and I don't want to do it alone.

BECAUSE I see the connectedness of all forms of oppression and I believe we need to fight them with this awareness.

BECAUSE a safe space needs to be created for girls where we can open our eyes and reach out to each other without being threatened by this sexist society and our day to day bullshit.

by Erika Reinstein, editor of Fantastic Fanzine; as printed in Riot Grrrl NYC #2, 1992

BECAUSE every time we pick up a pen, or an instrument, or get anything done, we are creating the revolution. We ARE the revolution.

BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.

BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.

BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own meanings.

BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.

BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.

BECAUSE we don't wanna assimilate to someone else's (boy) standards of what is or isn't cool.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to falter under claims that we are reactionary "reverse sexists" AND NOT THE TRUEPUNKROCK-SOULCRUSADERS THAT WE KNOW we really are.

BECAUSE we know that life is much more than physical survival and are patently aware that the punk rock "you can do anything" idea is crucial to the coming angry grrrl rock revolution that seeks to save the psychic and cultural lives of girls and women everywhere, according to their terms, not ours.

BECAUSE we are interested in creating non-hierarchical ways of being AND making music, friends, and scenes based on communication + understanding, instead of competition + good/bad categorizations.

BECAUSE doing/reading/seeing/hearing cool things that validate and challenge us can help us gain strength and the sense of community that we need in order to figure out how bullshit like racism, able-bodyism, ageism, speciesism, classism, thinism, anti-Semitism, and heterosexism figures in our own lives.

BECAUSE we see fostering and supporting girl scenes and girl artists of all kinds as integral to this process.

BECAUSE we hate capitalism in all its forms and see our main goal as sharing information and staying alive, instead of making profits or being cool according to traditional standards.

BECAUSE we are angry at a society that tells us Girl=Dumb, Girl=Bad, Girl=Weak.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousism and self-defeating girltype behaviors.

BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will, change the world for real.

from Bikini Kill #2, Olympia, WA circa 1992
(as reprinted in Rosenberg and Garofalo 1998)

(Spice Girls, dunno when)

Am I doing something right, or wrong, or...?

I get up to the front and kick arse in moshpits. I smoke, I wear jeans, I sit with my legs apart. I call boys up and ask them out on dates. I initiate sex. I tell off my boss if I think he's being a sexist prick. I can talk to my male and my female friends about any feeling or thought without feeling "weird". I walk the streets alone at night with CAUTION instead of FEAR - and it seems to work. I live alone and I work hard and I manage fine (mostly). I can admit it when I am vulnerable, and ask for a cuddle and cup of tea and not think it is "weak" or "wrong".

I refuse to be a fucking victim.

Race oppression is not a subset of gender oppression, because there are black people who are not women.

Gender oppression is not a subset of race oppression, because there are women who are not black.

Can someone explain this?

I wanna be more like Trayce.

Side note - orbit, do you know where there archives of early grrrl zines on the web?

Hi! This is the Riot Grrrl Review website!

This site is always kind of fucked up, full of typos, and I post the reviews
late. I am either too busy or too lazy to fix it. This is how it is. Deal.

To see the zine reviews from #2, go here.
To see the zine reviews from #3, go here.
To see the zine reviews from #4, go here.
To see the music reviews, go here.
#1 is out of print, sorry. It's way old, anyway.

Riot Grrrl Review has been on hiatus for a year now, but I'm getting back
into the swing of things. I am going to be in Chicago during May and June
and will be traveling around in July. #5 has been in the works; I work on it
when my schedule/life permits. Thanks for your patience.

Please send me your zines, music, comics, etc. for review, and I will review
them. For those of you unfamiliar with my reviewing policy, Riot Grrrl
Review is for women and girls. Boys can send their zines for consideration,
and I will review what I feel is relevent and list what I like if I don't
see much relevence. I know this is somewhat of a controversial policy.
Suggestions are welcome, but I still do things at my discretion. If you send
material for review, make sure your address and price is on the cover. Send
it to me at Kristy Chan, USF 30334, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL
33620-3033. The old Fort Myers address is NOT good. I live in Tampa now and
am trying to get everyone to start using the Tampa box.

Classifieds and project listings are coming one day. And so are links that I
owe to all the wonderful webgirls that have linked my site to theirs. I am
really grateful and no one would come here if it wasn't for them, and to
whoever got me listed in Yahoo! where my site comes up

first

when you type in "riot grrrl", THANK YOU!

Oh yeah, I'm actually doing a thank you list here... Thanks in random order
to Mimi Ilano, Matt Wobensmith, Mimi Nguyen, Ericka Bailie, Lauren Martin,
Seth Bogus, Christina Varner, Theresa Mitten, Sarah Gion, Ocean Capewell,
Sarah C. in England, Tamra of Lucid Nation, Ceci Moss, Kelli Williams,
Bianca Ortiz, Laurie Chan, Mike Mitchell, Allison Dority, John Paree, Jen
Wolfe, Asian Takeover boys and girls, Barbie girls, and anyone I forgot -
I'm sorry my memory is so crappy.

Okay, the contest is over. I will announce the winner when I get my shit
together, and give that person their prize, a bag of candy. If you actually
give a shit, the songs are "Whip It" by Devo, "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper,
the "Bewitched" theme song, "James Bond" theme song, "Violet" by Hole, and
um. I can't think of the rest right now. MIDIs are really dumb, but I love
them, so I'm not taking them off!

Oh yeah, I guess I should plug my shit.. I have a personal zine called
Tennis and Violins. I wrote it last winter when I was really depressed alot.
Some people love it and some people think it's annoying. It has journal
entries, some opinions and stories about racism, classism, being queer, um..
also interviews with Ceci Moss and Matt Outpunk. You can get it in the mail
from me for a few stamps or money or a letter. Whatever you can afford. I
guess it costs me between 65 cents to $1 to make and send each one. Don't
even ask if you can read it on the web or in email because it won't happen.
Tennis and Violins #2 is going to be a split with Suburbia zine by Ceci.
It's going to be 100 pages. My half has travel stories, art/photos, Barbie
stories, an interview with Rachel Carns (the Need, Kicking Giant), and lots
of other stuff. Keep your eyes open for that. I also did a zine called Wild
Honey Pie when I was in high school and middle school. #9 has an interview
with Allison Wolfe (Bratmobile), artsy stuff, info, its kind of random, but
all of it is good reading, I think. It costs $1. #10 is giant, like full
size, a zillion pages. It's $2, and it has interviews with Mark Robinson
(Unrest), Larry Livermore (Lookout!), Wynona Riders (Berkeley punk),
Pietasters (D.C. ska. They're kind of dumb, oh well.), and Dick Lucas (the
singer from Subhumans). Also a shitload of articles and personal writing.
Seth from Puberty Strike likes it!

I also want to encourage you to contribute to these projects I am working
on...
ASIAN TAKEOVER - I am compiling a zine by Asian people about racism,
identity, history, assimilation, etc. This is real. I am going to put this
out. I have already gotten a substantial amount of material, but you can
send stuff in while I'm too busy to print this sucker. Send me your art,
photos, text, poetry, life story.
100 BARBIE GIRLS CAN'T BE WRONG! - Answer this question - How did you play
with your Barbie dolls?

Read about me and my many obsessions.
Mimi does this ace site with Asian/Pacific Islander American feminist
resources, her solid critiques of punk, material she reads, etc. This is not
something you want to miss.
Ericka does Pander zine distro and the ever-amazing Power Candy zine, about
her life, mental illness, all sorts of things. Both very cool projects.
Mike is a friend of mine. His page is about punk and stuff.
Russell has a site about comics, Bis, and teen DIY projects.
Sign My Guestbook but keep in mind that I just check it for comments, and if
you want a reply, I recommend e-mailing me, instead. This is also a good
place to plug your shit or start dialogue until I figure out how to make a
message board or something like that, if that's what you want to do.
View My Guestbook
e-mail me
You are visitor number [Image] since Feb. 27, 1997. Wow!

anti©opyright 1998

Ironically, I have been known to be more intimidated by other women, but thats more to do with being bullied by them in school, and betrayed by female friends later in life. But I'm over all that now anyway.

Well I didn't have a Ken doll, they had to make do SOMEhow!

point being it's more complex than you were giving it credit for, that's all/

In what way is it more complex? You can't leave a statement like that hanging unqualified.

Many variants of radical feminism however, strive towards what is called "equalism", meaning different groups plat an equal part on decisionmaking and self-determination. The emphasis is on dialog between and among different interest groups to arrive at a concensus. It's not always a comfortable process, but what is being sought is a world that is constructed to take the needs of all kinds of people into account.

Feminism has a part to play where gender inequality is significant, but in western societies we are past that stage in our development. Yes some inequalities remain but society is generally aware and concerns itself with eradicating these inequalities. Gender inequality and even racial inequalities are far less significant than class and economic inequalities. Scoop everyone up from the bottom, and if there are more disadvantaged women, or blacks or whatever then you will scoop up more women blacks or whatever.

In striving foe equality why restrict your group to 50% of the population, smells like sexism to me.

I do disagree with you statement that experiences across gender are common. They are not. You never got your first period, You never had a perv grab your tits. You never had to wonder was that guy looking at your chest or at you. Experiences are different, When I walk into a room and there is a porn mag on the table it affects me differently from how it affects you because I am female and have grown up in a sexist society. I could go on for pages, but the experience of growing up a boy is very different from growing up a girl, This is old territory, its been covered a million times, and no one disputes it any more. I am not trying to be dismissive, and after I've had some sleep I could post a reading list or something and we could pick up the conversation later if you are interested.

In some cases, in fact, they've worsened social attitudes. I can only really speak for the UK educational system, but there's a big problem there with the fact that girls tend to do better than boys in Key Stage SATs, GCSEs, and A-Levels (although at University there's, I believe, a reversal). There are scads of measures in place to increase boys' attainment, but meanwhile many working-class young men aren't getting the best jobs they potentially could have because women are often better qualified. Which leads to more resentment, and more disenfranchisement of working-class males, and that's surely counter-productive.

I've got some stuff to do today but I will get back to this point later.

(x-post)

I’ll give an example of ‘restrict groups by gender’ (though I don’t know if it’s the sort of thing Ed was talking about).
This weekend I’m going to Ladyfest Manchester and one of the workshops I’d really like to go to, in fact the only one I really want to go to is a drumming workshop which I’m banned from because I’m not a girl!
I’m semi-furious, I pay exactly the same as everyone who can go.

I think they want to keep out men cause they think they might make it intimidating for the women, but I’m easily intimidated too.
I can kind of see where they’re coming from but I wanna go!
*throws rattle*.

Practically, what should I do? Is there anything I can do?

I think experiences are broadly common though there are differences.
I never got my first period but I did have a first wet dream; I never had a ‘perv’ grab my tits but I did have a (female) ‘perv’ grab my bottom; I never wondered was a guy looking at my chest (which would be part of me) but I’ve wondered was someone looking at my puppy fat.

When I walk into a room and see a porn mag on a table it effect me different to how it effects you because we are different PEOPLE, not because we are different sexes/genders. I’m interested in porn mags than most men I know. I know several women who really do like porn.

How do you know the experience of growing up a boy is so different to your own experience? When did YOU grow up a boy?

-- Andrew Thames (cleanbridge...), September 2nd, 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GRRRRR!!!
Anyway, I’m only going so I can cure me some Lesbians!

Have you not learned anything from sitcoms, mei?

-- oops (don'temailmenicelad...), September 2nd, 2003.

What, you mean I should dress up as a woman and sneak in?
Hmmm. That might help me with the lesbians too...

(Humour Alert – I AM JOKING)

Meant to say I'm LESS interested in porn mags than most men.

I'm not saying I don't like pornography at all, but the realy artificial stuff I've seen in mags, with it's participants obviously not enjoying it, isn't a big turn on.

To respond to the porn question, I'm not at all uncomfortable about porn personally, except when it appears unwanted around say, the parents or at work or something, but hell, I have been known to look at porn and enjoy it! FWIW.

ed do you think legislating against racial and gender inequality actually works or something?

In striving foe equality why restrict your group to 50% of the population, smells like sexism to me

who is doing that? when women say WE WANT EQUALITY, why is it often read into as "we want equality but not for men"? if men feel oppressed, shouldn't they organise their own shit, like women have had to? most feminists want equality for men and women, thats what equality means!

also, if you think class oppression is more crucial in western society than racial or gender oppression, i can only think you have your head in the sand. NB class oppression IS important but i think your prioritizing of some oppressions against others is very monofocussed.

although i was taught the open chords from a male, i can definitely attest to the comfort of having no men around when i learned to play guitar. i felt less judged. there are still a lot of assumptions about women playing instruments which circulate, to this very day when i go to the rock shop and ask for a guitar string the male staff ALWAYS assume i mean an acoustic string...

Maybe I didn't read this thread correctly...

But I'm not and I've not hidden it, I thought I mentioned it up above somewhere and if not it's definitely on another thread from the last few days and I've said it before on ILM/ILE.

I think I probably fit the male stereotype less than most men.

The reasons that TLML gives for me being barred from the drumming workshop are exactly those I imagined, and they are really understandable, which is why I'm not really angry at being barred. I can totally see their point of view.

But many men, including me feel harassed by male musicians while learning or practising. I can play the drums a bit already (and guitar, bass etc) but I've never been taught by anyone. That's partially because I'd be intimidating.
I also find it very hard to go into a music shop and try out an instrument or ask for advice, I get the feeling the ppl in there would be looking down their nose ar me. I hate the thought of picking up a guitar and them listening to what I was playing - eeek!
Most ppl just play some rubbish metal riff to try and impress and that is totally not me.

I think maybe the confusion isn't helped by my name. I'm Welsh and my name is Meirion (which is in my email adress) but no one can say that properly, including me, so everyone just calls me Mei.

TLML - you should go in and straight away say:
"I'd like a single 52 please. Steel core with brass/nickel. Round wound, bullet end."
See what they say then. They probably won't even know what all of that means.

"I'd like a single 52 please. Steel core with brass/nickel. Round wound, bullet end."

haha i should probably find out what all that means before i test it out!

No where have I said , nor do I believe that I have inferred, that I believe feminists desire to see women gain equality at the expense of men. The very word equality precludes this. Femenism grates against my humanism not because it wants to overtake men, but because its perspective on society seems no longer relevant, if it ever was. It seems far better to fight for the equality of humanity and human rights as a collective whole, than fighting for the rights of one group at a time.

The problems facing society today are largely not of gender but of class and economics. The barriers facing middle class women in western society are no greater than those facing men, this is a very general statement, but broadly it's true and the middle classes and up have the best access to the mechanisms designed to rectify any imbalances. I don't really see many problems here. OK so there are inequalities but over time these are ironing themselves, out, there will never be 50:50 parity in all areas of life but broadly this will be the case (I'm talking about maybe 60% of care workers being men whilst 60% of teachers being women, that sort of thing). There's some tidying to do, a bit more paternity leave here, a bit more support for working mothers there.

I'll get onto the cultural points in a bit.

As we cast down the social spectrum the problems faced aren't really gender specific, its shit weather you're male, female, black or white society needs to solve the socio -economic problems. Socio-Economic oppression encompasses all others. its not being mono-focused at all. If you look at where racial and sexual inequality is at its worst it is at the bottom. Solving socio-economic problems is going to go a long way to alleviating the situation of the most oppressed women in society.

One of the oft cited examples is of academic achievement. In the UK girls do better than boys at the age of 16 but then boys do better at 18 and at university. However, if one looks at the statistics, one sees that although this is true the difference in achievement between kids of different socio-economic backgrounds is far greater than any gender differences. How well you do in society comes down to money and that's a much bigger inequality than anything brought on by gender or race.

Aside from this we have the whole problem of gender in culture.

The biggest problem being that, after a little improvement in the 80s and early 90s comodification and objectification of women is now worse than ever. What's more it's extending to men in both similar and different ways. Now far be it from me to say that the male form is exploited in the same way or as mercilessly as the female form but it is there and its growing. Its not just about sex and bodies, some people are willing to allow access to every minute aspect of there life just to gain the faint hope of fame and fortune. The lure for women (and for men) is economic (and to a certain extent narcissistic), the rewards can be high if you're lucky. If you're unlucky the price can be high.

However these problems are again best tackled from a humanist rather than feminist stand point. Concentration on the objectification of women leaves out the fact that the objectification of men is growing quietly in the background. Much better to fight the base comodification of human existence, and experience from a position of unity.

Men and women aren't all that different and the male and female experience in modern society is not all that different. To answer Orbits, point above, it's just as hard growing up a boy as it is growing up a girl,soem experiences may differ, but are they all that different?

(((((((a little point to answer

I've got no problems with women only classes etc. In fact I've even taught some myself (Axing, (Chopping Wood)). It can be highly valuable to learn something in the absence of people who think they know what they are doing (but more often than not, don't).)))))))

I do apologise for the rambling and incoherent nature of this post. i had it all sorted out in my head as i was walking round london this morning but I was on my way to buy a new notebook so I neglected to write any of it down.

i disagree with this. i think it is important for politics to be micro and incremental, rather than overaching and universalist. also, specificities provide relevance for people, and meaning, and context, and something peple can relate to

i have no idea why you are suggesting that women and men face very little difference in the workplace, it makes me wonder if you have ever worked in the real world, the institutional sexism that keeps many professions overwhelmingly male is plain to see, especially if you work for a company and look who gets hired for what.

i dont agree with fighting the whole battle at once, politics is incremental and different people need to improved different aspects. fragmentation of politics neednt be a bad thing

I can't believe no one picked up on this... this piece o' post-feminist sloganeering actually comes from Billie Piper.

I would love it if I had more time right now, because then I could contribute something good to this thread, but as things are I'll just point out that Andrea Dworkin is incredibly, stupidly myopic and is only saved from her otherwise irredeemable bintishness by not being Catherine MacKinnon, and that emphasising difference and victimhood is a dead-end way to ultimately self-defeating self-ghettoisation.

I love my sisters and want to stick by them, but I also love my brothers too and also want to stick by them. I am a humanist. I want fairness for ALL and victimhood for NONE.

cultural feminism: can be utopian or liberal (in the classic sense, change within the existing social system is possible). if only you change our culture so that things are not constructed in such a violent, male-centered, war-culture way then all people would be liberated from chains that bind them. If government culture were changed to emphasize consensus decisionmaking rather than power and hierarchy; if single mothers were given social support instead of being branded sluts and welfare queens etc. A change in the culture, in how we look at things, construct things, think of things.

In terms of RG, mei, the separatist argument has been done to death, and there are several different takes on it. You can see the usenet type arguments by googling for Riot Grrrl chapters and discussion boards on the web. I really don't want to get into it here, it's just boring for me in a been, there, done that a million times kinda way, and no i'm not being elitist i'm just being honest and no i am not trying to put anyone down.

Ed, your position that women really don't have it much worse than men is completely mental. Men suffer from the normative nature of sexual roles, but women's suffering and oppression is still there. Look at any serious study of violence within relationships, look at any study on rape, on murder in the home, and it is unmistakeable that feminism has many battles still to fight and win. The fact that poverty is a bad thing does not mean that women don't have plenty of extra ground to gain.

saying you're more interested in issue a than issue b is one thing, but denying that issue b even exists and that issue a is the only one anyone should care is so arrogant and naive.

-- Orbit (cstarrcstar...), September 2nd, 2003.

So what should I do in this particular case?

Liek to add my support for the idea that feminism is not about gaining equality for women by standing on the heads of other groups that are discriminated against. It's just saying this is one issue I can identify and wish to address.

and bell hooks is TOP, I have always loved her writing, I will look up Dorothy Smith when I find the time..!

bell hooks is ace, i'm also big on judith butler, elizabeth grosz, coco fusco (who is an incredible performance artist), susan hekman, judith halberstam, and more specialised ones such as marcia citron (for music) and griselda pollock (for art history.)

[& engels' work was based on marx & they both paid tribute to fourier for saying that you could judge the level of a society by the condition of women]

krupskaya did too and she was great if particularly bonkers. but, y'know, provocatively so. i mean she was like valerie solanis without the *actual* man-hating and without the actually being literally bonkers bit. (which perhaps went together)

Mei regarding debates on separatism, you can literally Google for Riot Grrrl or Riot Grrrl yahoo groups and find the archives of these discussions. A brief sketch of them follows.

Please don't ask me to "defend" this, as I am just laying out the territory here, not stating a position. The separatist arguments boil down to this:

1. Separatism (along either gender or racial lines) is necessary because men (white people as a group for the racial version) will NEVER listen to women's voices, will NEVER genuinely allow them a part in shaping society, NEVER allow women into the old boys' network, NEVER take women nor their concerns seriously. You could call it utopian, and things like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival are experiments in "what *would* a society that was centered on women's concerns and values look like?"

2. Separatism as a necessary step, not necessarily a permanent one: this view says that women have been so injured and silenced that they need a place to heal and deal with their own internal sexism/racism before moving forward in coalition with others. For example, it does no good for woman to talk about her rape experience if some guy in the back is going to say "what were you wearing?", which makes it a defensive and not a healing experience. Women can't work on the issues that are specific to them--for example feeling entitled to voice an opinion, feeling entitled to transgress the "whore (i'll show you my tits, i'm liberated!) / madonna (i'm sweet and emotional and supportive)" stereotypes that people use all kinds of rewards and sanctions to keep them into. This separatism is seen as necessary and temporary consciousness-raising and healing.

3. Selective separatism: when events and organizations are structured so that women get to experience the roles that they are largely left out of: decisionmaking and learning technical skills (like say running a sound board) and guys can participate in certain events but cannot run things and can't be in sensitive workshops or meetings that involve issues that women want to discuss without men telling them "what's the big deal", "prove it", "get over it", or having guys take over, interrupt and do all the other things that they have been socialized to do.

4. Feminist Inclusionist organizations and events where men and women work together in varying states of contention and chaos.

I should also throw in here that "false conscioussness" is also a big issue for stirring usenet-type debates. Saying you are a feminist doesn't make you one; being a woman doesn't make you one. Being a feminist is a political decision and it means more than "i like myself". This one is such a usenet-flame issue that I don't even want to bring it up, but it has to be mentioned in the same breath with separatism because it needs to be pointed out that being a woman doesn't mean you have a feminist political consciousness, just like being a lesbian doesn't mean you have a lesbian-feminist political conscioussness (see Arlene Stein for more on that).

A caveat: I am a sociologist who did a dissertation that crossed fields: social movements, gender, culture, and music. My take on all of this is based on very different concerns and literature than people who are coming from a largely film/literature/women's studies per se perspective. In academic feminism, women's studies is a bit different from feminist sociology so you might see me gloss over some stuff that you would expect to see here--it's not that I don't know about it, but in what I did I was speaking to a different literature.

Ok, well I think I caught up on everything I was supposed to catch up on!

I didn't go to the drumming workshop, or even try.

It was limited to ten people for logistical reasons so it was totally fair to limit it to girls/ladies/whatever because that's who the whole event was primarily for.

Hope there's another ladyfest sometime soon around here.

On the first day when we turned up there was nothing much going on so me and my 3 friends went to a talk "Women, conflict and resistance". None of us are particularly political but I enjoyed the talk/discussion and the enthusiasm of the speakers. It's the first talk of that kind I'd ever been to (kind of a rally almost) and I was fascinated by how it proceeded, with the talkers and audience cooperating so well and being generally supportive of each other.

Then after about twenty minutes I was looking around at the audiences' faces (I like to see the reactions wherever it is, rock concert, classroom, wherever) and I realised that I was the only man there out of 40 or 50 people. It wasn't just the fact that I happened to be the only male that made me stick out a bit, if this had been somewhere else it would have just been an odd coincidence, but here the event was set up for women and the speakers were obviously used to mainly addressing women and all the things they were saying played off male roles against female ones - eg they were talking about being all female groups of protesters in Israel, about the women of Greenham common and about women being paid for the housework they do and about a women's strike day.

After I realised this I started to think a little differently about why the whole event was run as it was. For example, as usual in public spaces people from the audience were not greatly forthcoming during the question and answer section. I've got over that in the last year because I've had to, being a teacher. I had lots of questions but I only asked a couple because I didn't want to dominate things in any way - I would never feel like that normally, I'm not a very 'manly' man and don't usually dominate _anything_, but I'm naturally very inquisitive. I made sure I wasn't going to interrupt anyone else before asking my questions.

One thing I asked was about one speaker's use of the word 'censored', she said that every time they tried to get their cause covered in the media they were 'censored'. It wasn't a particularly controversial cause so I asked who had censored them and it turns out that she meant editors weren't interested largely because they thought their readers wouldn't be.
To me that's a very different problem to censorship and her answer did leave me curious as to why no one had pointed this out to her before. I think maybe that without males around to intimidate/dominate/out-shout the women (I'm not convinced that is what happens, but it seems to be an axiom of ladyfest) it just ends up that the most bossy women assume that role.

Afterwards my 3 friends, all women, said that every time one speaker in particular mentioned men she looked at me, as if she was addressing me directly, as if I somehow represented all men. I hadn't noticed it really. At one point she said something about women and the caring professions and tacked something on the end like '...of course men do some valuable work in this area too...' then something about gay men. I got the impression that this was added for my benefit. Maybe she assumed I was gay (I'm not) because I was there at all.

It was very nice being among such a high proportion of women, and I always felt welcomed.
I'll try to write more later.

anybody ever read any Luce Irigaray or Monique Wittig? where is a good place to start, i will admit i am completely clueless on this except for parts of where they have influenced Butler/Pollock etc.

irigaray - may as well start with 'this sex which is not one'. dunno wittig

http://tshirthell.vo.llnwd.net/e1/shirts/products/a1199/a1199_bm.gif

Sorry, I've nothing else to add to this conversation.

Je, Tu, Nous is the one on Routledge classics. Kinda sounds like it might be REALLY about French.

read Irrigary in school like 20 years ago and have vague memories of digging it but that's all I got

not sure where to put this but my office had a nice cathartic moment with this today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw

Radical feminism has come to be identified or usually aligned with the gender critical movement. The UK in particular seems to be very much thus.

Probably because "radical feminism" is part of the phrase "gender critical" is a euphemism for...

haven't heard the phrase gender critical before, but I like it

no, you're not supposed to

i mean unless you wanna be history's greatest monster who is only defending a principled position for the sake of women and female-only spaces, then you're supposed to

ok :)

Yeah, no, it's bad.

I do tend to avoid using TERF, though, mostly because I feel like these people aren't actually feminists, no matter what they say. They're transphobes and I call them that.

a euphemism for a euphemism

I think there's an honest argument to be made that gender itself is a patriarchal tool. However, that relies on the identification of gender with gender role, and that's not uncontroversial. Some folks believe gender to be a private mental object rather than a public social one, or some combination of the two.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but I do know a trans person who self-describes as gender critical

The trans folks I speak with pretty much all don't care for gender roles and all they imply. So at least that approach to the issue seems amenable in principle to trans people. On the other hand, just about anyone defending the idea that gender roles are a biological imperative is going to run into a lot of static.

What I'm getting at here is that I think the relationship between the public and private concepts of gender are key to understanding radical feminist positions on the matter of trans identity in a larger cultural context.

luckily all the other problems with the relationship between public and private have been sorted out already so this one last thing shouldn't be too tough to handle

'gender critical' is just classic transphobic 'feminist' rhetoric - take what seems to be/should be a fairly innocent feminist-sounding phrase and turn it into a dogwhistle for 'transphobic biological essentialist' and in doing so attempt to falsely position their ideological enemies (anyone pro-trans rights) as in favour of gendered oppression and supporting gender roles etc. which is obviously untrue

Yeah to be "gender critical" sort of presupposes being "sex uncritical"

At first I thought 'gender critical' was a tautology: like, of course gender is a critical notion.

Anyway, what I find especially worrisome is the intersection between 'feminist' transphobic discourse and archaic, borderline ecofascist concepts such as the Great Mother.

I can't take euphemisms like "gender critical" or (another one I have seen) "trans skeptical" any more seriously than old military euphemisms like "collateral damage". It's not just that such terms are inherently weaponized - mostly I'm not entirely sure they're effective. I can't speak for other people but when I see people making arguments using, with a straight face, weasel words like those, I find it relieving. When people use those words, to me it's indicative that they're not arguing in good faith, and opposing them becomes a simple matter of pointing that out, if absolutely necessary, and just plain ignoring them as toxic, if not.

I too try to avoid the word "TERF", not because I feel it's necessarily inaccurate, but because I do think it's a loaded and contentious word that has, I think, done a lot to undermine radical feminism. I find "transphobe" (or just plain "phobe", as I've started abbreviating/generalizing it) is more broadly applicable.

But I'm also a descriptivist, and I don't expect "TERF" to go away any time soon. I certainly have little sympathy for anybody who characterizes it as a "slur".

My experiences is that as I've encountered more and more trans and genderqueer people, as I've listened to more and more people's experiences, my willingness to make broad and sweeping statements - radical statements - has decreased. My focus at this point - and this may change with time - is on celebrating and affirming diversity rather than on interrogating and criticising discourse. From where I am right now, compassion and kindness are more important than critical interrogation. The two approaches are not incompatible, but there's definitely a tension between them.

If that all sounds vague and new age-y, a specific example: When I first started coming out, I had a lot of frustration regarding my perception that gender was an arbitrary social construct. I was sympathetic with those who wished to abolish gender entirely. Since reading about what John Money did to David Reimer, I've walked back that position. To me, Money is a perfect example of someone who let their abstract ideals take precedence over, really, the basic human rights of another human being. If I have a broader criticism of radicalism (in a feminist context or otherwise), it's that I worry that it can sometimes create a context where such behavior is excused or defended.

My experiences is that as I've encountered more and more trans and genderqueer people, as I've listened to more and more people's experiences, my willingness to make broad and sweeping statements - radical statements - has decreased. My focus at this point - and this may change with time - is on celebrating and affirming diversity rather than on interrogating and criticising discourse. From where I am right now, compassion and kindness are more important than critical interrogation. The two approaches are not incompatible, but there's definitely a tension between them.

Well said.

My experiences is that as I've encountered more and more trans and genderqueer people, as I've listened to more and more people's experiences, my willingness to make broad and sweeping statements - radical statements - has decreased. My focus at this point - and this may change with time - is on celebrating and affirming diversity rather than on interrogating and criticising discourse. From where I am right now, compassion and kindness are more important than critical interrogation. The two approaches are not incompatible, but there's definitely a tension between them.

isn't this is basically a small-c conservative position though, one that leaves the status-quo in place, a status-quo that benefits men and damages women? one could still argue that it's the right position to take despite this, but my impression is that many/most of the anti-TERF/anti-'gender critical' ppl deny this tension you acknowledge between kindness/cautiousness and critical interrogation, deny that accepting trans and gender fluid identities blunts critiques of patriarchy

I have never understood the argument that accepting trans and gender fluid identities blunts the critique of the patriarchy and honestly it’s not something that stands up to scrutiny. If it was the case, you wouldn’t hear about butch (cis!) women being harassed entering women’s toilets, or see the bleed into blatant homophobia. Neither of these outcomes are opposed by the patriarchy; quite the reverse in fact.

accepting trans and gender fluid identities would seem to mean accepting there is such a thing as a person's 'real' gender outside of 1. their physical sex and 2. how they are socialised and hailed or recognized by society - there's clearly a tension between that and radical feminist critiques of gender

What are the radical feminist critiques of gender that I’m clearly missing then? Cos all I’m seeing are people engaged in constant vicious attacks on trans people and dogwhistling constantly about the safety of children.

I'm not smart or eloquent enough to articulate this well, but this gets at some of what I'm trying to say:

When I say that a person is male or female - a man or a woman, a boy or a girl - I aim to convey *only* some brute facts about the body, related to sexual and reproductive anatomy and functions. Those brute facts are very far from socially constructed. I defend the concept of two, and only two, sexes, because they truly are the facts of life - a constraint on our existence that cannot be escaped.

But, while I defend the reality of sexual dimorphism, I do not defend the gender binary, where ‘gender’ reflects social and cultural expectations of how each sex should think or act. The complexities of gender - by which I mean the social roles and expectations, cultural and symbolic significance, that societies attach to the sexes, and which are often socially, sometimes violently, enforced - were not the subject of my previous article. [trans and non-binary people] are actual males and females who are punished, bullied and vilified for acting in ways that are considered unacceptable for males and females to behave.

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1250/sex-is-not-psyche/

accepting that gender (rather than sex) is a 'real' thing, that some people just are men or women or neither in a metaphysical sense, separate from their physical sex or how they are 'gendered' by society - this legitimises the concept of gender, and gender can't be separated from this division into an oppressor and an oppressed class. a distinction between sex and gender where 'sex' is objectively observable biological differences and 'gender' is the socially constructed system that legitimises patriarchy, i.e. in this definition 'gender' is specifically what is socially constructed, what *isn't* 'real', what can be challenged and critiqued and eventually demolished and consigned to the dustbin of history

and if accepting trans identities means supporting the idea that if one's gender identity does not match one's biological sex, then one can/should have their body modified to make it fit better, either with hormones or binding or surgery - this seems problematic if you believe that gender is purely socially constructed? why should these painful, potentially dangerous physical changes be necessary, why should there be a link between the physical form of your body and whether you are stereotypically masculine or feminine in your, thoughts, tastes etc?

you might say that physical modification is not compulsory and many trans ppl identify with a gender that doesn't match their biological sex without changing their body in any way - but from the radfem pov NO-ONE'S gender identity matches their biological sex, no-one is really inherently 'a male gender person' or a 'female gender person'. some trans ppl do not identify as male or female at all - but either you take the position that some people are male gender or female gender and some ppl aren't (which is incompatable with the radfem pov b/c no-one is really male gender or female gender), or the position that EVERYONE is not actually male gender or female gender, in which case you have reached a position that is indistinguishable from radfem perspective?

and even if body modification is not mandatory, the rise in ppl accepting trans identity and an inherent gender identity as a real thing has undeniably led to an increase in the number of people undergoing these body modifications with all the pain and suffering that involves. you might say that this is still an improvement and before scores of ppl were suffering in silence in bodies that they felt didn't match their identity, but as this kind of body modification becomes a socially accepted thing then doesn't that make it harder to fight for a world were ppl do not feel compelled to changed their bodies to match how 'masculine' or 'feminine' they feel? (or to avoid the harassment and abuse that comes with being gendered female?)

idk sounds like concern trolling to me

you might say that physical modification is not compulsory

and even if body modification is not mandatory

let me just state for the record: it's not

Yeah I was going to say. You can consider this debate to be about lofty and abstract ideas about gender and sex, but that’s not how “gender critical” is used in the wild, and that debate is very much of an exclusionary nature.

jesse singal wrings his hands similarly and constantly about FORCED BODY MODIFICATION FOR THESE CONFUSED CHILDREN WHO WILL REGRET IT and i continue to hope he explodes

I hope the same for Glinner.

but once you take body modification out of the equation then what is left aside from a feeling of disconnect between your biological sex and the stereotypical qualities associated with or demanded of ppl with that biological sex in our society? unless you think that gender is a 'real', not purely socially constructed thing, then this disconnect exists for everyone, although it causes some ppl a much greater degree of distress and pain than other. and accepting that gender is a 'real' thing has actual material effects on people's lives, just like accepting race as a 'real' thing has actual material effects on people's lives, it can't just be dismissed as 'lofty and abstract ideas'

I think you’re confusing what I think. When I think of actual real effects on people’s lives, I’m thinking of how the constant demonisation and picking away at the right of people to live as they choose plays out in reality.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/14/homophobic-and-transphobic-hate-crimes-surge-in-england-and-wales
So no, I don’t really give much of a thought to the “gender critical” side of the debate considering it seems mostly to be used as a shield for bigotry.

generally i find people who hammer this hard on the ONLY TWO SEXES thing to be extremely fuckin suspicious

i guess i am really trying to engage with the ideas in your posts soref but i don't seem to have the same stakes or perspective in this argument? like if body modification isn't necessary and one's personal conception of gender can be disconnected from their appearance and the social expectations others have of them... that's... cool? doesn't seem to undermine any critique of the patriarchy which forces social roles onto everyone? "real" and "purely socially constructed" also do not seem to be opposite ideas to me. and from being friends with trans people i get the sense that people who gravitate toward body modification have thought about all of this shit relentlessly and come out the other side knowing that "gender" is ultimately construction and the sum of their experiences have told them that they're women and/or men, and if they can feel more comfortable in their bodies while doing this... good? we put on makeup bc the external doesn't match the internal, it's all construction, and it doesn't seem inherently contradictory to me. that we share a fundamental idea about gender with radfems is great except that transphobes in that community use it to undermine, exclude, and isolate trans people, it's a bad faith distortion on their part, which is the fuckin problem

On a slightly different tack this looks like a really interesting book - has had a lot of heat on its lines around the abolition of the family.

Abortion is a form of necessary violence. We need to move away from arguments designed to placate our enemies, and defend abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work | @reproutopia

Sophie Lewis is the author of Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family pic.twitter.com/qntnD2Zb3Z

— Verso Books (@VersoBooks) June 7, 2019

that we share a fundamental idea about gender with radfems is great except that transphobes in that community use it to undermine, exclude, and isolate trans people, it's a bad faith distortion on their part, which is the fuckin problem

From what I've observed, I don't expect any productive discussion btwn radfems and trans communities for exactly this reason. I do believe there are earnestly non-transphobic radfems but they're too closely enmeshed with the assholes we all hate

i was typing up a huge thing to try to engage with soref but brad said most of what i wanted to in a much more concise way so thank you very much brad.

there are and have been trans-positive radical feminists - there was an ideological divide amongst 70s radfems on the topic of trans people - but unfortunately the name of 'radical feminism' is very much tainted these days by the very vocal transphobes.

Over time I've become more accepting that there are groups whose frames of reference and basic understanding of reality are sufficiently removed from mine that good faith dialogue with them is impossible. I spend a lot less time arguing with people and more time trying to discern my own beliefs, because I at least trust that good faith dialogue with myself is still possible. :)

Most of the time it's much more useful to argue without using blanket terminology and just give three specific examples in lieu of the term. No one is ever talking about the same thing as you usually.

You can believe that race is largely socially constructed without then using a colourblind society which is not the case to steamroll over people’s lived lives; that cartoon people who believe that gender is bullshit find it so important to do this to trans ppl in particular suggests to me that these ppl are just arseholes

*CERTAIN people lmao fml

You can believe that race is largely socially constructed without then using a colourblind society which is not the case to steamroll over people’s lived lives;

I don't think this comparison works, TERFs aren't arguing that we live in a sex-blind society, or that we should act like we are. and most people who support the idea that you can identify as any particular gender regardless of your biological sex or socialisation as male or female would not support the idea that you can identify as any race regardless of what your physical appearance/dna/heritage or socialisation

Was the Cherry Jones character (and the friends at the woman-fest) on Transparent supposed to represent "terfs"?

yes. I thought the music festival episode was memorable

this thread has been interesting and educational for me