Radical Feminism: Discuss

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.