Recently on Feministing there have been a few posts that touched on fairly radical topics that prompted a flurry of responses, many of which were extremely negative, and somewhat hostile. I'll be the last to complain about dissent and vigorous debate, as I'm a bit of a philosophy geek who thrives on intense debate, and I think that dissent is essential to constructive dialogue. But the tone of many of the dissenting comments made me stop and think about the dynamic of these threads. Often when radical feminist ideas are introduced into a mainstream context, there is an immediate, non-reflective backlash that sounds kind of defensive to me, as if the commenters feel threatened in some way by radical ideas. This leads to a shut-down of dialogue, which often involves personal attacks, rather than constructive debate over the topic at hand. I recognize that at times it's because radical feminism tends to touch on very personal topics, such as marriage and family life. But I think that we miss out on the very real and valuable contribution that radical feminism (and other "fringe" -isms) can make when we're too quick to shut others down and defend our way of life, our choices, or our views in general. Many times it's helpful to view the critique in question as a systemic critique (as it's almost always intended, in my experience) rather than a personal attack.
And even if, in the end, we disagree strongly with the more radical view, we shouldn't lose sight of the contributions radical views have made to mainstream feminism. For instance, the form of feminism that most Feministing members seem to embrace is a hybrid of mostly liberal (or equality) feminism, with aspects of radical, postmodern, and socialist feminism mixed in, along with a dose of queer theory. These elements of varying feminist theories have gradually entered mainstream feminism. For example, the view that oppression is systemic, and that varying types of oppression form an interlocking system, was originally a radical claim which was resisted by liberal feminists, but is now taken for granted. The idea that gender is fluid and culturally contingent is a postmodern view that has, to some extent, replaced the old mainstream view that we should re-value the "feminine traits" so that they will be viewed as equally valuable with "masculine traits." In addition, the scrutiny on the role that socio-economic forces have in maintaining gender inequality comes from socialist and Marxist feminism, but is now a typical feature of mainstream feminism. These views were considered to be fairly radical at one time, and met with varying degrees of resistance from mainstream liberal feminists, but have gradually been incorporated over time, and have enriched feminism, in my view. So I think that it's important to be open to new ideas, and include them in even-handed, inclusive dialogue, even if we end up rejecting them in the end. We may at times think that someone is taking an idea to an extreme that is not helpful, or that the way s/he is making the argument is problematic. However, that doesn't mean that their position is entirely without merit or not worthy of some attention. After all, if it wasn't for the radical feminist critiques of marriage and family structure, for instance, many of the valuable cultural changes that have taken place would not have happened, or would have taken much longer. As with any cultural movement, the more radical voices often serve to nudge people out of their indifference and apathy, and make them really re-think the status quo. And that is almost always a good thing.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How should feminists approach opposing feminist views? A plea for inclusiveness.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11655
Well said, Rachel! I too have found that radical ideas do not always receive the warmest welcome on feministing and in feminist circles in general. I have definitely noticed the same trend within the feminist community at the university where I work. It seems to me that the unfortunate price of (slightly) more mainstream acceptance is a distancing from radical ideas. A while back on feministing, there was a discussion of the anti-feminist bake-sale at BGSU. What upset me about the whole conversation (at the university and elsewhere) was that when the college republicans said, "oh, we should have more accurately called it an "Anti-radical feminist bake sale" a good number of the feminists on campus thought that this was far more acceptable. I think it is reflective of a more general trend in our society and a demonization of radical views. I'm sure that I will have some more eloquent thoughts later, but right now I am enjoying my first snow day off from school in a long time!
Thank you! I must admit that I myself have been falling prey to some anti-radical sentiments lately, and your post made me remember the value of "revolutionary" ideas.
yeah, I always find it strange that whenever a critique of something like prostitution or stripping (or even marriage) is made, the immediate response is to defend the choices of the individual women involved. as if you can't critique cultural practices without denying the fact that women make valid choices. i would like to see more discussion of the ways that an oppressive culture limits the development of autonomy in the oppressed class. that seems like it would be a more fruitful discussion than arguing over whether or not feminists have to approve of and support any choice a woman can possibly make in order to avoid being "bad feminists"
Well, there was a time when you were a feminist, period, when feminism itself was a radical idea. It seems to me (and it's just my take on things as a long, long, long time feminist), that feminism has fragmented into so many different wavelets that the sense of true radicalism, of lets SMASH patriarchy, seems to have been diluted. Now, I understand that as gains have been made, attention has turned to issues which are more likely to segment feminism; however, with segmentation comes a loss that initial radical fervor. While it is important to recognize the contributions of the different types of feminisms, it is my opinion that without a radical spirit any gains that are won are done within the structures of patriarchy. I guess the question comes down to: do we want to SMASH patriarchy, or do we want to make it more female friendly?
Heee! SMASH Patriarchy!
(I never played video games as a child, so instead of being a mundane part of being a twenty something video games are a genuine joy. I love Smash Brothers, but must play Bowser because he is the only character large enough for my untrained eyes to track. Sorry for the derail, but the idea of smashing the patriarchy makes me profoundly happy.)
I think this is a worthwhile post. I often wonder about the future of feminism. I don't even know if I want to identify as "feminist" these days without the rider "postmodern feminist" to clarify. The gap between postmodern and radical feminism seems just so wide to me. I value feminist epistemology and other academic feminisms.
It seems to me like a disagreement about structure and agency. Since I'm not sure really how to break them down by label, I'll say that I think second wave feminists (liberal and radical?) tend to be very structure centered, while third wave feminists tend to be very agency ("choice" rhetoric) centric. There is an interplay between structure and agency. Neither purely exists.
I think in a lot of debates this gets shut down or ignored. Structure constrains our choices, but our choices interact with, support, or reframe structure.
Parsing out the themes that belong to different feminisms can be a bit tricky, mainly because none of them are monolithic. The choice theme was actually a central theme of second-wave feminism as well, although the any-choice-a-woman-makes-is-a-feminist-choice theme is definitely a more recent development. And the concern for the ways that systemic oppression limits the choices (and agency) of the oppressed individuals was definitely originally a radical theme, as liberal feminists at the time tended to think that it was male attitudes and behavior specifically that oppressed women, and didn't generally think of it as a systemic thing.
And the whole conflict between honoring women's choices and critiquing the level of agency and autonomy that can be developed in an oppressive system is trickier than many people take it to be. A sort of extreme parallel is the historical example of the freed slaves. After emancipation, although all slaves were free to leave their masters, many did not, because the idea of freedom made them feel insecure, and they had no idea where to go or what to do. While we wouldn't want to force them to leave if they were afraid to, it also seems deeply problematic that they should voluntarily live out the rest of their lives in slavery.
I often think of this example when people argue that most prostitutes and strippers freely choose the lifestyle because they enjoy it and feel empowered by it. Rather than blaming the prostitutes and former slaves for their choices, I think the right thing to do is investigate why they're socially constructed in such a way that this seems like the best choice to them, and then try to change the cultural context that gave rise to this in the first place. But many mainstream feminists seem to think that by asking these questions, or engaging in a radical critique of systemic oppression, you are suggesting that women are not capable of making choices, or that their choices are somehow invalid. That's where I think constructive dialogue ends and we become counterproductive.
Incidentally, I think the same dynamic often occurs in discussions of marriage and family structure, but this comment is already too long!
But many mainstream feminists seem to think that by asking these questions, or engaging in a radical critique of systemic oppression, you are suggesting that women are not capable of making choices, or that their choices are somehow invalid. That's where I think constructive dialogue ends and we become counterproductive.
Precisely.
I've settled down now; gone outside in the sub-zero; am no longer thinking about video games. So:
On the flip side, how are radical feminists to constructively encounter mainstream feminists? When I look at the efforts of the mainstream, I see what wiccaman calls making patriarchy "more female friendly" and I call putting pink curtains over the machinery of oppression. Not that the curtains aren't lovely, and not that they don't make day to day living much better for women in the here and now, but they're still just curtains.
I realize that pulling down the curtains is childish and ineffective, but what are we radicals supposed to do while we watch mainstream feminists bicker over what style of ribbons they should use to tie the curtains that ultimately will allow the patriarchy survive unseen even by those who claim to oppose it? I'm trying to just say "Nice curtains, isn't that the patriarchy back there." but it's tedious and frustrating.
Yeah, I think it's hard to know when to compromise and when to hold your ground.
I kind of conceptualize this as being a parallel to the conflicts that sometimes arise between anarchists and mainstream activists. In my younger days I was insanely active in the environmental movement (without kids in tow and papers to grade, like I am now...) and I had a number of friends who were anarchists. We often ended up at the same protests, and there was often tension between the two groups. The anarchists felt that existing practices and institutions are inherently corrupt, while the mainstream activists worked to change them. At times the mainstream activists wanted to avoid being associated with the anarchists, as they felt that anarchists give protesters and activists a bad reputation. On the other hand, there were definitely times (like at the WTO protest in Seattle) when the anarchists brought a level of intensity and action that was helpful, in my view. And anyone who spends a lot of time working for change will have their moments when they feel the total inefficacy of peaceful protest, and how it allows business as usual to continue all around you as if you weren't even there. In these times, you do feel like kicking over a few trash cans and setting something on fire. At least they can't ignore you that way.
In the end I think that both groups can help each other and make valuable contributions to each other's work. There are times when it seems crystal clear to me that you are not going to bring about then end of certain practices and institutions, even if they are inherently corrupt or patriarchal. So the pragmatic thing to do is to try to change them as much as you can. On the other hand, the absence of radical voices can lead to complacency and collusion, so I wouldn't change either group. I think that nobody is right all the time, and (almost) nobody is wrong all the time either, and the truth generally falls somewhere in the middle. But maybe I'm just getting to be a compatibalist who's too even-handed in my old age. =)
Wow. That's got to be the most thoughtful comment I've ever read here. I've never thought about this stuff in this way, but your comment really gets me thinking...
I'd like to know which particular comments prompted this comment. I tried to look for "extremely negative" and "hostile" comments but found none.
I was thinking about these two posts in particular, but some of the discussion on the thread about Jessica's announcement that she's getting married also bordered on hostile. And my thoughts aren't only regarding these recent conversations on feministing. It seems like generally speaking whenever a more radical view on marriage and the family is brought up, this is the most common response, which is unfortunate, because I think some of the critiques of patriarchal institutions that radical feminists make are valuable and would add to the discussion if taken seriously.
So, I agree with the sentiment expressed that liberal and radical feminists should try to avoid shutting down dialgoue wherever possible. Although I am more of a liberal feminist, I absolutely recognize that value of radical feminism and think that feminism would be far worse off without active radical dialogue. I would suggest, however, that the hostility you are talking about is often the result not of hostility towards the ideas, but rather at the condesension with which they are expressed. An example of this is located above, in the comment "while the mainstream feminists are bickering over what style of ribbons to tie the curtain..."It is really hard not to be deeply offended by that comment. If you want to say "sometimes the debates of mainstream feminism seem small compared to all that is out there," I absolutely respect that sentiment. But don't compare my life's work of helping women through the channels most available to me to putting up pink curtains. You cannot reasonably expect people to have non-defensive responses to statements like that, even if we compeletely agree with the sentiment.
I would be willing to bet that very few people on this blog are actually offput by radical feminist ideas, and very much recognize the value of radical feminsm. I, for one, have nothing but respect for radical feminisism. I also assume that most radical feminists have thought A LOT about why the believe the things they do. The frustrating thing is though, I have also thought a lot about what the most effective way for me to help women is, I settled on impact litigation after a lot of reflection, yet I feel like a lot of the time that I talk to radical feminists, they seem to assume that I have obviously never considered the arguments against the path I have chosen.
None of that is really directed at you spefically, I thought your post was very thoughtful, I guess it is mostly just to say, in response to your suggestion that liberal feminists interpret criticisms as system-wide commentary instead of personal attacks, that if that is the goal, radical feminists should also be careful to phrase their criticisms in those terms, and not in ways that indicate a lack of thinking on the part of those that disagree.
I chose my metaphor of the curtain very pointedly and have thought a lot about it. Perhaps I shouldn't have used feminizing language, like "pink" and "ribbons". I wanted to convey the idea that what is covering up the machinery of the patriarch is something that is conventionally "woman-friendly", but I also understand that feminine things are valued less and, as such, that sort of tone would be considered condescending.
My conflict is not with you; you have clearly thought out your position and if you have, and have arguments for your position, then great. My conflict is with those who don't think things out and are resistant to doing so.
Just an aside, kudos on the work you do, sincerely. I'm personally non-functional at the moment and I only hope that some day I can change the day to day status women in a real way.
Thank you for your comments, they are much appreciated.
I would say in terms of the analogy, though I get where you are going with it, that I think I was offended less by the traditionally feminine words associated with it than I was just with the fact that curtains, for the most part in my mind, are really unimportant, and are essentially purely decorative. I actually don't think I have problem with it, if in the analogy patriarchy is like the really irritating sunlight (evil sunlight of course) and the purpose of feminism is to diminish its effects. In that sense I think the analogy can work, cause sometimes liberal feminist endeavors do feel like building curtains, where you are essentially trying to block the light, minimize the light, give women tools to deal with the light, and radical feminists are saying "can we not just go smash the sun?" In that sense I think it really does work, because sometimes the bridge between the groups does seem to be liberal feminist saying "well it is really not obvious how we can smash the sun, and we know how to make curtains that make women's lives better," and radical feminsits saying that that is distracting and will never take the sun down. Anyway, if that is what you were going for, understood. I think my initial reaction is just that curtains are, in my rather undomestic mind, a silly and frivlous expense. Which is not how I like to think of my brand of feminism...
So anyway, I get what you are saying. And i just think on both sides (to the extent that there are sides), I think it is best to err on the side of thinking that those whoe self identify as feminists have thought critically about such things until they prove otherwise. Many will prove otherwise, and that is dissapointing, but at least we won't all be worn out from proving ourselves to one another.
You know... I'm glad that everybody wants to think of themselves as inclusive and has positive feelings about my political beliefs. (My political beliefs are anarchist radical feminist with an added dose of queer-posi, in case you were wondering.)
But this really doesn't jibe with the way that people on this site have made me feel attacked for simply stating that I was in prostitution, that I didn't like it, and that statistics are widely available which indicate that neither do most people choose it nor do they enjoy it.
Maybe different people are responding to this post than have tried to shout me down in the past. Or maybe the same people who will describe themselves as being open to radical ideas aren't really always the best about acting this out on Feministing.
If you're really determined to build an inclusive community, don't just stop at not being rude to radical feminists. Call others out when they do this.
If you're really determined to build an inclusive community, ask the Feministing moderators why they don't include most radical blogs and radical feminist websites in the sidebars. Yes, I realize that IBTP is there, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Ask them why they don't come out and explicitly state that they're a liberal feminist community but rather try to present themselves as the voice of all feminisms. To this radical feminist, the most inhospitable thing about this site is the fact that it depicts itself as speaking for all feminists and then subtly censors radical feminist views.
I feel like my voice is being silenced, and I feel like there's little hope of changing this as long as a community run by anti-radical people with far more time and money on their hands than I is largely inhabited by those who feel that censoring radicals is okay.
I can definitely understand your reaction to the responses you've gotten here when discussing your experiences. That's the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote this post.
But I hope you don't think that the motive of everyone here is just to think of themselves as being inclusive. I think that truly being inclusive (in a number of ways) is something that takes a lot of work and dialogue, and a continual awareness of your preconceptions. It also takes a bit of maturity and open-mindedness. So I hate to say this, since it's something that marginalized groups hear so much, but I think at times we have to be patient. It seems to me that many feministing community members are fairly young and sometimes new to feminism, so they're still finding their sea legs, so to speak. In their case, discussions with feminists of all different backgrounds is educational and enriching in the long run, even if it seems to go nowhere at the time. And some of the topics we discuss here are very personal, and we feel very passionate about them, so even-handedness and inclusiveness are harder to achieve. However, I would definitely agree that the views of women who have actually lived the experiences we're discussing should be honored in these discussions, and shouting matches and ad hominems are really never constructive.
As to your point about Feministing... I agree that the majority viewpoint tends to be liberal, but I think it's important to acknowledge that the editors themselves do not all share the same viewpoints or approaches, and the community posting function opens up feministing to a wide range of topics and positions that (to my knowledge) are not censored. This does make it more inclusive (if community members utilize this feature) than most other feminist blogs. So I think in the end no medium for this is going to be perfect, but online communities do offer a context for discussion and exposure to ideas and positions you've never considered before, and hopefully we can have the right attitude to take advantage of that.
You've made some good points. To clarify:
I don't think that the conscious motive of everybody is just to think of themselves as being inclusive. I do worry about unconscious motives sometimes.
I'm only 23 myself, so I get very frustrated with the whole "young feminist" thing. The only difference between me and the people disagreeing with me over this particular issue is usually that they have shit tons more privilege than I do, not age.
I think that Feministing engages in a subtle form of censorship. They don't come right in and remove posted material, usually, but they have banned (articulate, polite) friends of mine for challenging the moderators' beliefs. They don't check to see if you're radical before letting you join, but so much of what's posted here is repugnant to radicals that radicals leave of their own accord. Not to mention, people who come to the site are often attracted to it because they have already read the very liberal pieces by the Valenti sisters elsewhere, like say on Alternet. Or maybe they come to the site out of curiosity, decide that feminism is a great idea, and want to read more about it from the people who helped put this site together/the blogroll/the links section- all of a sudden, they're being exposed to the most centrist feminisms exclusively, and as their introduction to feminist ideas.
It wouldn't be too hard to fix this stuff. The mods could simply make it explicit that their site is liberal by putting that in some of the site information... or they could:
1. Include an active radical feminist on the team.
2. Include links to radical feminist sites on the sidebar.
3. Include links to radical feminist blogs on the sidebar.
What I object to is that they've done none of these things- either label themselves liberal or make their site radical-inclusive.
Please bear in mind that this goes both ways.
I think I understand radicals' frustration. When your view is the minority, it's easy to become exasperated. The temptation is there to say, "Sit down, novice, and I will explain everything to you, several times, with increasing wordiness, until you. finally. understand!" I've done this myself. (Though I must admit, now that I know how teeth-grindingly annoying it is to be on the receiving end, I'm going to try harder to avoid it in the future.)
And I can't speak for everyone here, but personally, I get really touchy if I feel I'm being talked down to. When someone implies that I'm a "house negro" for, say, getting married, my immediate instinct isn't to politely remonstrate (let alone thank her for lifting the scales from my eyes) -- it's to tell her just where she can stick her arrogant, sanctimonious attitude. Yeah, not productive.
But when someone says, "That's your path; here's mine, here's why I walk it, and while I get that it's not for everyone, remember that yours isn't either," I'm a lot more interested in what she has to say. I'm also pretty impressed, because I know myself that it's hard to get your head around the idea that someone else can process the same information and come to a different conclusion without having inferior reasoning; really get your head around it instead of just playing along to end a quarrel. It's an exercise I often struggle with.
I like how you put this, and I think that one main component IS the reactive response.
Is part of the problem that it is hard to read about, say, refusing to procreate, without feeling that this opinion is not just an opinion, but a prescription?
Is it too difficult to see the argument for what it is, on its own terms, without feeling the self-defensiveness of "But you can't tell ME what to do!"
I think for some, depending on the issue involved and the language used, it really is. Feeling attacked, they attack back. Then discussion is unfortunately over.
As rational beings I think we have to cultivate the ability to discuss and even argue impersonally. Even when the topic is personal.
Thanks!
"Is part of the problem that it is hard to read about, say, refusing to procreate, without feeling that this opinion is not just an opinion, but a prescription?"
I think a lot of it depends on how the opinion is phrased. I'm part of an open relationship, so I'm quite interested in reading about other people's experiences with that... but I find that many proponents of open relationships have trouble discussing the subject without subtly putting down monogamous relationships. (See here for what I mean.) And I get the impression that they don't realize they're doing it. They've just had to defend their lifestyle so often, and likely encountered a lot of hostility and condescension along the way, that they sometimes forget where the line dividing "This is what's best for me" and "This is what's best, period" is.
That said, I'm sure there are people who are so insecure with their decisions that they do feel threatened when someone says, "I'm okay with you doing it, but that just isn't for me."
I came here as a "moderate" mainstream feminist but have gradually drifted closer towards the radical side. I would not consider myself a complete radical feminist, but I would definately say I lean more radical than the average poster.
I recently became friends with a radical feminist over myspace. I think the thing that initially shocked me was how similar our beliefs were on so many issues. I would venture to say that 70-80 percent of the "feministing beliefs" are radical feminist beliefs. I would even go so far as to say that radical feminists and "feministing" feminists have the exact same goals with regards to what they want to accomplish through feminism, the main difference is how each group thinks they can accomplish this common goal.
Talk to a radical feminist before you decide to buy into what the mainstream media tells you about them.
Great post!I identify and consider myself a radical feminist. Honestly, I never thought of my self any other way. I'm still learning about all the different feminisms, but radical is who I am and what I believe. I think as long as we don't attack each other, we could have great discussions and learn a lot, and come up with ways to accomplish things.
One idea I've seen associated with radical feminism is the "any intercourse is rape because the man is penetrating." While some radicals did believe that, I wouldn't say all do. In fact, I thought that wasn't a common belief, but maybe I'm mistaken. And as shocking as that idea seems, I think we can still learn from those that hold that perspective, and why they feel that way. I love what Jill on Feministe said about the whole penetration thing from when she took a class- why not think of it as a woman enveloping the man? That was Andrea Dworkin, who also expressed the sentiment of intercourse=rape if I'm not mistaken. So instead of just discarding ideas because they seem way to out there, we could listen to each other, learn, and help the cause of feminism too.
Danielle, Dworkin never said that intercourse is rape- that's just part of the misogynist media hatchet job.
Please go check out the myths and realities page about her on nostatusquo.
Thanks. Guess that's what happens from reading a wikipedia page.
Andrea Dworkin is awesome!
Rachel_in_WY, I gotta say I always appreciate your posts-responses to other commenters. I just got done reading freethinkr's post, the second one I believe, and I got mad that some are willing to completely dismiss his/her arguemnt/position, and not come and comment in this thread. I have to say, there are several commenters whose posts I have always read as anti-feminist, or at least need to do some serious reading about feminism. I don't even think my comment is making much sense anymore, but if people are going to not even try listening to other's thoughts, opinions, and positions, then I don't see how we're going to make any damn progress.