What have the radicals done to feminism?

Question

What have the radicals done to feminism?

Answer 1

Radical Feminism seems to mean being willing to call yourself a feminist, to some people. I like having radicals around, even though they don't represent the majority of the group, (they are almost always a very very small fringe group) since they usually scare the heck out of a conservative society, and make the moderate group's concerns seem quite tame in comparison. So even though anti-feminists quote a handful of radical feminists from decades ago (who are dead or not followed by many) they served their purpose. Sometimes it takes doing crazy things to get heard (I'm not condoning it, just stating facts). I think it's interesting that a few radical feminists are quoted over and over as though they represent all feminists and as though they are currently part of a massive movement, but the people quoted are often second wave feminists from the 60's and 70's or even first wave feminists from before the 50's. I don't know if I've seen any third wave feminists quoted as being radicals. But that point seems to escape anti-feminists, that feminism is very different today then it was 30-40 years ago. I don't consider any of the third wave feminists radical. Few first and second have feminists were radical, even in their day, since few people are willing to make unpopular statements, let alone act on their unpopular beliefs. I can't think of anyone who is less than 35 who I think is a radical feminist, I don't think radical feminism exists any longer. I think it's interesting that it's still considered radical to hate men, but it's perfectly acceptable to hate women and call them awful names.

Answer 2

Everyone gave some really good answers so far. As stated before (as I personally have always said) there's always those bad apples in every 'bunch' that we tend to group either other people or ourselves into. For example, with the Black Panther Party, their premise was to fight for the many men and women who'd lost their lives during the Civil Rights movement (fighting fire with fire). But as time went on, and their politic views become distorted; drug trafficking and gun running ran rampid within the party, thus causing it to collapse from the inside out. To this day the Black Panther Party has not gained the political notoriety that it once had during its initial beginnings; and in some ways that’s a good thing.



It's the same with feminism, there were a lot of good things that came forward from the courageous women in the past who had the nerve to fight and make things better for us (women) in our future. For example, the right to vote, ownership, freedom of choice, and the VAWA (no matter who in here has a problem with it). I wish my mother knew more about the VAWA when we where younger because there was a time in her life when she would have really benefited from it. These battles brought forward change for the right reasons. But, as stated, like any other movement, you have those few people (both men and women) who inconspicuously hide within a party and take things to the extreme. Expressing radical views, carrying out irrational acts, and pushing questionable philosophies upon the masses, while hiding behind the badge of what ever organization they claim to represent. We must understand that these ‘radicals’ don’t’ speak for the parties they represent as a whole. They push more of their personal beliefs, ideas and opinions upon others; based on the experiences they’ve had in life. It happens with any movement that starts out good, but ends up being a thorn in the side of society.

Answer 3

The main issue is that the radicals are very well represented in the universities. So when the radical feminist professors make stupid and ignorant statements, the professors are deemed the leaders of the movement. Since it is not aprofessors job to teach but publish they come up with alot of biased and worthless studies.

Answer 4

"So it's not that people like dworkin caused the backlash, as that the backlash caused people like dworkin"



Eleanor B, you make it seem like ant-feminism is responsible for everything wrong with feminism. Please educate yourself:

http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluated/

http://www.fatherland.info/docs/if-men-have-all-the-power.pdf

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

http://www.rulymob.com/



If people like Dworkin are the response, as you put it, that feminists give to anti-feminists, I must say feminists are getting desperate.



I understand every movement has radicals. But in these movements, the reasonable voices win. In the case of feminism, radicals have taken over.

Answer 5

There may be some truth in this.



My mom was heavily involved with the feminist movement (as well as all sorts of unsavory things) and one thing that the radicals would discuss with her was "was it right for a feminist to raise a male child?" (You know, a future "rapist" and all that garbage.)



Fortunately for my brothers, she didn't go along with that notion.



That branch of feminism, separatism, is IMHO the weirdest of the weird.



Hmm. Looking at the poster above, who makes sense to me,



I propose a new verb: Dworking.



To "dwork" someone means to drown them in propaganda.

Answer 6

Well the radical fems go to far and only fight for woman and to even have more rights over men, they never care about fairness only to what benefits woman. Where as a good fem just wants to have a job, vote and to do what she wants, not to take over the world for the benefit of woman only.

Answer 7

I really think that most feminists are still good/rational people, who have the best interests of men and women at heart. But I think the radical element has moved up, and now runs groups like NOW. It's sad really, to see such a noble cause, end up in such a sad state.



But, like every good movement: I think feminism is alive at the grass roots - it's just the organized "Women's Right's Movement" that is corrupt.

Answer 8

Well another user pointed out that without the radicals nothing would get accomplished and we wouldn't be able to appreciate the moderates and know the difference between them. I'm inclined to agree with that guy. I hate using this euphemism but" If you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs".



To really answer your question though, I think that for every Dworkin there's a Hoff Sommers. To me it all balances it.

Answer 9

The radicals are very much prevalent within the movement, even the so called "moderates" don't seem to have any problem with them and their anti-male policies and agendas. Many of them("moderates") even try to convince people that there's nothing sexist about the VAWA(a law that feminists pushed for)..

Answer 10

Just look at NOW it proves that point.

The past and current leaders at a national level are all radicals. Not just Dorwkins though everyone knows about her.

Was a member for a few years, any idea the kinds of argument I into there? People talk about "feminist professors" they are mild (least everyone I had) compared to these women that run the local now meetings.



Yet NOW is the largest and most powerful feminist organization. And they use this power, funding, and the members to do what? Why...this is beyond me why in the hell is NOW not active in helping women overseas? You know the honor killing, sex slaves, muslims etc Shouldn't that be a big part of the current movement? (I sure think it is) Is NOW doing that no...they worry over words like fire"man" and getting things we already have. We/women dont need the Equal pay bill or the ERA I'm sorry we dont. We have both.

They where running Hillary's campaign in 2005...05 I started getting "send money!" mailers and emails. Now how is that focusing on the issues? and try find something positive about men on at NOW.



love this stuff for purchase..

Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! (bumpersticker)

Stupid White Men (book)

Sorry I Missed Church, I've Been Busy Practicing Witchcraft and Becoming a Lesbian

Oh that helps feminist look like normal fun loving women! o.0



Sigh...I feel like that it's time for a split in the feminist movement.

Feminism is more then a political platform, more then man hating, yet we are stuck...



maybe I'm just getting old.

Answer 11

It's safe to say that every group is going to have their wackos.



But the problem here is that the major majority is past the point of reasonable. Not only that, but the reasonable ones make no active stand against the crazies. They are simply running amok, causing all sorts of problems.

Answer 12

To be honest, it was the backlash against feminism which caused many of the anti-porn radicals to come to the forefront, as they were one of the few feminist groups that could get funding from right wing morality agents. So it's not that people like dworkin caused the backlash, as that the backlash caused people like dworkin :-)

Answer 13

They've severely damaged the credibility of feminism. Far more than any other movement has been damaged by it's fringe groups.

Answer 14

I explained my view in another recent Y!A question.



Basically, it comes down to the fact that - as you've noted / observed from another response - the moderates refused to do anything about the radicals.



Moderates have by all accounts supported the radicals - which are very radical. Such as wanting to see men cut to 10% of the Earth's population.



Meanwhile, MRA's do not condone such radical nonsense from fellow MRA's. We speak out against misogny and hate - while feminists turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to misandry and hate.



As feminism has gained power & influence it's radical notions have come slowly but surely closer and closer. Harriet Harman is British Member of Parliament. She is a feminist. She is the Minister for Women.



Harriet Harman is pushing for laws that allow women to 'get away' with murdering men - while simultaneously pushing to make it harder for men who murder women. The gist being, she wants women who say they were abused (regardless of evidence) to get a reduced sentence and be put in 'community support groups' (open access, go home at night, be with family, and such) - while men who snapped after being taunted about his wife's affair and lashed out - be sent down for murder... regardless of mental abuse.



At the same time, she keeps pushing the misrepresentation of the wage-gap - telling only partial facts about the reasons. Instead of once acknowledging that it is in part due to women's differing choices - she blames it squarely on discrimination.



I know of not one single feminist who has taken issue with any of this. Not one single feminist has written to her, complaining about the blatant inequality she is pushing. Not one single feminist seems to give a poo.

Answer 15

It boils down to whether Dworkin actually said anything of relevance, I think she did even though she was a scarred woman. There is room for more than one interpretation or voice.

If outside interests declare all feminism bad or 'tainted' because one woman wrote some unpalatable things, that's rather pathetic.



edit - That's probably because people like to focus on sensation. This makes things appear bigger than they are.

Answer 16

here's my problem with that way of thinking... no one does the research. what context were these radical words spoken in?



every feminist i know has at some point had to defend their beliefs because these statements are taken out of context for the soul purpose of making any feminist seem like a crack pot, man hating, nut job. that's why you continually hear women saying "i believe in equality between the sexes" followed by the caviat "but i'm not a feminist".



and to go even a step further, i dare say many women are so concerned with the image they portray to men that they won't even entertain that they are being emotionally manipulated. i have drawn the line there, i won't turn away from my convictions to appease a group that would prefer i not have the freedoms i do.



it is very much like saying "i'm not prejudiced but i couldn't date a black man"... or "i tolerate homosexuals even though it's totally wrong"... or "there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, but i wouldn't elect one". one could reason away these statements easily enough, but i think the essence of such a statement is almost always fear of repercussion. simply put, peer pressure.

Answer 17

I don't think radicals have really taken over the movement. I think other feminists are usually pretty quick to challenge people with crazy, radical views. However, I think radical feminists have really hurt feminism's image. People hear one nutjob talking about something ridiculous (S.C.U.M, "all men are rapists", etc) and assume that person's views represent the entire movement. They don't. It's just one crazy moron with a warped view of the world.



So radicals haven't taken over the movement itself and its goals, but they've really harmed the movement's image.

Answer 18

Unfortunately, every group or movement gets its fringe elements that make it look bad. The civil rights movement had Louis Farrakhan. The Evangelical Christians have Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Irish people struggling for independence from Britain had the IRA. Muslims have the Taliban. It's a fact of human life.

Answer 19

It definitely contributed to feminism's current reputation, but of course there's more to it than that.

Answer 20

I like Diety's answer about radicalism occuring correllational to the viciousness of backlash to progressiveness. What is "radical" is merely whatever deviates from conservative or religious magical "norms". All progress in history has been due to radicalism. The founding fathers of this nation were called "radicals" the world over because they dared to defy historical "traditional" "natural law" and "divine rule" of monarchy. My first love was a Black man. In those times, Black / White relationships were HIGHLY "radical" and the backlash was vicious. He and I caused no one any harm. But our cars got trashed, we had to hide our relationship and even my own father, a Black Rights activist, expressed displeasure, mostly realistic worry for our safety. Back then, like in the movie "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?", White people did NOT invite Blacks to their homes for dinner. When my boyfriend came to my house for dinner the first time, a neighbor came over and actually complained, actually laced his words with threats. HE was the sicko, the DANGER to true decency, not us.



If it wasn't for "radicals" like my boyfriend and I who brought change, we'd still be living in that puke of a paradigm. Why is the Conservative/Republican disturbing penchant, for example, for sterilizing poor people and Black people not called "radical"? Why is killing half a million women and children in a Republican / Conservative piggy-fest war for oil not considered "radical"? I define "radical" as pushing the envelop of Social Consciousness. Even the WORST of so-called "radical" feminism, such as SCUM, which wasn't feminism but rather misandry, has been nothing but WORDS. I consider "radical" and "dangerous" and sick to be not that which does harm to the "moralities" of conservative "norms" and precious "way it should be", but that which causes REAL harm to real people. Feminism has secured legal protections for the rights of 50% of the people, the ONLY rise in history of any demographic group into legal protections for their rights WITHOUT violence, war, revolution and tens of thousands of deaths.



It may be "radical" to suggest, say, that women should never marry or should abort male children or other such weirdo nonsense. But, how is that as much a harm or danger or threat to humanity, those WORDS, as say the Republican / Conservative "Abstinence Only" version of sex education imposed on all of us which the CDC now attributes to the 1/4 girls under 18 infected with STDs rate or taking food out of the mouths of children and letting over 136,000 American children starve to death or sterlization programs that were done in the 60's and are being introduced again today in legislations by Republican / Conservatives? Why isn't the hate and misogyny directed at women not considered "radical"? Where is the rational realistic mature decent perspective of what is truly morbid and dangerous and what is not? How come, for every accusation of "radical threat" that is made against Dworkin, dead, or against SCUM, written 40 years ago, has there not been a renouncement by so-called MRA's against Warren Farrell's, MRA "leader", alive and well and currently raking it in with his books, for saying it's a father's "right" to sexually caress and "initiate" his own daughter?