Talk:Radical feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radical feminism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Differing tendencies within radical feminism

This article gives very little idea that radical feminism isn't (or at least historically wasn't) one single monolithic philosophy. Certainly the (now disappeared) schools of materialist radical feminism (eg, Redstockings, Shulamith Firestone) was very different from the more matriarchal tendencies that eventually became the dominant tendency of radical feminism. And even within the latter, there's a difference between cultural feminism and lesbian separatism on one hand and the more activist approach of Dworkin and MacKinnon. Also, ecofeminism is clearly rooted in cultural feminism, so that deserves some discussion as well. In other words, a good historical/ideological survey is as called for here as it would be in an article about Marxism. Peter G Werner 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider viewing [1]BobV01 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticisms" section added

Some people believe these type of women should belong in the kitchen

I've just added a "Criticisms" section that will probably make no one happy. I've briefly summarized critiques from men's rights, liberal feminist, leftist, and queer positions, as well as the position of Ellen Willis and Alice Echols that contemporary radical feminism is essentially cultural feminism.

What I've written is far from perfect; the criticisms are rather brief and terse, and I'm largely quoting from memory, so I don't have citations handy. (But then this entire article suffers from lack of citation, so I'm far from alone in that sin.) It at least serves as the rough beginning of a "criticisms" section that others can build upon. Peter G Werner 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start, Señor.--Rockero 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed --Jgda 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, at least the ball is rolling now... hopefully it won't be summarily deleted like previous critisisms. Easter rising 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, your criticisms section is well-done. Citations lack, but citations lack in the whole article. I sincerely hope it's not deleted. Matt620 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 58.105.101.3

The above user's addition did not rehash already stated material. It mentioned a divide between 'real feminism' and 'radical feminism' which certainly exists in the minds of many feminists and anti-feminists alike whether we agree with it or not, and it mentions the drive for a matriarchal society and makes a suggestion that this could be potentially dystopic and oppressive. I don't see where these were before stated. Stylistically, the points were made inelegently: was that the real reason it was deleted?--Jgda 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it looked like it was written by a 12-year-old did have a lot to do with the reversion, yes. Basically, it was so crappy it needed either a total rewrite or reversion. In thinking how I'd rewrite it, I really didn't see any new points there (its already been stated that radical feminism is viewed by many as misandrist), plus it seemed more a statement of the POV of the author, not a verifiable criticism from an outside source.

I'm really not trying to protect radical feminism from all criticisms, but please review the points I've made above – Wikipedia articles need to include summaries of notable criticisms found in verifiable, published sources; Wikipedia is not a place to air personal pet criticisms. Peter G Werner 08:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more propaganda

why does wikipedia has 10 different articles of feminism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.9 (talk • contribs) 03:51, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Because there are at least 10 different kinds of feminism. While I may disagree with some of their stances, each kind is different, and each deserves representation. I hardly see the quantity of articles relating to feminism as propaganda, but I see the content of some of the articles as being rather POV. I invite you to make edits to existing articles, so long as they're NPOV. But first, I'd advise you to sign up for an account (your IP address has made many contributions, and should probably be registered) and sign your comments with "--~~~~" without the quotes --Ringmaster j 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (<- Like this!)

[edit] Loneranger4justice contributions

I've let stand (with minor edits) the following text under criticisms:

"Many Men's Rights and Father's Rights activists view radical feminist agendas and legislature such as the VAWA as invoking the profiling and sexual imagry used by the Woman's KKK and simply excluding 'black' from the old WKKK jargon while inserting 'oppression' as an added profile of all men. The term Feminazi is often used to describe Radical Feminist discrimination or vilification of men based upon their differing genetic code, much like the KKK denegration of blacks, or NAZI propaganda directed at jews or others excluded from the priviledged class."

I'd like to know, however, whether this is actually representative of the "Men's Rights" critique of radical feminism, or if this is just a pet criticism on the part of Loneranger4justice. If its the latter, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Peter G Werner 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism

Feminism and especially "Radical feminism" is widely compared to fascism. So there is no reason not to add it to "See also" section. --TRFA 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a sufficient section on criticism for this article. Placing a "See Also: Fascism" is making a POV declaration that Radical feminism is Fascism. If you can cite a source stating that RF is comparable to Fascism, then add it appropriately to the criticism section as a sourced claim. --Puellanivis 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this article use a quotes section? Perhaps even as a subsection of the Criticisms section? It seems to me that much understanding of radical feminism and it's criticisms could be gained by simply including some of the radical statements made by it's leading proponents. --Staggerbot 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Could this article use a quotes section? Perhaps even as a subsection of the Criticisms section? It seems to me that much understanding of radical feminism and it's criticisms could be gained by simply including some of the radical statements made by it's leading proponents. --Staggerbot 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The selection of quotes would have to be carefully crafted, as including select quotes that project an absurd quote of radical-feminism out of context would likely be a POV action attempting to display them as "nutjobs", (see? look what they're saying!) Rather, quotes would need to be carefully selected from neutral sources, or explicitly justified statements by radical-feminists that are accepted as representative of their point of view by themselves. Any other use of quotes, could be written off as a "one-off" example, where someone says something silly. You could bend the quote "God does not play dice with the universe," into a completely absurd torrent of justification that the speaker is an idiot, while at the same time, you would be painting Albert Einstein as a lunatic.
So, any quotes that we would select should be statements rigerously defended by radical feminists, as they've conceded these statements as representative. And not some one-off statement that they made one time, and hadn't really thought about before hand. In all cases the attempt should not be to "paint" radical feminist as anything at all, but rather to objectively report their assertions. I feel this can be done just as easily with prose as with direct quotes. --Puellanivis 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand the concern of people being misquoted but I think the example of the Einstein quote (above) is an excellent one in this case. It is a well known quote attributed to him and if some one were to look up Einstein on Wikipedia they will find that quote there, as well they should. Why is there such a category as radical-feminism if not because radical feminists have made radical statements in their published writings and through statements to the press?...These radical statements and the ideas they encapsulate are the source of most of the criticisms and controversy of radical-feminism. They would be informative to the point of being essential when discussing criticisms of radical feminism. If a concern in radical-feminism is about the perceptions induced by radical-feminists making one-off statements that hadn't been thought of before hand (as described above), then that too is worth including on the page. --142.20.156.252 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

--Staggerbot 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern isn't for one-off statements of unique ideas. But rather one-off statements that they don't actually support, or believe in. They were just saying it because it sounded good at the time, or they were caught up in some tide or issue, and were prone to making statements that upon later clarity, they decided weren't a good statement in the first place. So, in this way, Einstein's quote would be a bad example. Rather would be something like "there will be no market for a computer in the home," where those who made that statement in the past based on their previous beliefs, obviously realize that these have not conformed with reality.
So my concern is simply with representing radical-feminism with accurate quotes, I guess you could say. Yes, radical feminists are radical because they say radical things, and these can and maybe should be included in this article. But putting something that they don't feel represents them, or is a quote used extensively out-of-context, then I don't find that appropriate. --Puellanivis 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, if they're prone to making one-off comments that they later deny or reject, then in that case, it would be notable, and including these one-off comments (as long as well attested) would be appropriate --Puellanivis 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I’m not sure your Einstein example is a bad one, but I agree with you that your computer quote example is a better one. As a famous quote by an accomplished computer engineer (Ken Olsen: "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home") it is revealing of both his personal style as a leader in the computer industry, and of the computer industry itself which was and is still going through rapid change. His prediction wasn’t born out, and indeed, some may judge him to look silly for having made it…but it is an important quote (for the above mentioned reasons) attributed to him. Again, it can be found in wikipedia and should not be removed if he later regretted saying it or because it wasn’t born out in reality. If he in fact did not say it, or it was edited to read "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer" then naturally it should be removed or corrected. In regards to quotes by radical-feminists, I agree with you that POV is an important concern. Perhaps a better category would be – CONTROVERSAL QUOTES-. I believe it would add a great deal of clarity to the Radical-Feminist article in terms of why Radical-Feminism is distinguished from other kinds of feminism, and why there is controversy and criticism concerning it.--Staggerbot 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the best quote would be "640k of memory is enough for anyone", which is attributed by Bill Gates, but has no credibility as being associated with him, he never thought it was true, and argues consistent that it is not true. So that, if any wikipedia page were to quote him as such, it should properly be contexted that it's widely attributed to him, but with no attestation. Yes, if a radical feminist were to have gotten up in front of a large group and say, "We need to kill all men." That is controversial and possibly notable.
Er... I guess the best way to say it, is that we shouldn't be searching hard and deep for obscure quotes just to show radical feminists in a bad light. They should be easily attributable, and relatively uncontroversial that they are sourced from a radical feminist, but they need not be uncontroversial in their content. Indeed, it's unlikely that any notable quotes they would be. --Puellanivis 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2.2 Action

"In addition, radical feminists also took direct action. In 1968, they protested against the Miss America pageant by throwing high heels and other feminine accoutrements into a freedom garbage bin."

Is this section clear enough? As a reminder, the bra burnings never took place. It seems to imply it. --EarthSprite∞ 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex-negative? Etc.

I take issue with the latter portion of this article.

Radical feminism also often viewed as sex-negative, or anti-sex because of some identifying as radical feminists' often strong opposition to forms of sexual expression they see as patriarchal, such as pornography and BDSM and in some cases sexual intercourse and fellatio as well.

Radical feminists have also been criticized for making alliances with the political right in opposition to pornography and prostitution, for example, during the Meese Commission hearings in the United States and in the contemporary "abolitionist" anti-prostitution movement.

The politics criticized here are precisely the politics that, for example, Ellen Willis ("Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism", 1984, collected in No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays, Wesleyan University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-8195-5250-X, p. 117–150) criticized as "cultural feminism", distinct from "radical feminism"; indeed, in Willis's words, not merely distinct but "antithetical" (p. 117).

Like Willis, I'm suspicious of attaching the term "radical feminism" to anything after about 1975. Not that something later can't be both feminist and radical, but that this particular political current was more or less played out by that time. Cultural feminism did indeed go off in the directions criticized here; Willis and others then (starting around 1980) developed a more syncretic politics that built on the insights of radical feminism but which recognized the importance of other categories of oppression and which was, in Willis's own term "pro-sex" (a term she first used in "Lust Horizons: Is the Women's Movement Pro-Sex?", which appeared in the Village Voice in 1981; I don't have a more precise citation at hand), or, in the now more current term, "sex-positive". This last eventually fed into third-wave feminism, which owes very little to the (in my view) rather puritanical politics of cultural feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Women Against Pornography, etc.

The question, fundamentally, is whether the latter should be called "radical feminist". Admittedly, there is something of a line to be drawn from radical feminism via The Feminists and especially Ti-Grace Atkinson and political lesbianism; but I agree with Willis's conclusion (again "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism" p. 117) that this ceased to be radical feminism when it became "a moral, countercultural movement aimed [I would qualify this with "primarily" - JM] at redeeming its participants" rather than transforming society. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not act unilaterally on this, but in my view this material should either be removed or contextualized. I'm going to feel free to edit it in the next day or two; if someone disagrees with how I approach it, please bring it back here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Jmabel. Keep up the good work. Shanoman 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Shanoman appears to have been the author of the relevant passage, and there was no citation on these criticisms, I will feel free to edit. - 69.17.114.183 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See the "radical feminism is a contested term" section below for my thoughts on this. Iamcuriousblue 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Rights activism

Does someone have a citation for Shulamith Firestone and Judith Brown being involved in African-American Civil Rights activism prior to their feminist involvement? For Firestone, it wouldn't surprise me at all, but I don't remember ever reading this. I know next to nothing about Judith Brown; if she merits mention in the context of this article, probably she deserves an article of her own, if someone knows enough about her to write it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Original research"

I've tried to add a few citations and correct a few things that seem to me to have been (minor) misunderstandings, and I expect to contribute a little more to the article. However, I'd appreciate if the person who disparaged this as "original research" would clarify what exactly they might question. While there are certainly some matters that are open to interpretation (including, notably, the relation between radical feminism and cultural feminism) and there is a lot that could be added to this article (including, as Peter G Werner noted above, the differing tendencies within radical feminism - in particular, I intend to expand on the differences between the Redstockings and The Feminists), I don't see anything here that strikes me as deeply wrong or that I would specifically expect major difficulty in citing for. Is there something in particular that someone doubts and for which they would specifically like to see citation? A more concrete request (such as mine above about Civil Rights activism) would move matters forward a lot more than something this vague. While it's great to cite for everything, it's most important to cite for what is genuinely doubted. - Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "does not contain any referenced" cleanup notice, as this article has 10 in-text citation and clearly does contain references (thanks in large part to your help). If no one comes forward to point out any claims in the article that they believe to be original research, the original research notice should be removed too. Neitherday 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'll leave it to you to decide when to remove it. I'm continuing to add to the article; I'll probably do another few hours of work over the next few days.
I would like to see some citations on the material about the UK and Australia, because I know little about it and (unlike the US material) cannot vouch for its accuracy. Also, I'd love to see some decent material on radical feminism countries outside the Anglosphere. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been three days and no one has come forward with a reason the tag should remain, so I have removed it. If someone comes forward later the template can always be readded (however, I doubt that will happen as there doesn't seem to be much, if any, original research in the article at this point.) Neitherday 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How about, just for a start, accounting for the somewhat apologist definition of 'radical'. Just a brief dictionary search that lists this 'going to the root' origin uses the word 'fundamental', which perhaps doesn't sit well? This 'root' based definition seems more pertinent to the mathematical idea of the word. The more social and political definitions seem to be more aligned towards: 'Thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. Favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.' Everyone who wants to make a positive change on any issue wants to get to the root of what's causing it, so everyone is radical in this way: it's just agreeing on the root that makes the difference. 'Radical' certainly means something very different to the vast majority of language users, particulary when associated with a social, political or religous movement. Jgda 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "radical feminism" was coined by radical feminists, therefore the etymology of the term should reflect their usage of the word "radical". Neitherday 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two sections in particular are problematic and I've tagged those individual sections for lack of citation and possible OR – "Radical feminist theory and ideology" (particularly the part about "Patriarchal theory") and "Radical feminism and Marxism". I've also tagged the entire article for using excessive quoting. Iamcuriousblue 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radical feminism is a contested term

First, I wanted to thank User:Jmabel for their excellent additions to this article. This article was in pretty bad shape before, and Jmabel has gone a long way toward making this article more scholarly.

However, I think its important to point out that there are at least two different claims on what precisely constitutes "radical feminism", and that WP:NPOV demands that Wikipedia not take one side or the other as to which is "really" radical feminism. The first is the view that Jmabel seems to lean toward in the "Sex negative?" discussion above, basically that of Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, that the various pre-1974 tendencies are properly called "radical feminism" and that the post-1975 ideology exemplified by Andrea Dworkin and the like is really "cultural feminism". The other view is the one taken in the "Radically Speaking" anthology edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein that emphsizes the historic continuity with early and contemporary radical feminism and rejects the idea that most contemporary radical feminists are "cultural feminists". Its also important to note that most contemporary self-described "radical feminists" are very much of the Dworkinist variety, and reject Alice Echols thesis.

It should also be pointed out that there two basic sets of criticisms of radical feminism as well. One is the criticism by Alice Echols and the like that criticizes contemporary radical feminism from the POV of early radical feminism, especially the ideas of Redstockings. Most other criticism, from outside of radical feminism entirely, is basically aimed at post-1974 radical feminism, though most of these critics aren't aware of the distinctions between pre- and post-1974 radical feminism.

Basically, WP:NPOV demands that both views of what is radical feminism be presented fairly, without favoring one view of what constitutes radical feminism.

The one other criticism I have of User:Jmabel's additions is the writing style, which is way too dependent upon quotation. Statments should be summarized wherever possible. Iamcuriousblue 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone presenting the Dworkinist view. It isn't going to be me. To be honest, I've tried reading her and have found myself unwilling to read through bad prose to get at the details of the ideas of someone I so completely disagree with.
As for the quotations: most of the quotations in the article are either slogans (e.g. "the personal is political") for which there is no substitute, particular terms that it is important to be clear are verbatim from the source (e.g. "neo-Maoist"), or in the criticisms section, where a good paraphrase might do as a substitute, but in such a fraught area I hesitated to paraphrase more than was absolutely necessary. Are there particular quotations that you find inappropriate? "Quotefarm" usually goes on articles where there is a section that is just a string of quotations, more like Wikiquote than Wikipedia, and where there is no thread of our own expository writing; clearly, that is not the case here, so it would help if you could make that objection more concrete. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is over-dependent on Willis

I don't have a political objection, but this is simply a problem. There are enough other sources. --Tothebarricades 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TTB, it was an unreferenced mess when I got here, I was just trying to get it out of the status of being tagged as unreferenced & possible OR. I knew that about half of it could be clarified/cited from one essay by Willis, so I got hold of a copy and did that much on it. Now it's someone else's move. Probably someone at least slightly sympathetic to the Dworkin/MacKinnon school should have at it. And, yes, there are plenty of other sources. We probably also should have a more coherent take on the "liberal feminist" and "socialist feminist" critiques of radical feminism (and vice versa). - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dubious tag

I've added a dubious tag to the end of the second paragraph in Radical_feminism#Radical_feminist_theory_and_ideology. I'm referring specifically to the soapboxing: "men in industrialized western societies must be held personally accountable for the attitudes and actions of men in tribal-low agricultural societies" - this not only violating, wikipedia is not a soapbox; the policies on writting with a neutral point of view; it is unsourced and unverified. Either it gets verified and sourced and rewritten neutrally or it gets deleted--Cailil talk 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That was part of a large gobbit of POV dropped into the article; actually, the bit you quote strikes me as one of the least objectionable parts (it may or may not be true, but it at least claims to be a description of Radical Feminist ideas, rather than being an unsourced attack on them). Anyway, I've reverted that edit, as it's unsourced and, in most cases, unsourcable, POV. VoluntarySlave 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Redirection from "phallocracy"

It's something I mention here. You could check it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at phallocracy's history the reasoning behind its merge is lack of notablity. Phallocracy is a neologism coined by some radical feminists, and quite honestly I have rarely seen it used. Unless somebody can show why the term is a) a notable neologism (in a way that it does not violate WP:NEOLOGISM) and b) that it is notable outside of the context of radical feminism, then there's no reason for it to even exist as a redirect--Cailil talk 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You should know, wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Zslevi (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)