Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant passages that answer the question.
Query: What do radical feminist believe?
Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.[1]
Whereas radical feminists consider sex workers to be victims of circumstances and false consciousness, the liberal feminists and women who chose to participate in sex work do not consider themselves to be victims of any sort. Instead, they consider their actions to be liberating and providing them with a sense of control.
Separatist feminism is a form of radical feminism that holds that opposition to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and girls. Some separatist feminists do not believe that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate the dynamics of patriarchy.
Radical feminists claim that, because of patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm, and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They further assert that men as a class benefit from the oppression of women. Patriarchal theory is not generally defined as a belief that all men always benefit from the oppression of all women. Rather, it maintains that the primary element of patriarchy is a relationship of dominance, where one party is dominant and exploits the other for the benefit of the former. Radical feminists believe that men (as a class) use social systems and other methods of control to keep women (and non-dominant men) suppressed. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, and believe that eliminating patriarchy will liberate everyone from an unjust society. Ti-Grace Atkinson maintained that the need for power fuels the male class to continue oppressing the female class, arguing that "the need men have for the role of oppressor is the source and foundation of all human oppression".[10]
Shulamith "Shulie" Firestone (January 7, 1945 – August 28, 2012) was a Canadian-American radical feminist. A central figure in the early development of radical feminism and second-wave feminism, Firestone was a founding member of three radical-feminist groups: New York Radical Women, Redstockings, and New York Radical Feminists.
An important argument advanced by pro-sex work feminists such as Carol Queen highlights that all too often feminists who are critical of prostitution have failed to adequately consider the viewpoints of women who are themselves engaged in sex work, choosing instead to base their arguments in theory and outdated experiences. Feminists who do not support the radical anti-prostitution view, argue that there are serious problems with the anti-prostitution position, one of which is that, according to Sarah Bromberg, "it evolves from a political theory that is over-verbalized, generalized, and too often uses stereotypical notions of what a prostitute is. The radical [anti-prostitution] feminist views are ... not always delineated sufficiently to support a credible theory that prostitution degrades all women".
Radical lesbians criticized the women's liberation movement for its failure to criticize the "psychological oppression" of heteronormativity, which they believe to be "the sexual foundation of the social institutions".[57] They argued that heterosexual love relationships perpetuate patriarchal power relations through "personal domination" and therefore directly contradicted the values and goals of the movement.[58] As one radical lesbian wrote, "no matter what the feminist does, the physical act [of heterosexuality] throws both women and man back into role playing... all of her politics are instantly shattered".[58] They argued that the women's liberation movement would not be successful without challenging heteronormativity.[57][59]
In the 1960s, radical feminism emerged simultaneously within liberal feminist and working-class feminist discussions, first in the United States, then in the United Kingdom and Australia. Those involved had gradually come to believe that it was not only the middle-class nuclear family that oppressed women, but that it was also social movements and organizations that claimed to stand for human liberation, notably the counterculture, the New Left, and Marxist political parties, all of which were male-dominated and male-oriented. In the United States, radical feminism developed as a response to some of the perceived failings of both New Left organizations such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and feminist organizations such as NOW. Initially concentrated in big cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, DC, and on the West Coast,[3][lower-alpha 1] radical feminist groups spread across the country rapidly from 1968 to 1972.
Feminist theorists have written extensively about patriarchy either as a primary cause of women's oppression, or as part of an interactive system. Shulamith Firestone, a radical-libertarian feminist, defines patriarchy as a system of oppression of women. Firestone believes that patriarchy is caused by the biological inequalities between women and men, e.g. that women bear children, while men do not. Firestone writes that patriarchal ideologies support the oppression of women and gives as an example the joy of giving birth, which she labels a patriarchal myth. For Firestone, women must gain control over reproduction in order to be free from oppression. Feminist historian Gerda Lerner believes that male control over women's sexuality and reproductive functions is a fundamental cause and result of patriarchy. Alison Jaggar also understands patriarchy as the primary cause of women's oppression. The system of patriarchy accomplishes this by alienating women from their bodies.
Contrarily, liberal feminists believe that capitalism allows women to freely make whatever choices they desire. As such, some women freely choose to participate in pornography, as they do in other forms of labour. The main thing that these feminists fight for is anti-censorship, regardless of whether they personally agree with pornography or not. On this side of the debate are feminists such as Gayle Rubin and Lynn Chancer. Rubin argues that anti-pornography laws could negatively harm sexual minorities such as gays/lesbians, sex workers, and feminists because they would create new problems and modes of abuse resulting from the anti-pornography side's use of a limited amount of porn that demonstrates the most extreme cases of violence such as sadomasochism. Likewise, Chancer argues that it is possible for such imagery to be able to circulate consensually and lawfully while genuine feelings of pleasure are being experienced without women feeling subordinated. She also states that some of these feminists believe that pornography is negatively affecting women by leading to violence against women when in actuality it is not. Thus, she concludes that radical feminists are looking at pornography as a quick fix to a much larger societal problem.
Feminist views on sexuality widely vary. Many feminists, particularly radical feminists, are highly critical of what they see as sexual objectification and sexual exploitation in the media and society. Radical feminists are often opposed to the sex industry, including opposition to prostitution and pornography. Other feminists define themselves as sex-positive feminists and believe that a wide variety of expressions of female sexuality can be empowering to women when they are freely chosen. Some feminists support efforts to reform the sex industry to become less sexist, such as the feminist pornography movement.
Willis was known for her feminist politics and was a member of New York Radical Women and subsequently co-founder in early 1969 with Shulamith Firestone of the radical feminist group Redstockings. She was one of the few women working in music criticism during its inaugural years when the field was predominantly male. Starting in 1979, Willis wrote a number of essays that were highly critical of anti-pornography feminism, criticizing it for what she saw as its sexual puritanism and moral authoritarianism, as well as its threat to free speech. These essays were among the earliest expressions of feminist opposition to the anti-pornography movement in what became known as the feminist sex wars. Her 1981 essay, "Lust Horizons: Is the Women's Movement Pro-Sex?" is the origin of the term, "pro-sex feminism".
Radical feminist thinking has analyzed prostitution as a cornerstone of patriarchal domination and sexual subjugation of women that impacts negatively not only on the women and girls in prostitution but on all women as a group, because prostitution continually affirms and reinforces patriarchal definitions of women as having a primary function to serve men sexually. They say it is crucial that society does not replace one patriarchal view on female sexuality—e.g., that women should not have sex outside marriage/a relationship and that casual sex is shameful for a woman, etc.—with another similarly oppressive and patriarchal view—acceptance of prostitution, a sexual practice based on a highly patriarchal construct of sexuality: that the sexual pleasure of a woman is irrelevant, that her only role during sex is to submit to the man's sexual demands and to do what he tells her, that sex should be controlled by the man, and that the woman's response and satisfaction are irrelevant. Radical feminists argue that sexual liberation for women cannot be achieved so long as we normalize unequal sexual practices where a man dominates a woman.[38] "Feminist consciousness raising remains the foundation for collective struggle and the eventual liberation of women".[39]
Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of women's oppression. Radical feminists believe that women can free themselves only when they have done away with what they consider an inherently oppressive and dominating patriarchal system. Radical feminists feel that there is a male-based authority and power structure and that it is responsible for oppression and inequality, and that, as long as the system and its values are in place, society will not be able to be reformed in any significant way. Some radical feminists see no alternatives other than the total uprooting and reconstruction of society in order to achieve their goals.
Radical feminist ideology is different from mainstream or liberal feminism because it believes that women's liberation can only be achieved through the re-ordering of patriarchal society, while mainstream/liberal feminism seeks equality within the current system in place. Radical feminism also focuses on sex as the root of female oppression, as opposed to social class and/or race. Notable radical feminist groups and organizations include Cell 16, Redstockings, The Radical Feminists #28 and The Furies Collective.
Within groups such as New York Radical Women (1967–1969 (no relation to the present-day socialist feminist organization Radical Women), which Ellen Willis characterized as "the first women's liberation group in New York City",[16] a radical feminist ideology began to emerge that declared that "the personal is political" and "sisterhood is powerful",[3] formulations that arose from these consciousness-raising sessions. This call to women's activism was coined by Kathie Sarachild in the 1960s.[17] New York Radical Women fell apart in early 1969 in what came to be known as the "politico-feminist split" with the "politicos" seeing capitalism as the source of women's oppression, while the "feminists" saw male supremacy as "a set of material, institutionalized relations, not just bad attitudes". The feminist side of the split, which soon began referring to itself as "radical feminists",[16] soon constituted the basis of a new organization, Redstockings. At the same time, Ti-Grace Atkinson led "a radical split-off from NOW", which became known as The Feminists.[18] A third major stance would be articulated by the New York Radical Feminists, founded later in 1969 by Shulamith Firestone (who broke from the Redstockings) and Anne Koedt.[19]
Chesler is considered a radical feminist and a second wave feminist leader. Chesler believes that men can and should be feminists, and she wrote in her book "Letters to a Young Feminist" that she envisions her heirs as both women and men. Chesler has studied male psychology and published a book on the subject ("About Men") which discussed the father-son, mother-son, and brother-brother relationships; the book also tried to understand male conformity, how and why men obeyed the orders of male tyrants, and what kind of men resisted doing so.
In 1955 Seaman underwent a radical mastectomy due to a mass found in her breast. This milestone in her life turned her to a path of education and awareness about breast cancer and its severity. In 1965, Seaman published a controversial novel called "What Every Woman Should Know About Breast Cancer", in which she explains ways of how a radical mastectomy could be avoided. Seaman then devoted herself to educating other women on the importance of self-checks and mammograms for the rest of her career. In an interview with Irene Davall, a prominent feminist leader in the 1970s, Seaman stated, "It may be in time that they don't have to do many radicals, especially if mammograms should become more popular." Ultimately, she believed strongly in women's activism and educating the public on women's health issues that were rarely talked about at the time.
Feminist views on transgender topics range from accepting to critical. Some feminists such as Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism, while others such as Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys believe that transgender and transsexual people uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary.
Additionally, some transgender and transsexual people, such as Julia Serano and Jacob Anderson-Minshall, identify as transfeminists. Feminists with exclusionary views have been referred to as "TERFs" (short for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"). They generally object to the acronym and have called it a slur or even hate speech.
Sex-positive feminists are also strongly opposed to radical feminist calls for legislation against pornography, a strategy they decried as censorship, and something that could, they argued, be used by social conservatives to censor the sexual expression of women, gay people, and other sexual minorities. The initial period of intense debate and acrimony between sex-positive and anti-pornography feminists during the early 1980s is often referred to as the feminist sex wars. Other sex-positive feminists became involved not in opposition to other feminists but in direct response to what they saw as patriarchal control of sexuality.
Feminism and "bra-burning" became linked in popular culture. The analogous term "jockstrap-burning" has since been coined as a reference to masculism. While feminist women did not literally burn their bras, some stopped wearing them in protest. Author and feminist Bonnie J. Dow has suggested that the association between feminism and bra-burning was encouraged by individuals who opposed the feminist movement. "Bra-burning" created an image that women weren't really seeking freedom from sexism, but were attempting to assert themselves as sexual beings. This might lead individuals to believe, as she wrote in her 2003 article "Feminism, Miss America, and Media Mythology," that the women were merely trying to be "trendy, and to attract men." Women associated with an act like symbolically burning their bra may be seen by some as law-breaking radicals, eager to shock the public. This view may have supported the efforts of opponents to feminism and their desire to invalidate the movement. Some feminist activists believe that anti-feminists use the bra burning myth and the subject of going braless to trivialize what the protesters were trying to accomplish at the feminist 1968 Miss America protest and the feminist movement in general.
Radical egalitarianism, "an approach to the distribution of economic resources", aimed to "diminish differences among people" based on "culture or a way of life".[27] Because of their commitment to radical egalitarianism, most early radical feminist groups operated initially without any formal internal structure. When informal leadership developed, it was often resented. Some of the feminist leaders reacted with defiance, some quit the movement", and "others tried to respond to the criticism by echoing it and withdrawing from [their] leadership roles, in classic guilty liberal fashion".[28] Many groups ended up expending more effort debating their own internal operations than dealing with external matters, seeking to "perfect a perfect society in microcosm" rather than focus on the larger world. Resentment of leadership was compounded by the view that all "class striving" was "male-identified". In the extreme, exemplified by The Feminists, the upshot, according to Ellen Willis, was "unworkable, mechanistic demands for an absolutely random division of labor, taking no account of differences in skill, experience, or even inclination". "The result," writes Willis, "was not democracy but paralysis." Willis believed that part of the reason the problems weren't dealt with was because "of the unconscious fear that feminists' demands for freedom and power would provoke devastating retribution". When The Feminists began to select randomly who could talk to the press, Ti-Grace Atkinson quit the organization she had founded.[29]
The authors are aiming their point towards all future feminists (particularly 3rd wave), who are often in conflict with the previous generation of feminists. The tension comes from the belief that 2nd Wave is exclusively white-middle class and over essentialist in the view of femininity. This conflict has led to an almost ideological split between the two factions, but Manifesta's prologue allows for the justification of the 2nd wave's actions. If 2nd Wave feminists not precipitated society to what it was for the 3rd Wave feminists, who knows how the power struggle might have unfolded. This is not taking away anything from the authors' identified group—the 3rd Wave feminists, it is just reminding all of the current feminists, not to criticize what they do not completely know or understand. The accomplishments of the previous generations can never be taken for granted, their success came from radical action which pushed the limits in every segment of society. They did what was deemed reasonably possible, and what the white-male patriarchal society would accept. From their success sprouts and blossoms another movement—the 3rd wave. Society was ready for this movement, people were ready to change the norms of white-male dominance, hence 3rd Wave can manifest in the success of the 2nd Wave, not treat it as its enemy. The two authors just want more harmony within the bigger picture.
Some liberal feminists and individualist feminists have criticized the notion of sexual harassment. Camille Paglia says that young girls can end up acting in such ways as to make sexual harassment easier, such that for example, by acting "nice" they can become a target. Paglia commented in an interview with Playboy, "Realize the degree to which your niceness may invoke people to say lewd and pornographic things to you—sometimes to violate your niceness. The more you blush, the more people want to do it." Jane Gallop believes that sexual harassment laws have been abused by what she calls "victim feminists", as opposed to "power feminists" as she calls herself.
Pro-feminists claim to be anti-sexist, and anti-patriarchal, but they argue that they are not anti-male. Some pro-feminist men believe that men have potential for good and believe that there is a potential for "backlash" within the men's movement, a potential for the movement to turn towards the defence of what they see as men's privilege and position, and some say that this has already occurred. While all pro-feminist men assume that men must act to dismantle gender injustice, some argue that a men's movement is not the way to do this. They advocate instead that pro-feminists build alliances and coalitions with other progressive groups and movements (such as feminism, gay and lesbian liberation, left-wing and socialist movements, anti-racist struggles, and so on).