Index of Terms
Whatever positive image the word feminist may have had, it has been tarnished by those who have made it their own, and I, for one, am content to leave the militants in full possession of the term. — Dale O'Leary in her book
The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality (p. 23)
(Dale O'Leary devoted a full two chapters of her book to describe and chronicle radical feminism and "really radical feminism." —WHS)Feminism is exhibited by a spirit of unrest among a comparatively small number of dissatisfied women. They preach the gospel of unholy discontent. They are born agitators, and "dearly love a fight." They prefer war to peace; turmoil to tranquility; contention to concord; pride to humility; sophistry to truth; agnosticism to belief, and prefer to assert their own wills, "live their own lives" as against the precepts of all conventional morality, being moral anarchists. — Benjamin V. Hubbard,
in Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism, the Terrible Triplets... (1915)Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such. — F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
Disclaimer:
Many of the definitions of the various factions of feminism identified in this page come from feminist sources. I agree with none of those definitions and don't intend to imply any validity of any of them, other than that they are accurate depictions of how the various factions of feminism view themselves.
On account of the solid Marxist roots of virtually all of feminist ideology and its clearly Marxist agenda, those definitions contained in this page that came from feminist sources are displayed on pink background. The colour pink was chosen solely for reasons of legibility. It's too bad. A more appropriate background colour would be a solid red.
The list is not definitive. Many more hyphenated sub-types of these almost exclusively feminist terms are in use and new ones show up constantly.
Virtually all of the terms aim at the destruction of traditional moral standards and the traditional nuclear family, thereby aiming at turning civilization into something that is clearly not as good as what we had become accustomed to. Where will it all end? Nobody knows and it will be far different from what we can imagine.
Only one thing is certain. If profamily advocates don't soon get together and work cooperatively to oppose the planned destruction of our families, there'll soon not be much left of civilization worth salvaging.
Anti-feminists
'Women who do, & Women who don』t Join the Women』s Movement.』
A book review.Modern radical feminism can hardly claim to be representative of all women. While Women』s Liberation was a genuine mass movement back in the 70』s when they fought for equal rights and the freedom to choose non-traditional roles, there has always been female opposition from both inside and outside feminist organisations to the more extreme stances taken by the radicals.
Amazon Feminism
Amazon feminism is dedicated to the image of the female hero in fiction and in fact, as it is expressed in art and literature, in the physiques and feats of female athletes, and in sexual values and practices.
Amazon feminism is concerned about physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look or behave as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless.
Amazon feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of heroic womanhood. Thus Amazon feminism advocates e.g., female strength athletes, martial artists, soldiers, etc. [TG]
Anarcho Feminism
Anarcho feminism was never a huge movement, especially in the United States, and you won't find a whole lot written about it. I mention it mostly because of the influential work of Emma Goldman, who used anarchism to craft a radical feminism that was (alas!) far ahead of her time. Radical feminism expended a lot of energy dealing with a basis from which to critique society without falling into Marxist pleas for socialist revolution. It also expended a lot of energy trying to reach across racial and class lines. Goldman had succeeded in both. Radical feminist Alix Schulman realized this, but not in time to save her movement. She's put out a reader of Goldman's work and a biography, both of which I recommend highly. [JD]
Christian Feminists
A number of women have chosen to call themselves pro-life feminists or Christian feminists. They feel that the word is broad enough to include all women who believe in women's rights and women's equality. While the desire to express support for women is understandable, it seems to me that there is a substantial difference between being for women and being for feminism.
— Dale O'Leary (p. 23)
Which is the view, esentially an American belief, that "gender" is a social construct and not biologically determined. Cynthia Eller also asserts, so Lawrence Osborn reports in his review of her book, that some cultures have a "third gender," but no more than anyone else tells us in which cultures "gender" is held to be relatively insignificant.
Cultural Feminism
As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD]
Cultural feminists can sometimes come up with notions that sound disturbingly Victorian and non-progressive: that women are inherently (biologically) "kinder and gentler" than men and so on. (Therefore if all leaders were women, we wouldn't have wars.) I do think, though, that cultural feminism's attempts to heighten respect for what is traditionally considered women's work is an important parallel activity to recognizing that traditionally male activities aren't necessarily as important as we think. [CTM]
I have often associated this type of statement [inherently kinder and gentler] with Separatist Feminists, who seem to me to feel that women are *inherently* kinder and gentler, so why associate with men? (This is just my experience from Separatists I know...I haven't read anything on the subject.) I know Cultural Feminists who would claim women are *trained* to be kinder and gentler, but I don't know any who have said they are *naturally* kinder. [SJ]
As various 1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks got pessimistic about the very possibility of social change. Many of then turned their attention to building alternatives, so that if they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as much as possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical feminism to cultural feminism was about. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps justifying) the abandonment of working for social change. Cultural feminism's justification was biological determinism. This justification was worked out in great detail, and was based on assertions in horribly-flawed books like Elizabeth Gould Davis's _The First Sex_ and Ashley Montagu's _The Natural Superiority of Women_. So notions that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences might not be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable. There is no inherent connection between alternative-building and ideologies of biological determinism (or of social intractability). SJ has apparently encountered alternative-builders who don't embrace biological determinism, and I consider this a very good sign. [JD]
I should point out here that Ashley Montagu is male, and his book was first copyright in 1952, so I don't believe that it originated as part of the separatist movements in the '60's. It may still be horribly flawed; I haven't yet read it. [CTM]
My Note: A serious conflict exists between the preceding definition and that of radical feminism that is shown at the same source. —WHS
Difference Feminism
Difference feminism alleges that society is designed and structured by men for men and that women became subservient in the process. They want to construct a society for women–leaving room for men–and believe that because of the better nurturing qualities that women possess, many of the problems inherent in society can be alleviated once women are in power .
Dominance Feminism
In her essay Feminism, Law, and Bioethics, which contains also contains comments about Liberal Feminism, Cultural Feminism and Postmodern Feminism, Karen H. Rothenberg argues that,
Radical or dominance feminism, like cultural feminism, arose in large part as a response to the perceived inadequacies in liberal feminist theory. Catherine MacKinnon, the major proponent of dominance theory, argues with cultural feminists that men and women are different; however, unlike cultural feminists, she argues that these differences largely reflect the fact that in society women are subordinate and men are dominant (MacKinnon 1987; see also Littleton 1989). According to dominance theorists, it is this inequality in power to which the law must respond. Moreover, since the primary source of women's oppression is private power, particularly the threat of sexual violence, the solution is not--as the liberal feminists often claim--less state intervention, but more. Radical feminists argue, for example, that the legal system should abandon its traditional "hands-off" attitude toward violence in the family and move more aggressively to protect women from the abusive power of men in the private sphere. These arguments have produced concrete changes in some state laws that have made it easier for the [End Page 73] police to intervene in domestic violence disputes and for criminal law to recognize that rape is a violent act that can occur within the marital relationship. My Note: It may not seem entirely fair to leave the pink background for the preceding statement, but I don't have lighter shades of pink. The statement identifies what dominance feminists are about, and that the wishes of radical or dominance feminists resulted in very concrete changes to the extent of police intervention in domestic violence — alleged falsely or not. The statement pays little attention to the reality that all of those changes meant recognition only of male and not female violence. It appears therefore that Karen H. Rothenberg sees nothing wrong with the growing anti-male discrimination caused by increasingly feminist jurisprudence. Whether she is a feminist or not, she sees things through the gender lens, therefore the background must remain pink. —WHSECHO FEMINIST
According to Earl Silverman: A male feminist who echoes pop-feminist propaganda; an anti-male man. — The Backlash! Dictionary
Eco Feminism:
This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchical society will exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchical/hierarchical society. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchical culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM]
This is actually socially-conscious environmentalism with a tiny smattering of the radical and cultural feminist observation that exploitation of women and exploitation of the earth have some astonishing parallels. The rest of "eco-feminism" turns out to be a variation on socialism. The Green movements of Europe have done a good job of formulating (if not implementing) an environmentally aware feminism; and while Green movements were not originally considered a part of eco-feminism, they are now recognized as a vital component. [JD]
(If I remember correctly, a couple of feminist groups, including NOW have joined up with Green parties. [CTM])
EQUITY FEMINISM
According to Christina Hoff Sommers, the "First Wave" feminism that asked for "fair treatment, without discrimination." — The Backlash! Dictionary
Erotic Feminism
[European] This seemed to start (as a movement) in Germany under the rule of Otto von Bismarck. He ruled the land with the motto "blood and iron". In society the man was the _ultra manly man_ and power was patriarchal power. Some women rebelled against this, by becoming WOMAN. Eroticism became a philosophical and metaphysical value and the life-creating value. [RG]
My Note: It's interesting that this definition mentions the "blood and iron" policy of Germany under the Kaiser but doen't say anything about its implications. The "blood" of that policy was that of the men who had to leave their lives and health on the battlefields of the world, whereas the "iron" represented the arms industry created for no other purpose than to smash the bodies of men to a pulp.
Under the policy of "blood and iron" women were viewed as little more than breeders of human resources, primarily of soldiers to fight battles with, secondarily of manpower to fuel the growing manpower requirements of industrial and colonialization efforts. Due to the important role women played in that policy they were awarded special status with rankings according to prolificacy. Women revelled in that status and played happily along. Women happily did their duty to the state, raised their sons to be manly, much admired men for achieving military rank and bearing, sent them off to war and revelled once more in the veneration they received by making "their" large sacrifices, while the men died on the battlefields with the names of their mothers on their lips.The important role that women played in Germany's plans for expansion was properly recognized by Heinrich Himmler after World War I and promoted by him to become an integral part of the Nazification of Germany and the deliberate creation of the aristocratic elite of the SS that was intended to eventually rule a Europe enslaved and dominated by the Nazis. A total of 240,000 German women willingly submitted themselves to the process of genetic and political screening necessary to enable them to become formally and ceremoniously married to members of the SS as part of the Nazi breeding program for the SS elite. (See Women in the SS) —WHS
Feminazi:
This term was "invented" by the radio/tv host Rush Limbaugh. He defines a feminazi as a feminist who is trying to produce as many abortions as possible. Hence the term "nazi" - he sees them as trying to rid the world of a particular group of people (fetuses).
This term is of course completely without merit, but there's the definition of it FYI. [CTM]
My Note: Can't blame Rush Limbaugh for justifying the term on account of the feminist war on a group of people, unborn children. Each year 1.5 million are being killed in the USA and more than 100,000 in Canada. The real horror is the world total that some people put at 55 million each year. Yet, the world is facing a looming
population shortage . The developed nations are already in the grip of one. —WHS
Feminism and Women of Color:
In _feminist theory from margin to center_ (1984), bell hooks writes of "militant white women" who call themselves "radical feminists" but hooks labels them "reactionary" . . . Hooks is refering to cultural feminism here. Her comment is a good introduction to that fractious variety of feminism that Jaggar and Rothenberg find hard to label any further than to designate its source as women of color. It is a most vital variety, covering much of the same ground as radical feminism and duplicating its dynamic nature. Yet bad timing kept the two from ever uniting. For more information you might want to also read hooks' book and her earlier reader, _ain't i a woman?_ Whereas radical feminism was primarily formulated by educated white women focusing on women's issues, this variety was formulated by women who would not (because they could not) limit their focus. What is so extraordinary is that the two converged in so many ways, with the notable exception that the women of color were adamantly opposed to considering one form of oppression (sexism) without considering the others. [JD]
I think an important work in the history of feminism and women of color is Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga's anthology, _This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women of Color_. It's my belief that the unique contribution of women of color, who experience at least two forms of discrimination daily, provides balance and reality to much of the more theoretical forms of academic feminism favored by educated white women. [EE]
Feminists for Fornication
These [sic] Pro-Sex Feminists believe that pornography can offer women a way to explore and affirm their sexualities, provide information on sexual techniques, promote sexual autonomy, and encourage female sexual pleasure. Pornography may be a means for women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives, break cultural stereotypes, and empower themselves through the assertion of sexual subjectivity.
We like men. We like sex with men. We love men. We love cock. We like looking sexy and we are not ashamed to do so—and we're feminists. [Source]
My Note: Don't think for a moment that they won't cry "Rape" at a glance from you whenever they deem it to be convenient. —WHS
GENDER FEMINISM
Short for "Sex/Gender Feminism," according to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is the doctrine that women are "in thrall to 'a system of male dominance' variously referred to as 'heteropatriarchy' or the sex/gender system." That is, a "complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey."
— The Backlash! Dictionary Gender feminists do not refer to themselves by that name. Instead, they call themselves feminists and pretend to represent all women....
...Christina Hoff Sommers distinguishes between old, mainstream, or equity feminism (roughly equivalent to liberal feminism) and new "resenter" (angry at men), or gender feminism. Recently, some have taken to distinguishing between liberal, radical, Marxist, and postmodernist feminists.— Dale O'Leary (p. 23)My Note: In relation to the contradiction inherent in the feminist claim that all sexual acts by women with men – even if they took place over a period of years – are acts of suppression and of violence by men, Wendy McElroy sent ACFC an article she wrote, describing the heresy inherent in the stance of modern feminists with respect to the allegations of sex crimes when comparing it to individualist feminism as promoted by 19th century feminists such as Sarah Grimke.
Woman Responsible for Sex Acts — Film at 11
by Wendy McElroy, June 15, 2000
Excerpts:
In her essay entitled "Legal Disabilities of Women," a famous plea to have women』s consent taken seriously, the individualist feminist Sarah Grimke compared the legal status of married women to that of slaves. She wrote, "All contracts made with her, like those made with slaves by their owners, are a mere nullity."
...She wanted women to bear legal responsibility for their bad acts as well. For example, she decried a law that stated, "A wife is excused from punishment for theft committed in the presence, or by the command of her husband." [See also Crichton]...Such pioneering feminists struggled not only for women』s rights but also for women』s responsibilities so that their sex could stand erect and equal with men.
And, as the logical corollary that 19th century individualist feminists eagerly willingly embraced, whatever it is morally improper for a man to do, it is improper for a woman to do. This includes, first and foremost, denying responsibility for actions willingly taken. [See also the description of the legal accountability of 19th century women as per Michael Crichton in "The Great Train Robbery." Make sure to read the footnote pertaining to that excerpt. —WHS]
Lesbianism:
There are a couple of points to make here. First is that Lesbianism is not necessarily a *de facto* part of feminism. While it is true that merely being a lesbian is a direct contravention of "traditional" concepts of womanhood, Lesbians themeselves hold a wide variety of opionions on the subject of feminism just as their straight sisters do.
On the other hand, Lesbianism has sometimes been made into a political point by straight women "becoming" lesbian in order to fully reject men. However, it is never accurate to characterise all feminists as Lesbians nor all Lesbians as feminists.
The reader should also note that homophobia is as present among feminists as it is in any other segment of society. Lesbianism and feminism, for all their common points and joint interests, are two very different groups. [CTM]
See also:
- Lesbian Feminism, Alison Jagger (pp. 5-37)
- Lesbianism — 30+ different sexual orientations, and counting
Liberal Feminism:
This is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals, they slog along inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. [JD]
See also: liberal feminism, Alison Jagger (pp. 5-37)
...Christina Hoff Sommers distinguishes between old, mainstream, or equity feminism (roughly equivalent to liberal feminism) and new "resenter" (angry at men), or gender feminism. Recently, some have taken to distinguishing between liberal, radical, Marxist, and postmodernist feminists.
Some have suggested that the term 'feminist' should be reserved for liberal feminists and others referred to as 'feminist extremists.' This would give the inaccuarate impression that the 'feminist extremists' are atypical, which is not the case. Liberal feminists are not the dominant force in the women's movement. Among feminist theorists and feminist activists, the percentage of liberal feminists grows smaller every year. Furthermore, women who even suggest moderation are often castigated by 'true believers' as traitors to the cause or captives of 'backlash.' —Dale O'Leary (p. 23)
...Profamily advocates do, however, recognize the limitations of liberal feminism, particularly its failure to take into account the real and obvious differences between men and women and to recognize that many of the laws "discriminating" between men and women were not attempts to oppress women, but attempts to compensate for natural differences and protect women.— Dale O'Leary (pp. 99, 100)
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg point to significant differences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical," but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system. [JD]
See also: Marxist and socialist feminism, Alison Jagger (pp. 5-37)
In case you should have any doubts about the communist connection, consider this:
Material Feminism
A movement in the late 19th century to liberate women by improving their material condition. This meant taking the burden of housework and cooking off their shoulders. _The Grand Domestic Revolution_ by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is one reference. [RZ]
Moderate Feminism:
This branch of feminism tends to be populated by younger women or other women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They are closely affiliated with liberal feminism, but tend to question the need for further effort, and do not think that Radical feminism is any longer viable and in fact rather embarrassing (this is the group most likely to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist"). [CTM]
POD FEMINIST
According to Susan Faludi's recent article in Ms Magazine, apparently anyone who claims to be a feminist but supports equal responsibilities as well as equal rights, does not believe upper and upper-middle class American women are oppressed, does not believe 33 percent of women are rape victims, and advocates a policy that treats both women and men like human beings. Not to be confused with a "real" feminist, who is not to be confused with those women who "just play one on TV."
— The Backlash! Dictionary
'pop feminism'
This term has appeared several times on soc.feminism. It appears to be a catch-all for the bogey"man" sort of feminism that everyone loves to hate: you know, the kind of feminism that grinds men under its heel and admits to no wrong for women. It is doubtful that such a caricature actually exists, yet many people persist in lumping all feminists into this sort of a category. [CTM]
POP FEMINIST - A person who demands rights and privileges for women and responsibilities and restrictions for men. Anyone who subscribes to Faludi's idiotic pod feminist definition above.
— The Backlash! Dictionary Post-Modernist Feminism
In a 1996 review of Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed (Edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein, Spinifex, Melbourne), Alison Jones provides a glimpse into the world of post-modernist feminist ideology:
I will leave aside the book's tedious and dangerous refrain about intellectual work being a diversion from the `real' practical work of changing women's lives. Waters' produces a division which neither interesting nor helpful; for a start, most supposed `postmodernist feminists' would NOT say postmodernism is a `logical progression'; postmodernism eschews such notions. What interests postmodern feminists are the effects of the various discourses / theoretical frameworks /stories we tell, or use. They would ask: `what are the multiple effects of stories about patriarchy and women's oppression? do they unintentionally re-produce those very ideologies they seek to dispel?' This is not to say they radical feminist theoretical terms are `outmoded' - simply that they cannot be automatically and uncritically accepted, by any of us. This reflexive moment is the `postmodern turn' taken up by many contemporary feminists, but rejected by radical feminism, and epitomised in this book's lack of a self-critical voice. The authors ask `what are the effects of using philosophers (such as Foucault) who have never been interested politically in women?' In a postmodern spirit of self-critical inquiry, I think this is a useful and important question - one which has been addressed many times by large numbers of feminist theorists and researchers, including Elizabeth Grosz, Jana Sawicki, Lois McNay, Sharon Marcus. But there is only one answer in this book: and it is precisely its narrow perspective which makes Radically Speaking a tome of only limited interest: it offers us a predictable, repetitive and unself-critical version of radical feminism. My Note: Alison Jones is located in New Zealand. New Zealand is the home of "The Gender Lens," the shameless euphemism for post-modernist feminism. The gender lens is the process by which all jurisprudence, legislation, judicial processes, administrative orders, and all aspects of life, especially those that intend to be changed or to be newly introduced, are being evaluated by feminists in all sectors of government as to their relative merits with respect to how far they are of positive benefit to women.
Post-modernist feminism is radical feminism that openly divorced itself from all pretenses that it is attempting to achieve equitable rights for women. After all, it would be futile to aim at achieving equitable rights for women when they already possess the lion's share of social equity. Post-modern feminism aims at nothing other than absolute supremacy of women.
Feminism by any other name stills smells the same. — WHS
Power Feminism
Working within institutional parameters for political gains is a central aspect of what [Naomi] Wolf deems "power feminism." Power feminism, ideologically, is Feminism Lite: dogma-free, except for an unequivocal belief that "women matter as much as men do." Among other things, power feminism "seeks power and uses it responsibly," "hates sexism without hating men," is "unapologetically sexual," and "wants all women to express their own opinions." Above all, it does not whine. Wolf reminds us of model Marla Hansen, whose face, badly slashed by two thugs, finally came to a point where she was ready to give up her identity as a victim, and sought medical treatment to remove her scars. `the women's movement as a whole," observes Wolf, "is at exactly such a psychological juncture." It is ready to rid itself of "victim feminism."[Source]
Some of the feminists may be ready to do that, but it looks as if virtually none of them are. On the other hand, the whole non-feminist rest of the world is most certainly ready to sweep victim-feminism out of the door. Nevertheless, from the definition given in the preceding quote, power feminism doesn't sound all that attractive either. Marxism by any other name still smells the same. —WHS
Prolife feminists
A number of women have chosen to call themselves prolife feminists or Christian feminists. They feel that the word is broad enough to include all women who believe in women's rights and women's equality. While the desire to express support for women is understandable, it seems to me that there is a substantial difference between being for women and being for feminism.
— Dale O'Leary (p. 23)
Radical Feminism:
Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides an important foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesireable" element of feminism, Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism. [CTM]
Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example, cultural feminism. In addition, radical feminism is not and never has been related to the Maoist-feminist group Radical Women. [EE]
This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. [JD]
Ironically, this get-to-the-roots movement is the most root-less variety of feminism. This was part of its strength and part of its weakness. It was always dynamic, always dealing with factions, and always full of ideas. Its influence has been felt in all the other varieties listed here, as well as in society at large. [JD]
To me, radical feminism is centred on the necessity to question gender roles. This is why I identify current "gender politics" questions as radical feminist issues. Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines between biologically-determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior in order to free both men and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles. [EE]
The best history of this movement is a book called _Daring to be Bad_, by Echols. I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply titled _Radical Feminism_ and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt, a well-known radical feminist [EE].
Radical feminist theory is to a large extent incompatible with cultural feminism. The reason is that the societal forces it deals with seem so great in magnitude that they make it impossible to identify any innate masculine or feminine attributes except those which are results of the biological attributes. (This is what I think the [above] "view[s] the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of oppression," [is getting at] although I don't agree with that statement in its context.) [DdJ]
See also: radical feminism, Alison Jagger (pp. 5-37)
My note (WHS): It is amazing that here (as also identified by Dale O'Leary) it becomes obvious that radical feminism is IT, virtually all of feminism there is, most definitely THE feminism that is in power and crowding every other type of "moderate" feminism out of existence, yet, in the definition of cultural feminism above it is obvious that the individual who provided that definition of that is clearly not of the same opinion as the ones who contributed to the definition of radical feminism.
It is far safer to assume, it seems, that Dale O'Leary's definition of radical feminism is the one to go by. Dale O'Leary quotes her friend, Claire Driver, "...who taught Russian literature at the University of Rhode Island," whom Dale O'Leary tried to get to clarify her own confusion about why the feminist ideology sounded so familiar to her. "She just laughed and said, 'Dale, they are all Marxists.' Class struggle, oppression, patriarchy—I had heard it before. It had been a long time since I had read Marx, but I remembered, 'All history is the history of class struggle . . . Oppressor against oppressed.' The words fit the tune.
It had all been there, but I hadn't seen it. Looking back through the feminists' texts, I was amazed at how many of them quoted Marx and his companion and confidant Frederick Engels and, in particular, Engles' book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State...." [Dale O'Leary (p. 97)]
Dale O'Leary illustrates by means of quotes from and comments pertaining to Shulamith Firestone's book The Dialectic of Sex, that Firestone shows how Marxism can be transformed into radical feminism. [Dale O'Leary (pp. 104-106)]
Separatists:
Popularly and wrongly depicted as Lesbians, these are the feminists who advocate separation from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. Women who organize women-only events are often unfairly dubbed separatist. Separatists are sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. The core idea is that "separating" (by various means) from men enables women to see themselves in a different context. Many feminists, whether or not separatist, think this is a necessary "first step", by which they mean a temporary separation for personal growth, not a permanent one. [CTM]
There is sometimes some overlap between separatist and cultural feminists (see below). [SJ]
It is equally inaccurate to consider all Lesbians as separatist; while it is true that they do not interact with men for sexual fulfillment, it is not true that they therefore automatically shun all interaction with men. [CTM] And, conversely, it is equally inaccurate to consider all separatists Lesbians. Additionally, lesbian feminism may be considered a category distinct from separatist feminism. Lesbian feminism puts more emphasis on lesbianism -- active bonding with women -- than separatism does, in its emphasis on removing bonds with men. [EE]
See also: Matriarchal separatist feminism, Alison Jagger (pp. 5-37)
My Note (WHS): Much of what the various brands of feminism aim at can be gleaned from feminist science fiction, although it may be even more revealing to read science fiction written by a renowned male science fiction writer who is not a feminist and who views a hypothetical futuristic scenario under the constraints of separatist feminism. John Wyndham did just that in Consider her Ways. It is a far more frightening and more likely scenario than the popular one produced by Margaret Atwood in
A Handmaid's Tale.
Lawrence Osborn, June 28, 2000, at salon.com, provided abook review of The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Will not Give Women a Future, by Cynthia Eller, a book in which Eller (an "enlightened" feminist and independent scholar at Princeton University), debunks the pretensions of matriarchalists as well as the myth of the prehistoric matriarchy. Lawrence Osborn sums up Cyntia Eller's view of the matriarchalists' mantra:
Prior to about 3000 B.C. horticultural, Neolithic societies were dominated by goddess worship. War was unknown, as was social strife. Women ruled and men accepted it. Ecological balance went hand in hand with a primitive sexual equality....
But then, believers claim, this hypothetical female Eden was shattered by some kind of patriarchal revolution. Along came male rule, war and sexism, and things have gone catastrophically downhill ever since.Athough Lawrence Osborn is undoubtedly correct in tacitly approving of Cynthia Eller's view that "matriarchy is part of the general feminist atmosphere rather than a tenet of a specific school," he did a disservice to mankind by not focusing on giving matriarchalism more weight.
No matter how mythical it's foundations, matriarchalism is, after all, the primary rationalization and motivating force for all feminists who seek – destructively, if not successfully – to bring about what never existed in either historical or prehistorical times: universal matriarchal rule. The danger of matriarchalism is not so much that it is silly, but that a large number of people believe in it. Any ideology, silly or not, will turn into a danger to mankind if a sufficient number of fanatics adhere to it.
Still, Lawrence Osborn addresses that danger in the last paragraph of his five-page review:
It's possible, then, that in an odd way the sentimental, gawky matriarchalists, with their gung-ho celebrations of seething procreation and female fecundity are addressing something that mainstream feminism ignores or arrogantly trivializes. The resentnik myth is largely twaddle. But its emotional roots may not be so easy to dismiss. Neither should we dismiss its poisonous fruits that are being eaten by so many.
The quote is from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
Victim Feminism
"Victim feminism," according to [Naomi] Wolf, claims power and purity by identifying with powerlessness itself. Coming out of the radical 60's Left, and misshapen by crude interpretations of 70's feminist theories--"all men are rapists," for example; "all women are lesbians"--victim feminism has repulsed the mainstream and ossified women's communities for years. A sort of evil twin of power feminism, victim feminism is responsible for "man-bashing," overt censorship, and a pervasive elitism that has forced the vast population of women to turn from Bella to Oprah to get their needs met. It is, according to Wolf, "sexually judgmental"; "casts women...as good and attacks men...as wrong"; and "wants all other women to share its opinions." [Source]
A more expansive collection of quotes and comments relating to victim feminism
[Other categories? Both formal and informal are welcome.]
Men's Movements:
[Largely contributed by Dave Gross. Exceptions noted.]
It may seem odd to include some notes on men's movements in a description of feminism. However, many of these movements were started in reaction to feminism: some inspired by and others in contra-reaction to it. In this context, examining men's movements tells of some specific reactions to feminism by men. [CTM]
Most men's movement historians date the men's movement back to the early seventies. In 1970, according to Anthony Astrachan ("How Men Feel" p. 291) the first men's center opened in Berkeley, Calif. and the magazine "Liberation" published an article by Jack Sawyer entitled "On Male Liberation."
The men's movement equivalent to the catalyst provided to the women's movement by Betty Friedan, was "The Male Machine" by Mark Feigen Fasteau in 1975. My edition has a forward by Gloria Steinem in which she writes: "This book is a complement to the feminist revolution, yet it is one no woman could write. It is the revolution's other half."
But a reexamination of the male gender role certainly predates the 1970s. In fact, the book "The American Male" by Myron Brenton, complained that "when the plight of woman is given such intense scrutiny, a curiously distorting effect tends to be created. Suddenly the world is seen only through the feminist prism." This quote, which would be comfortable coming out of Warren Farrell's mouth in the 1990s, was published in 1966. The book was essentially a male-friendly, pro-feminist examination of the male sex role, and started a theme of portraying masculinity as dangerous and destructive (physically and emotionally) to men -- a theme that was to also provide the basis for the works of Fasteau, Goldberg and Farrell in the 1970s.
And R.F. Doyle, who was to form one of the rare traditionalist men's groups, was already fighting for male-friendly divorce reform in the early 1960s (his Divorce Racket Busters in 1960 is in a direct line of parentage to his Men's Rights Association in 1973).
Barbara Ehrenreich in "The Hearts of Men" traces the men's movement back even further. She believes that the current men's movement is only the latest representation of a long-term male revolt against the "breadwinner ethic:"
"I will argue that the collapse of the breadwinner ethic had begun well before the revival of feminism and stemmed from dissatisfactions every bit as deep, if not as idealistically expressed, as those that motivated our founding 'second wave' feminists." -- p. 12
Furthermore, she writes that
"The great irony... is that the right-wing, antifeminist backlash that emerged in the 1970s is a backlash not so much against feminism as against the male revolt." -- p.13
In the mid- to late-1950s (although she traces the roots even further back than this), non-conformity becomes a hip topic. Playboy magazine started publishing in 1953, and by the early sixties had started offering "something approaching a coherent program for the male rebellion" (p. 50). The magazine's trademark T&A was only a side-issue, designed to make the rebellion against the male sex role (aka The Playboy Philosophy) a safely heterosexual one.
The Beat movement "establish[ed] a vantage point from which the 'normal' could be judged, assessed and labeled -- square" (p. 67) and then "cardiology... passed its own judgement on the 'normal' masculine condition, and [came] down, without fully realizing it, on the side of the rebels" (p. 87).
The Human Potential Movement combined with cardiological concerns encouraged a change in men's lives; the Vietnam War further tarnished the image of masculinity; the 60s counter culture allowed androgyny;[*] the second-wave of the women's movement pushed for a critique of gender roles; gay liberation groups differentiated themeselves from heterosexuals, allowing straight men to change their roles without being accused of homosexuality.
Voila! The genesis of the men's movement in a nutshell!
The men's movement, as a movement, has from almost the beginning been split into various camps based both on ideology and on what concerns the members most wish to concentrate on. What were once scattered "consciousness raising groups" have evolved into the following sub-movements:
*Androgyny: the confusion of male and female sex roles. — WHS
Feminist Men's Movement:
These groups are closely aligned ideologically with the feminist movement. They believe that we live in a patriarchal system in which men are the oppressors of women, and that the men's movement should identify this oppression and work against it. Most of the [City-name] Men Against Rape groups fall under this category. The largest feminist men's group is the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (Formerly the National Organization for Changing Men). Some publications from this viewpoint are "Changing Men," the journal of NOMAS, and the following books: "The Liberated Man" by Warren Farrell, "The Male Machine" by Marc Feigen Fasteau, "The 49% Majority" ed. by Deborah David & Robert Brannon, and "Refusing to Be a Man" by John Stoltenberg.
"For these men," according to James Doyle ("Sex & Gender" p. 341), "the question of unfair divorce settlements, child-custody cases, and the like are a ruse used by some men who favor perpetuating their own dominant status in society." This perhaps is a little harsh, but many in the feminist men's movement are suspicious of those who would work for men's political concerns without first relinquishing the patriarchal reins of political power.
"They may feel only a vague pricking of conscience about their own complicity in the imbalance," writes Anthony Astrachan of the feminist wing of the movement (How Men Feel, p. 302), "or they may openly acknowledge that men as a class (which does not mean all men) oppress women as a class (which does not mean all women). In either case, what they feel is guilt." (Astrachan dismisses what I will call the Men's Liberation movement as "the no-guilt wing.")
As can be expected, there is much debate among feminists, women, and other men about the validity or real intentions of such groups. The entire question of "feminist men," especially ones that disagree with aspects of "conventional feminism" sparks much debate. Some accuse them of pandering to the feminist movement, others of having a hidden agenda that's really against feminism. Female feminists disagree wither men can be feminist, some arguing that there is nothing to prevent men from being feminists, and others arguing that you have to know what it is like to be a woman -- or even BE a woman -- to be a feminist. [CTM]
My Note: It's quite clear that David Gross is not a pro-family advocate, or else he wouldn't have excluded himself by calling pro-family advocates new traditionalists and "these folks." Thereby he puts himself unequivocally into the camp of the pro-feminist men.
And, b.t.w., Richard Doyle and the Men's Defense Association are very much alive. — WHS
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913 To paraphrase that last sentiment:
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what rational and reasonable justification the feminists have for the vilification of all men: I only know that feminists call me a woman-hater whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a feminist, such as when I speak out in support of traditional family values. — Walter H. Schneider, 2000
When Rebecca West made her statement that became so popular with many feminists, a contemporary of her had this to say about feminists:
[Feminists say:] That love without marriage is holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate. That only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.
That marriage shall not require the sanction of priests, magistrates or other functionaries.
[A feminist a]dvocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either "mate."
That divorce shall be made easy.
That there may be a "novitiate of marriage," in other words, a "trial marriage," and that after a period, if either party is not pleased, the final "mating" need not be consummated.
[That] If children should result from such "trial," the duty of the state is to care for them, and the parties may enter into other "novitiates."
If a Feminist wife works at household duties, she demands wages from her husband for domestic service, but household duties would be better done by expert "household engineers"—the wife going to work outside, and the children being sent to a state nursery, kindergarten to school.
The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church.
Like Herodias, they lay snares for John the Baptist and have their daughters perform "interpretative dances" and then demand the head of the Baptist on a charger [a serving platter].
They proclaim the "New Religion" and the "New Freedom of Women," for by these they are "emancipated" from all moral and religious restraint.
As a tactic to advance their propaganda, they advocate
Woman Suffrage, to gain the help of a sentimental class of women, who in reality desire to uplift and purify politics. Among other things they claim to Suffragets that by means of votes for women prohibition will be secured, child welfare will advance, when in fact the Feminists do not care a
picayune for either. And it is certain that the plane of politics cannot be elevated when the heart and soul of the cause of suffrage is composed of Feminists-Socialist[s]—for no fountain can rise higher than its source, and if the fountain head is filthy the outlet will be impure.Feminism advocates "votes for women," and all Feminists are Suffragettes. Feminism declares for the economical freedom of woman, so that she may have a gainful occupation, independent of her husband and home, thus liberating herself from "sex slavery" to the end that she shall not be dependent on any man nor be "kept by any man." This to the end that she may be free to leave her "mate" at any time she will, regardless of the "conventionalities."
She declares that "motherhood" is a mere animal function, and that even a cat may have kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past. [She] Advocates with the Socialists that the State has a superior right to the parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the children.
[She] Frowns on "compulsory" motherhood and advocates the "control of births" by artificial measures.
[She] Suggests that any woman may reject motherhood, and any woman with "mother love" may accept motherhood whether she is married or single.
They abolish the laws of Moses and in their places announce, "A new law give I unto you." "Love yourselves and your sexes. Worship Eros and Venus as your goddesses."
They make Cleopatra and Delilah their models, and if mere men do not bow down to their wills, they treat them as Delilah did Samson. [Holy Bible, Judges, 13 - 16]
The Feminist is a man hater, except as she may be able to use him for her purposes.
She claims that man has subjected her to "sex slavery" and "economical servitude," from which she demands "liberation," so she may be made a "free woman."
In advocacy to this "New Freedom" she has many journals, among others being the "Bondwoman" and Harper's Weekly. She tells all sorts of lies about the "inhumanity" of man to woman, men with their inborn chivalry have been maligned without protest, mistaking these female hyena iconoclasts for women.
—Benjamin V. Hubbard
(Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism,1915, pp. 142-144)The more things change, the more they are the same. Eighty-five years later, men still have the same attitudes towards feminists. They are still being subjected to the same vilification, only more so and in ever new and inventive, scandalous ways and with a vengeance, along with the vast majority of women that still wish nothing more than to live in harmony with men, to raise their children with the help of their husbands and to live out their days in the far superior comforts and safety of marriage. However, virtually all of the pathologies that Benjamin Hubbard foresaw are now stark reality.
Benjamin V. Hubbard demonstrates throughout his book that feminism and socialism are so strongly intertwined as to make them almost inseparable. In the end the reader is left with the inescapable conclusion that communism by any other name is still communism and that feminism is nothing other than communism in drag.
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.
— Alison Jagger - Radical Feminist
Although it is obvious that feminism is far from a unified ideology, other than perhaps that the vast majority of its various factions is united in its opposition to traditional moral standards and especially all things male, there is another reality to the vast number of variations amongst feminist factions. That is the enormous variety of what constitutes lesbianism. Even though not all feminists are lesbians (for one thing many feminists are male), a survey — apparently compiled by a lesbian — of what all may constitute lesbianism is quite revealing:
...TERMS you might encounter when discussing butch-femme gender online. (As always, our language has it's limits...so mileage may vary!)So much for the "theories" of anyone who ever thought that there were only two "genders" as far as sexual orientations are concerned. Counting the various orientations listed in the compilation (the list is not exclusive), there are at the very least (it's very confusing to see your way through all of the definitions) thirty different sexual orientations in lesbianism — welcome to the brave new world.
References:
1. http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/feminism-faq/terms, FAQ soc.feminism, Obtained 2000 02 22 WHS Cindy Tittle Moore[CTM]
Ellen Eades[EE]
David desJardins [DdJ]
Jym Dyer [JD]
Thomas Gramstad [TG]
Rebecca Grinter [RG]
David Gross [DG] (incl. all info on men's movements)
Stacy Johnson [SJ]
Rudy Zalesak [RZ]Words are not like chewing gum, to be molded, masticated, squished and spit out. Imprecision -- loose definitions -- leads not to understanding, but to imprecise and loose thinking. (Rod Van Mechelen, in The Backlash! Dictionary)
3. The Gender Agenda, by Dale O'Leary
Whatever positive image the word feminist may have had, it has been tarnished by those who have made it their own, and I, for one, am content to leave the militants in full possession of the term. But, that leaves us with the problem of what to call those who oppose militant feminism. — Dale O'Leary (pp. 23, 24)
Dale O'Leary then proposes that all such people should be called pro-family advocates and states that they "are unequivocal in their support for women's equal rights." Of course, the term profamily advocate would include all men who are opposed to feminism as Dale O'Leary is, which is fine, because just as there are men who are feminists there are also men (most of them, actually) who are profamily advocates. Dale O'Leary makes it abundantly clear in The Gender Agenda that all feminists can be safely considered to be anti-family advocates. She provides the following definition of the family.
The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.[Dale O'Leary, The Gender Agenda, p. 24,
original source: Allan Carlson, "What's Wrong With the United Nations Definition of 'Family'?" The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3]Out of the families as described by Allan Carson also grows civilization. Destroy the families and all of civilization ceases to function. That is what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx called for in no uncertain terms, so that the fundamental cause of all class struggle would be eliminated. Their legacy is being promoted now by the gender agenda that is being driven by radical NGOs. In that fashion, radical feminism is nothing but communism under a different name.
4. Alison Jagger, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
| _______________________ Posted 2000 02 23 Updates: 2000 02 24 (minor edits to correct mostly typographical errors) 2000 02 26 (to insert links for victim feminism) 2000 03 11 (to add information about Shulamith Firestone's illustration of how Marxism is converted into radical feminism) 2000 03 12 (to unmistakably identify the disclaimer at the beginning of the page) 2000 04 03 (to add last paragraph to footnote #3) 2000 05 06 (to reformat the page) 2000 06 10 (to add quotes from B. V. Hubbard) 2000 06 19 (Added comments pertaining to definition of individualist feminism) 2000 07 07 (added Lawrence Osborn's book review False Goddess, and Constructionist Feminism) 2000 09 04 (removed reference to "the website of Salon Magazine" in reference to False Goddess) 2000 09 26 (added reference to anti-feminism) 2000 12 11 (added quote from The Charter Revolution) 2001 01 31 (format changes) 2001 02 07 (added link to NAC and the Communist Connection) 2001 07 30 (added entry for Total Rej-Feminism) 2001 08 08 (added entry for sexual orientations in lesbianism) |
| [sexcenter-web/members/Ning/class/graduate/firestone/support.htm] |