Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ora!daemon
From: fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Radical (and other) feminisms
Message-ID: <61282@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:26:52 GMT
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 75
Approved: ambar@ora.com

smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>  [. . .]
>  "Radical" feminists are just feminists who point out the problems in
>  society more agressively than others, hoping that someone will listen
>  to them, in line with the aphorism: "the squeaking wheel gets the
>  oil".

rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>  [. . .]
>  Um, no. Radical feminism is not simply feminism that's radical. The
>  name has been appropriated for a specific subgroup of feminism which
>  is often contrasted with "socialist" or "post-structuralist" feminism.
>  There *is* a strong lesbian-separatist component to Radical feminism,
>  as well as a belief in essential, unchangeable social/moral/political
>  differences between men and women. Radical feminism is, in fact, not
>  very radical at all in its essentialism. Even so, that is what the
>  term "Radical feminism" means, more or less.


I doubt that feminist terminology is so well established (and suspect
Richard would agree with me here).  Eisenstein introduces
_Contemporary Feminist Thought_ (1983) noting that

    . . . recent analysts seem to agree on the distinction between
    radical feminism, which holds that gender oppression is the
    oldest and most profound form of exploitation, which predates
    and underlies all other forms including those of race and
    class; and socialist feminism, which argues that class, race,
    and gender oppression interact in a complex way, that class
    oppression stems from capitalism, and that capitalism must be
    eliminated for women to be liberated.  Both of these, in turn,
    would be distinguished from a liberal or bourgeois feminist
    view, which would argue that women's liberation can be fully
    achieved without any major alterations to the economic and
    political structures of contemporary capitalist democracies.
    A final category would be a cultural feminist position, which
    eschewed an explicit political or economic program altogether
    and concentrated on the development of a separate women's
    culture.

But Eisenstein admits that the term's meaning is changing.  In her
conclusion she writes:

    In the evolution of feminist theory from Shulamith Firestone
    to Mary Daly, the word "radical" shifted in meaning.  In its
    use among the feminists who broke with the New Left in the
    late 1960s, "radical" meant a commitment to a kind of social
    change even more fundamental than that espoused by the
    revolutionaries of SDS.  In the definition offered by Mary
    Daly, however, "radical" meant metaphysical, that is, it
    referred to an inner voyage, and a retreat from political
    struggle, a withdrawal from the attempt to enter the
    structures of patriarchy on any terms.

My guess is that there is no widespread agreement as to what these
terms mean, and I am curious about Daly's definitions.  How popular
have they become?

All this brings to mind the issue of reader knowledge.  Referring to
Simone de Beauvoir's _The Second Sex_, Betty Friedan's _The Feminine
Mystique_, and Germaine Greer's _The Female Eunuch_, Eisenstein says:

    Since they are well known, I assume some knowledge of these
    feminist classics in the reader.

I confess to having read and enjoyed _Contemporary Feminist Thought_
without first reading these or any other classics.  And at this point,
I would like to solicit recommendations for other books about
feminism, especially feminist theory.


                                    Felix

                                    CSNET    fwy@cs.brown.edu
                                    UUCP     uunet!brunix!fwy