Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: rshapiro@arris.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Radical (and other) feminisms
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.153326.4604@arris.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 18:51:06 GMT
References: <61282@brunix.UUCP>
Organization: ARRIS Pharmaceutical, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 32
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

In article <61282@brunix.UUCP> fwy@cs.brown.edu (Felix Yen) writes:
>I doubt that feminist terminology is so well established (and suspect
>Richard would agree with me here).

Yes, I agree. The term "radical feminism" has meant somewhat different
things over the course of the movement.

>[Felix, quoting from _Contemporary Feminist Thought_]
>    ...
>    In the evolution of feminist theory from Shulamith Firestone
>    to Mary Daly, the word "radical" shifted in meaning....
>    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.

I think I was taking Daly's definition, or something close to it. In
any case, one thing it does NOT mean is "feminism that's politically
radical", which was the real point I was making. In many ways, Radical
feminism (as characterized above) is quite backward.

>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?

I don't know how popular any of these theoretical distinctions are,
but I do think it's become something of a standard in the literature,
at least as a rough characterization. There may be wider agreement
than you think. On the other hand, feminists (like other progressive
thinkers) have unfortunately been splintering themselves into sects.
No doubt this sectarianism continues to contribute to the confusion.