Turn on thread page Beta

Criticisms of radical feminism. watch

  • View Poll Results: What do you think of radical feminism.
    I approve of radical feminism.
    8.96%
    I do not approve of radical feminism.
    82.09%
    Neutral.
    8.96%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    I read the scum manifesto years ago when it was linked to on a thread like this. (It is terribly apparent to be the thoughts of someone very ill.) No radical feminist I have ever argued or debated with in the ten years since has ever argued any position close to that of Solanas, or cited Solanas. Not even the ones who called me a male rights activist, and said I wasn't feminist enough!

    There was one 16 year old on a student forum who argued similar things once, who got roundly drubbed every single day she posted a thread, including from the rad fems, but one day she posted a thread, to explain she had recently been put on medication, and apologised for being an absolute twit for the last year. Either was true, or she'd been trolling all along.
    It is becoming more and more apparent that radical feminists are seeking to play different groups against each other, so as well as detailing criticisms the aim of this thread is to highlight the divisive nature of radical feminists and what groups can do to unite against the misandrist hate group that is radical feminism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    It is becoming more and more apparent that radical feminists are seeking to play different groups against each other, so as well as detailing criticisms the aim of this thread is to highlight the divisive nature of radical feminists and what groups can do to unite against the misandrist hate group that is radical feminism.
    You're still the only person who thinks this on the entire thread. "It is becoming more and more apparent" - how? Sources? ANYTHING to back up your claims whatsoever?

    You're really not good enough at this to make your argument even close to believable. As I said yesterday, your opinion is not fact. If you want to convince people, you'll have to try a lot harder and stop talking a load of rubbish about a movement you have zero interaction with.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    I would argue that the misandry Solana's expresses is very much apparent in the radical feminist community, there is a quote by Dworkins about how she would like to see males rendered helpless, now we can put this down to the violent day dreams of an overweight and rather unpleasant person that Dworkins was, but I am not convinced, if you read works by radical feminists such as Firestone their constant narrow aim is that vilifying males if would be farcical if it was not so disturbing. Look at the radical feminist "scholarship" on witchcraft which has claimed that 9 million women were burnt as witches during the witch trials, this is farcical considering the actual number was more like 50,000 (that includes males). I sense in this a disturbing aims by radical feminists to rather offensively in my opinion somehow equate those burnt as witches first of all as only women, (the same blatant ignorance of facts that radical feminists show is displayed in their denial of female on male domestic abuse) and secondly to equate this with the holocaust, a comparison that sheds light on how individual lives and collective groups are used by radical feminists as mere pawns. The radical feminists proposals are also pathetic gender segregation being one. Finally if you check the OP there is a news report link provided which details a group of radical feminists advertising the mutilation of males.
    I am not acquainted with a Firestone, and I have not read much Dworkin (although it would be helpful if you gave a full quote, rather than paraphrasing).

    I am acquainted with a nine million claim, but I have only seen it on witchcraft and pagan sites. As prejudiced as it may seem of me, sites talking about the mystical properties of agate are hardly academic research in my opinion. I imagine there's some women, who identify as feminists and as pagans who espouse this figure, but that isn't the same as academic scholarship. All I've found, while googling your claim, is a feminist (presumably) site called gendercide.org, which has pulled together various theses, which arrive at a figure of between 40,000 and 60,000. One of the quoted academics refers to "the wilder shores of the feminist and witch-cult movement" making 9 million claims. I think he's got the situation accurately summed up there. I am going to have to see if any of his stuff is on sale on Amazon, after that brilliant quote!

    You're also contradicting yourself here- if rad fems promote gender segregation, then bell hooks is hardly a rad fem! Bell hooks is an American feminist, who argues that the feminist movement was dominated by white middle class women, who did not recognise that they were a lot better off than poor black women, and claims that feminism had become unnecessarily divisive between men and women as a result of this. I can sort of see how you could see her as stirring up race hatred, or whatever. Although personally, I didn't find being asked to acknowledge that I wasn't automatically in a worse position in life than any random male, just because I have a vagina, that painful. I didn't find myself hating different ethnicities. I don't think it promotes racial tension if a black woman points out racism exists.

    But promoting gender segregation? No way, José.

    Links: http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    I am not well acquainted with a Firestone, or a reader of Dworkin (although it would be helpful if you gave a full quote, rather than paraphrasing).

    I am acquainted with a nine million claim, but I have only seen it on witchcraft and pagan sites. As prejudiced as it may seem, sites talking about the mystical properties of agate are hardly academic research. I imagine there's some women, who identify as feminists and as pagans who espouse this figure, but that isn't the same as academic scholarship. All I've found, while googling your claim, is a feminist (presumably) site called gendercide.org, which has pulled together various theses, which arrive at a figure of between 40,000 and 60,000. One of the quoted academics refers to "the wilder shores of the feminist and witch-cult movement" making 9 million claims. I think he's got the situation accurately summed up there.

    You're also contradicting yourself here- if rad fems promote gender segregation, then bell hooks is hardly a rad fem! Bell hooks is an American feminist, who argues that the feminist movement was dominated by white middle class women, who did not recognise that they were a lot better off than poor black women, and claims that feminism had become unnecessarily divisive between men and women as a result of this. I can sort of see how you could see her as stirring up race hatred, or whatever. Although personally, I didn't find being asked to acknowledge that I wasn't automatically in a worse position in life than any random male, just because I have a vagina, that painful. I didn't find myself hating different ethnicities. I don't think it promotes racial tension if a black woman points out racism exists.

    But promotimg gender segregation? No way, José.

    "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
    Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

    The problem with Hook's is that she was crudely trying to justify her desire to kill white males. Most people of all ethnicities do not want violence, the want peace and Hook's by deliberately misinterpreting this is causing tension and so the best response to her work is satire.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
    Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

    The problem with Hook's is that she was crudely trying to justify her desire to kill white males. Most people of all ethnicities do not want violence, the want peace and Hook's by deliberately misinterpreting this is causing tension and so the best response to her work is satire.
    Okay, you've now justified your disagreement with Dworkin to some extent. Sounds pretty dreadful. To finalise it, what was the context leading up to that? I haven't read the book, but I have read the Origin of Species by quite a different person, and I've seen the quote-mining that goes on with that. Now, what about hooks? When did she want to be violent to men? I've read an entire book by her and there was no violence advocated.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You need to understand what radical feminism is before you criticise it. These points aren't criticisms of radical feminism - they are criticisms of the individual thinkers in each point. It's fair enough to criticise them as individuals, but don't pretend they represent radical feminism. It just makes you look stupid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    Okay, you've now justified your disagreement with Dworkin to some extent. Sounds pretty dreadful. To finalise it, what was the context leading up to that? I haven't read the book, but I have read the Origin of Species by quite a different person, and I've seen the quote-mining that goes on with that. Now, what about hooks? When did she want to be violent to men? I've read an entire book by her and there was no violence advocated.
    That is the thing there was little context, she was just trying to cause tension. It is not comparable with the distortion of Darwin who specifically spoke out against the views that many claimed him to have. As for Hooks, the criticism of many has been directed against Killing Rage where she speaks of her desire to murder an anonymous white person.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messalina)
    You're still the only person who thinks this on the entire thread. "It is becoming more and more apparent" - how? Sources? ANYTHING to back up your claims whatsoever?

    You're really not good enough at this to make your argument even close to believable. As I said yesterday, your opinion is not fact. If you want to convince people, you'll have to try a lot harder and stop talking a load of rubbish about a movement you have zero interaction with.
    I just wanted to let you know that I have reported you misandrist comment which desired to vilify males to some organisations which are against sexism. It was wrong of you to try to cause gender hatred and I hope you can one day realise it. Your comments also contradict TSR rules.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's an odd pitch. You isolate a whole group of people, suggest everyone else units against them, and you're calling radical feminism divisive!

    I feel like you're attacking a caricature here. Which is your right of course. But if your goal is to persuade other people, rather than just affirming the faith of those who already hate feminism, a more nuanced critique would be helpful.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    That is the thing there was little context, she was just trying to cause tension. It is not comparable with the distortion of Darwin who specifically spoke out against the views that many claimed him to have. As for Hooks, the criticism of many has been directed against Killing Rage where she speaks of her desire to murder an anonymous white person.
    Looks like she succeeded in causing tension; if you think thatbwas the intent, why not ignore the troll?

    I will have to get a copy of this work by bell hooks, before I can properly assess your claim, but as I stated before, there was no gender segregation advocated in other works, rather the reverse, and she was rational throughout.

    I think the problem with your argument could be summed up with "do you vote?" Just about every political party has had elected members or prominent members who said controversial things. Some more than others, yes, but no party gets off scot-free. One votes for overall policies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

    Read This
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    I just wanted to let you know that I have reported you misandrist comment which desired to vilify males to some organisations which are against sexism. It was wrong of you to try to cause gender hatred and I hope you can one day realise it. Your comments also contradict TSR rules.
    What misandrist comment? The one where I said that your opinion is not superior to that of anybody else? That's not misandrist, that's true.

    Pretty sure wasting the mods time filing false reports is a contradiction of TSR rules actually.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    I would argue that the misandry Solana's expresses is very much apparent in the radical feminist community, there is a quote by Dworkins about how she would like to see males rendered helpless, now we can put this down to the violent day dreams of an overweight and rather unpleasant person that Dworkins was, but I am not convinced, if you read works by radical feminists such as Firestone their constant narrow aim is that vilifying males if would be farcical if it was not so disturbing. Look at the radical feminist "scholarship" on witchcraft which has claimed that 9 million women were burnt as witches during the witch trials, this is farcical considering the actual number was more like 50,000 (that includes males). I sense in this a disturbing aims by radical feminists to rather offensively in my opinion somehow equate those burnt as witches first of all as only women, (the same blatant ignorance of facts that radical feminists show is displayed in their denial of female on male domestic abuse) and secondly to equate this with the holocaust, a comparison that sheds light on how individual lives and collective groups are used by radical feminists as mere pawns. The radical feminists proposals are also pathetic gender segregation being one. Finally if you check the OP there is a news report link provided which details a group of radical feminists advertising the mutilation of males.
    The 9 million figure is absurd but surely you aren't denying the strong currents of misogyny that ran through the witch trials just because a relatively small number of men also became victims? Nobody denies there were male victims in the witch trials but you can't ignore the fact that the hunts took place in an extremely misogynistic environment, that witchcraft was largely seen as a female problem and that women in general were demonised during the period.

    Besides no serious feminist historian would support the 9 million figure. It was proposed like 150 years ago (before feminism even really existed) and after that became something of a myth. It hasn't been taken seriously for many decades by any historian, feminist or otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messalina)
    What misandrist comment? The one where I said that your opinion is not superior to that of anybody else? That's not misandrist, that's true.

    Pretty sure wasting the mods time filing false reports is a contradiction of TSR rules actually.
    No, your quote where you vilify males the quote another user pointed out that you're vilifying males. I hate to report you, however hate speech must be criticised. I will send it not only to TSR but to some other authorities on hate speech.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lotus_Eater)
    It's an odd pitch. You isolate a whole group of people, suggest everyone else units against them, and you're calling radical feminism divisive!

    I feel like you're attacking a caricature here. Which is your right of course. But if your goal is to persuade other people, rather than just affirming the faith of those who already hate feminism, a more nuanced critique would be helpful.
    I think when radical feminism is seeking to divide deliberately different ethnicities, different religions and different political persuasions against each other, this should be pointed out. Radical feminism like the EDL, KKK, New Black Panthers and other hate groups should be satired and its attempts to divide avoided. All of my criticisms in the OP do apply to radical feminism. What I am impressed by is the in the poll, people from all sections of society are mostly uniting to condemn the hate group of radical feminism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    These threads make me lol so much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    radical feminism is a good critique of a society that is still inherently violent and sexualised. Radical feminists critique masculinity, not men. Men and women are indoctrinated with masculine norms - that women should be sexualised, sexually available, submissive etc etc. People get threatened by such critiques because it goes right to the heart of what is deemed as normal, and assume its all about men.
    Take time to read Sheila jeffreys,Gail Dines, etc from their viewpoint and not the hate on them that abounds and make up your mind. You'll find what they say is far more rational than the hyperbole haters say about them.
    Positives of radical feminism:
    - they are the only group that critique gender, and advocate gender as a problem.
    -they are the only group that provides a rational, comprehensive explanation to porn and its link to violence and female submission
    -they are the only group that give due critique to masculinity in ALL its forms - psychological, verbal, physical and sexual.
    -they are the only group that fully promotes that women can and should define their sexuality away from phallocentric notions and love as not inherently based on sex.
    -they are the only group that opposes porn,prostitution and male sexual violence as one and the same ideology.

    When you search on the internet for radical feminism, you only get rubbish from transexuals, transgenders, and liberal feminists who don't like that some radical feminists see the category of women as women born women and not trans*. Go read some radfem positive blogs, books, journals and come up with a more balanced view.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.