Right, I know what tumblr.com is, but I still don’t know what a “tumblr-feminist” is.
No, you’re confusing liberal feminism with radical feminism.
I don’t think I am, that’s why I said “every liberal feminist...” above. My point was that, counter to what you said, liberal feminists would be strongly against “compulsory sexuality”, and definitely against objectification of women along any other property (including sex).
Actually, I would maybe characterize that as the fundamental split between radical and liberal feminists—liberal feminists treat “desire” as a semantic stopsign, whereas radical feminists push through it, and unsurprisingly find patriarchy.
As far as I understand from talking with yourself and liberal feminists (and reading your respective reading materials), the fundamental split is due to a difference in primary goals, which gives rise to very different intermediate goals.
The primary goal of radical feminism is elimination of the patriarchy. To this end, they want to put a stop to all activities that promote the patriarchy, such as PiV sex, heterosexual relationships in general, etc.
The primary goal of liberal feminism is to maximize the capabilities of women to achieve their individual goals. Since the patriarchy stands in the way of most of these goals, liberal feminists want to see it eliminated; however, they would seek to do so in a way that does not result in a net reduction in the capability of women to achieve their goals.
Thus, a radical feminist would seek to eliminate all PiV sex (somehow), since doing so would advance the goal of eliminating the patriarchy. A liberal feminist, on the other hand, would work toward a society where women who enjoy PiV sex can have it, and women who do not enjoy it feel no social pressure to have it regardless.
To put it in a different way, radical feminism (as I understand it from talking with you) is essentialist, as opposed to liberal feminism.
First, that which eridu calls tumblr-feminism is probably what I would call “not feminism.” People who invoke The Rules or who think being sexually forward is taking control of their sexuality are seldom actual doing anything to reduce patriarchy. Popular culture may call Snooki a “strong female,” but she is not following a feminist program.
Second, I agree with you that eridu’s philosophy seems incredibly essentialist. I just want to note that I don’t think Dworkin is essentialist, although she can be read that way.
People who invoke The Rules or who think being sexually forward is taking control of their sexuality are seldom actual doing anything to reduce patriarchy.
Either of these can be considered assertive, albeit in very different ways. Surely, among the culture hacks that would make women better off (at negligible social cost), encouraging them to be more assertive in general should be near the top of the list.
Oh, I see. I thought for a moment that mitigating the widespread occurrence of hierarchies and power relationships in the real world (as probably happens when assertive behavior becomes more commonly expected in a given culture) would be somewhat more consequential than “reducing patriarchy”, whatever that means.
If you truly want to become stronger, and not just mine this thread for positive karma, you will read actual radical feminist women and figure that out for yourself, rather than trying to extract information from me that I don’t fully have.
I can at least say that you’re very wrong about liberal feminism being against compulsory sexuality (liberal feminists support compulsory sexuality in that the actions they take make it more probable), about the goals of liberal feminism (you’re talking specifically about a subset of liberal feminists called equality feminists, but liberal feminists in general don’t really recognize patriarchy, or at least almost never use that term or a strong analysis of gender as a social class), and about the reasons why radical feminists believe what they believe.
I will say this again: I cannot give you the answers to these questions. I am going to stop playing “feminist AMA” now and leave you to either educate yourself or be content with the fact that you might be oppressing people.
you will read actual radical feminist women and figure that out for yourself
I did, believe it or not. My impression of “actual radical feminist women” has been largely negative; they seem to be more interested in winning battles than in acquiring true beliefs or solving any real-world problems. That’s probably why I find your views so fascinating, since you are actually willing (some of the time) to justify your claims.
I can at least say that you’re very wrong about liberal feminism being against compulsory sexuality (liberal feminists support compulsory sexuality in that the actions they take make it more probable)...
You are conflating two very different concepts here, by employing the very anti-pattern Yvain is describing in his post: ”Liberal feminism explicitly endorses compulsory sexuality” vs ”Liberal feminists endorse practices that, unbeknownst to them, lead to compulsory sexuality”
but liberal feminists in general don’t really recognize patriarchy, or at least almost never use that term or a strong analysis of gender as a social class
Can you offer some examples ? Every piece of feminist literature I’ve ever read talks extensively about patriarchy, privilege, and gender.
I am going to stop playing “feminist AMA” now and leave you to either educate yourself or be content with the fact that you might be oppressing people.
This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible for me to believe that I’m inadvertently oppressing people in several ways, while still disagreeing with your own claims.
Right, I know what tumblr.com is, but I still don’t know what a “tumblr-feminist” is.
I don’t think I am, that’s why I said “every liberal feminist...” above. My point was that, counter to what you said, liberal feminists would be strongly against “compulsory sexuality”, and definitely against objectification of women along any other property (including sex).
As far as I understand from talking with yourself and liberal feminists (and reading your respective reading materials), the fundamental split is due to a difference in primary goals, which gives rise to very different intermediate goals.
The primary goal of radical feminism is elimination of the patriarchy. To this end, they want to put a stop to all activities that promote the patriarchy, such as PiV sex, heterosexual relationships in general, etc.
The primary goal of liberal feminism is to maximize the capabilities of women to achieve their individual goals. Since the patriarchy stands in the way of most of these goals, liberal feminists want to see it eliminated; however, they would seek to do so in a way that does not result in a net reduction in the capability of women to achieve their goals.
Thus, a radical feminist would seek to eliminate all PiV sex (somehow), since doing so would advance the goal of eliminating the patriarchy. A liberal feminist, on the other hand, would work toward a society where women who enjoy PiV sex can have it, and women who do not enjoy it feel no social pressure to have it regardless.
To put it in a different way, radical feminism (as I understand it from talking with you) is essentialist, as opposed to liberal feminism.
Two points from my perspective:
First, that which eridu calls tumblr-feminism is probably what I would call “not feminism.” People who invoke The Rules or who think being sexually forward is taking control of their sexuality are seldom actual doing anything to reduce patriarchy. Popular culture may call Snooki a “strong female,” but she is not following a feminist program.
Second, I agree with you that eridu’s philosophy seems incredibly essentialist. I just want to note that I don’t think Dworkin is essentialist, although she can be read that way.
Either of these can be considered assertive, albeit in very different ways. Surely, among the culture hacks that would make women better off (at negligible social cost), encouraging them to be more assertive in general should be near the top of the list.
They are assertive. They just don’t reduce patriarchy.
Oh, I see. I thought for a moment that mitigating the widespread occurrence of hierarchies and power relationships in the real world (as probably happens when assertive behavior becomes more commonly expected in a given culture) would be somewhat more consequential than “reducing patriarchy”, whatever that means.
Not everything assertive reduces the relevant hierarchy.
If you truly want to become stronger, and not just mine this thread for positive karma, you will read actual radical feminist women and figure that out for yourself, rather than trying to extract information from me that I don’t fully have.
I can at least say that you’re very wrong about liberal feminism being against compulsory sexuality (liberal feminists support compulsory sexuality in that the actions they take make it more probable), about the goals of liberal feminism (you’re talking specifically about a subset of liberal feminists called equality feminists, but liberal feminists in general don’t really recognize patriarchy, or at least almost never use that term or a strong analysis of gender as a social class), and about the reasons why radical feminists believe what they believe.
I will say this again: I cannot give you the answers to these questions. I am going to stop playing “feminist AMA” now and leave you to either educate yourself or be content with the fact that you might be oppressing people.
I did, believe it or not. My impression of “actual radical feminist women” has been largely negative; they seem to be more interested in winning battles than in acquiring true beliefs or solving any real-world problems. That’s probably why I find your views so fascinating, since you are actually willing (some of the time) to justify your claims.
You are conflating two very different concepts here, by employing the very anti-pattern Yvain is describing in his post:
”Liberal feminism explicitly endorses compulsory sexuality”
vs
”Liberal feminists endorse practices that, unbeknownst to them, lead to compulsory sexuality”
Can you offer some examples ? Every piece of feminist literature I’ve ever read talks extensively about patriarchy, privilege, and gender.
This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible for me to believe that I’m inadvertently oppressing people in several ways, while still disagreeing with your own claims.