Threats and Baggage
It’s been tough to blog this week. For one, work was a nightmare. But, for another, there was loud drama, an epic in two acts, happening on the Internets.
And, when loud drama is happening, it’s hard to think of much else.
After quite a bit of non-public discussion, I came to a couple of conclusions about said drama.
Now, for the record, I backed out before the blood-choking, vehicular manslaughter comments started. Before the stalking threats and the wall-propositions, etc. I do actually have a flame war limit. As my aunt says, “My name is Les, and that ain’t my mess.”
I have, however, learned some important things from this last week’s festivities.
First, it never should have escalated the way that it did.
As Lost Clown put it:
EVERYONE go to the corner. YOU ALL HAVE A TIME OUT! Now get in that corner and keep facing the wall.
If you’ve hit violent gore-fest and threats of stalking territory, get over yourself and back slowly away from the keyboard. This means you.
Secondly, threats of “outing” the “posse” are not going to work on this girl. StormCloud can holler all she wants. I will say what I damn well please about whatever I feel like talking about, be it radical feminism, bad baby names, or massive cocaine busts.
Third, an interesting point got overlooked in all the yelling and manic hyperbole.
Early on, someone said something to effect of “Ideology X wasn’t making me happy.”
The reaction to that was “HOW DARE YOU! IT DIDN’T MAKE YOU HAPPY BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T DOING IT RIGHT! YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!”
That is (drumroll please) fucking stupid.
Just plain old stupid.
Now, I think that especially in light of recent events, asking ourselves if all this drama is worth it, asking what the hell we think we’re getting out of Ideology X or Y or Z, is important.
It is okay to decide that Ideology X or Y or Z is making you miserable. Good grief. Some of y’all sound like born-again Christians—if a sinless existence of doubtless faith doesn’t stick, then they must not have really committed their hearts to the Lord.
We are not supposed to agree on everything. There are 6 billion people on this planet. With 6 billion life stories, and 6 billion finger prints, and 6 billion different exact specifications for the preparation of perfect eggs.
I can argue that Jim Bob’s position is illogical, but I can’t argue about whether not it makes Jim Bob happy. That’s for Jim Bob to decide. Likewise, if a person makes a decision to abandon an idea that I personally like, that doesn’t generally mean that they’ve done it specifically to spite me. ‘Cause it’s not all about me.
Damn, y’all.
Life is too damned short to submit to an ideology that makes you insanely miserable. And, life is too hard on it’s own, without engaging in voluntary practices that make it worse.
And, picking at scabs is a lousy hobby.
Sometimes you just have to let it go.
tags: internecine drama
i’ve sworn off vehicular manslaughter…
next week, life and recipes!
— RenegadeEvolution Apr 27, 07:27 PM #
Ooh. Anything with chicken?
— Veronica Apr 27, 07:38 PM #
sucks in breath not CHICKENS!!
ducks. ducks are mean. and -very- sexist.
— belledame222 Apr 27, 09:01 PM #
THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU! Kisses for you!
— Andrea Apr 28, 05:27 AM #
Well said.
And amen!
— Kim Apr 28, 02:20 PM #
I’ve said it before. Rad fems are on the same level as fundies, for my money. (Yea yah, some of them are decent. I’m not saying that.) The language sounds the same to me.
As for recipies? Definately chicken. More chicken.
— Zan Apr 28, 04:42 PM #
CHEESE.
— belledame222 Apr 28, 05:46 PM #
ohhh, fear NOT…Chicken AND cheese!!!!
— RenegadeEvolution Apr 28, 07:51 PM #
It’s the reaction to any former radfem who says “you know, this isn’t working for me” that led to my own backing away from said group permanently. That’s not what legitimate political movements do, that’s what cults do. When political movements have done that in the past things have not ended well. Anyone else studied twentieth century Russian history? Mao’s purges? That way madness lies.
The original point that sparked all this drama – the fact that some women who were at one point radfem affiliated have become disallusioned with the movement – is one that is worth discussing. I can’t help wondering if part of the motive behind all this was to stop that discussion from happening.
On another note, food blogging would be good! I think we all need a healthy dose of light and cheerful right now.
— CassandraSays Apr 28, 08:21 PM #
Veronica, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this.
And another offshoot would be—there are many beliefs in which it may make sense to not always be happy in the execution thereof—such as maybe you’d be happier in an SUV but choose to drive a Prius because you feel strongly that it’s worthwhile. Maybe you’re bone tired but slog through a volunteer activity for children’s education, and you’re unhappy about getting only three hours of sleep, but it’s worthwhile. But rad fem doesn’t fit into this. There aren’t any real activities that rad fems DO, uniquely from other feminists, apart from demonstrating and promulgating their beliefs (after about 100 requests for a game plan, including in recent posts, I have to conclude that these activities are it).
So the only reason to really do it, or believe it, is because you are happier that way. It’s not saving lives (yes, including in the porn context, though I’m not going to get into that here). You don’t get home after a day of abandoning femininity and blaming the patriarchy and say “well, that made me unhappy, but I engaged in a discussion about the evils of bratwurst, so it’s all worthwhile.” Because if it makes you unhappy, and there’s no demonstrable greater good, then it’s not.
— Octogalore Apr 28, 10:32 PM #
I don’t know what exactly “the same level as fundies” means. I mean, there’s a fundie in the White House. Not a radical feminist. Which is to say that Rapture-ready Apocalypse nuts scare me quite a bit more than radical feminists.
That said, I agree with Cassandra quite a bit. For all the “examining” that’s required, the people in question sure do shy from taking a good hard look at how they react to defectors.
— Veronica Apr 28, 11:46 PM #
There aren’t any real activities that rad fems DO, uniquely from other feminists, apart from demonstrating and promulgating their beliefs
THAT! I think that’s important. I was going to say something along those lines about that Dworkin quote you put up.
The truth of the matter is that for all the drama online, I really do see Radical Feminism as being mostly comprised as theorizing, brain stretching, and mental masturbation. Not that any of those things are bad. I actually enjoy reading radical theory. But, not as a militant handbook—as a brain teaser. Which is why I think that the whole argument that “radical feminism isn’t fun” is bullshit. There’s very little to be gained from radical feminism, aside from wrapping your head around an idea, then giving yourself a pat on the back for managing it. That’s why so many people read Twisty. It's fun to be clever. It's like philosophizing on weed. "WHOA, man! And, what if we had artificial wombs?"
But, big fucking deal—clever is just that. It’s not a game plan, it’s not viable solution, and there is no real Society for Cutting Up Men.
— Veronica Apr 28, 11:54 PM #
AAAAND…
I think that the person that pulled the Academic Card really made an unintentional point in that vein.
Radical feminism, this late in the game, is primarily an academic endeavor—the expansion of a way of theorizing.
Which is to say, it’s not an applied science, and professional radical feminists write books and speak. They aren’t exactly out there blowing up porn shops.
When someone tries to force “pure” science into being applied science it can lead to psuedoreligion. The dorks that put together The Secret distort quantum physics to suit their own ends and sell a morally suspect personal philosophy. One could argue that certain people are trying to force pure theory into applied theory with similar results.
— Veronica Apr 29, 12:57 AM #
>That’s not what legitimate political movements do, that’s what cults do.>
I bin sayin’.
Among other things. (“Loading the language,” “cult of confession,” the emphasis on purification and purging, the apparent decision by some that resorting to threats of blackmail is a reasonable way to “MAKE” someone “stop slagging off” the ideology; (that and the whole weird-ass “proto-bee” business made me really think of Scientologists)...
— belledame222 Apr 29, 04:23 AM #
and yeah, fundamentalist rightwingers scare me more because they’re more numerous and powerful; but, that doesn’t mean people like SC and Charliewhosis and…others are any more benign; just more impotent. So, I’m down with proportionally giving more energy to combatting the right wing; but, that doesn’t mean that i think any other sort of fundamentalist is any more “on my side;” they’ve made it quite clear that they’re not.
and, too, there are the instances where these particular fundamentalists join up with the radical right. the recent anti-porn legislation hooha in the UK is a good example.
and you know the dirty little secret; it was there between the lines of a Catherine MacKinnon introduction to that godawful anthology, “The Sexual Liberals and the War on Feminism” (something like that, it’s long returned to the library), but the gist of it:
she said, they chose porn because it was an area where they thought they could open a chink in the Patriarchal armor.
and was clearly miffed that even THAT which seemed so OBVIOUS was being rebuffed.
the rest of it is the usual Miss America—>Playboy—>snuff films and so forth business.
and of course the charges that they aligned with the Religious Right were LIES ALL LIES (interestingly enough, the “legit” radfems, at least in that book, and it was a fair sampling, MacKinnon for sure, are also prone to flinging around terms like “liars” and “propaganda” and paid shills and sellouts and so forth like so many pizzas.
but…i’d need it again for the exact quote;
just, reading between the lines, it was, in retrospect, pretty clear:
they went after porn because they knew they could ride on the back of more powerful people who shared that agenda
(and why not? the Republican party, which by the way Catherine MacK’s pops was a venerable and fairly powerful member of, was starting to do the same damn thing, more or less, at about the same time: glom onto the Religious Right and the battle over bodies, which is always infinitely more interesting than boring crap like the economy)
and presumably thought that, once at the point where the federal government was—finally! lending an ear to any of their concerns—hey, do you really think Dworkin would’ve gotten as far as she did if she hadn’t gone after the pr0n? i wonder—
then, i guess, they’d reframe it in Feminist terms. Which they tried to do.
and pretty much what happened was about what you’d expect; it got re-co-opted into the RR’s own agenda;
and then, when people started to complain about it, including a lot of feminists and some radical ones (i.e. Millett),
MacKinnon et al, sensibly enough, blame everyone but themselves.
it’s like Heart was tantruming about a while ago; if only the rest of us would just get the fuck out of their way, they’d make it right. it’s certainly not THEIR fault it all went pear-shaped; how could it be?
— belledame222 Apr 29, 04:42 AM #
>There aren’t any real activities that rad fems DO, uniquely from other feminists>
well, see—no.
again: case in point, the UK anti-porn business.
and the lobbying against WH Smith and lad’s mags and such.
those might not be only radical feminist activities, but for sure i think the majority of the people organizing such things are radical feminists or at least strongly rad-leaning.
and then too, I think most of all actually, there’s Coalition Against Trafficking in Women;
now, anti-trafficking shouldn’t necessarily be a radical feminist province; but, as with (to a lesser extent) rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters and so on, they do tend to dominate. In the latter case, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that—in fact you could argue that the growth of DV shelters and rape crisis centers and so on are due to radical feminism—anyway certainly second-wave feminism—except y’know in cases like the business in Canada where they fought to make sure a transgendered woman could not be a counselor; it got all the way to the Supreme Court; and they won.
with trafficking—
you know, i started a post on that based on a rather scholarly and detailed article on anti-trafficking organizations, particularly CATW, and…eh, i can’t do it justice in the retelling and at any rate it’s early and i’m incoherent.
suffice it to say that CATW is (1) very much a radical feminist enterprise,
2) very, i think, influential; in fact, i’m not even sure who else is influencing international policy; and if they didn’t come up with the idea of the Swedish model, they’re really big proponents of it.
so yeah, it’s pretty radfem in its ideology,
headed as it is by Janice Raymond and Dorchen Leidholdt, who coincidentally also happen to be co-editors of the loathsome little “Sexual Liberals, yadda” anthology mentioned above. Raymond is of course most notorious for the transphobe manifesto The Transexual Empire; i often wonder what their policy is wrt transgendered sex workers, it’s not like there aren’t a whole hell of a lot of them.
but they emphatically do not believe there can be any distinction between prostitution and trafficking; they don’t believe prostitution can ever be legitimate in any circumstances; they don’t want to call it sex work as that would legitimize it (and presumably all that goes with that, i.e. organizing, unionization, and so on—it’s the Swedish model or the highway, as i understand it);
in other words, pretty much all the talking points you hear from all the online radfems whenever the subject(s) come(s) up.
so no, it isn’t entirely academic, in fact.
Twisty is basically playing amusing mind games, but—that’s her.
and i’m sure any one of the individual online radfems aren’t really heavy movers and shakers; or well but, though, there’s also Sam, and maybe that shit gets farther than holding conferences at colleges and maybe it doesn’t, but she’s definitely not only futzing around online.
— belledame222 Apr 29, 05:04 AM #
Well said.
— Lucy Apr 29, 07:02 AM #
“I can’t help wondering if part of the motive behind all this was to stop that discussion from happening.”
I get that impression myself, especially since the responses frequently attack the person, rather than their argument.
This is why I think the ‘ignore fest’ is a good idea.
— Andrea Apr 29, 07:44 AM #
I don’t know Belle.
1.) Radical feminists aren’t the only feminists that find porn problematic.
2.) Radical feminists definitely aren’t the only ones working on DV, trafficking, or any number of other women-centered activist areas. In fact, I seem to remember a little “Faith, not Works” lament a while back, addressing just that point. That anyone, even those folks that refuse the feminist label, can do work on behalf of women. Anyone can be a advocate on behalf of women. Anyone can get up and help. But, only the Special Elect can really BE radical feminists—those that truly accept in their hearts that radical feminist theory explains large scale human behavior. And, part of that argument led to, once again, the assertion that if you quit radical feminism, then you never really accepted it to begin with.
3.) Cults exist to make money. I highly doubt that any organized group of radical feminists are raking in the cash to provide the leader with a new car. They aren't charging to move up the ranks. So... there may be cult-y characteristics—and the examination and inventory thing is freeeeaky, hello—it's not really a cult at this point.
— Veronica Apr 29, 11:10 AM #
1) well, no, they’re not the only ones against porn; but it tends to be more central, because they’re the ones who believe in the Sexual Oppression Is The Root Of All Other Oppression theory.
2. again, not the only ones working on such things; but again, the above belief tends to color how they go about the work and where they put the emphasis.
and per trafficking and so on—I am talking about at the top organizational level, not just people who care about such things. I’ll talk more about that someday.
but absolutely, anyone can work on behalf of women, DV, rape crisis, and do. hell, one of the most tireless volunteer workers at a rape crisis center I knew was also on the board of the local womens’ BDSM chapter, went to sex parties and clubs…
i don’t know if she called herself “radical” or not, actually; as i’ve said before, the Dyke Drama Collective I (and she) belonged to really didn’t seem to make such hay of these particular issues, Drama (not just in the stage way either) laden though it was; in many ways a lot of people’s activism and lifestyles were very much compatible with what i tend to think of as “radical feminism,” but…shrug. like i said, going online was like stepping into a time warp. or maybe it was that it was New York, or the generation gap, or…who the hell knows. but like half our shows were sponsored by the friendly local female-run sex toy and pr0n shop, and as far as I’m aware there weren’t complaints about that. christ knows there were dramas about everything ELSE in the world…
— belledame222 Apr 29, 11:23 AM #
Belle—as Veronica said, I think it would be tough to point to an activity IN WHICH ONE CAN POINT TO WORTHWHILE RESULTS that rad fems are involved with uniquely among feminists. Sure, maybe some activities tend to skew more rad, but that’s not really the point. Anti-trafficking goes way beyond rad fem, so you could be an ex-rad fem and still be very invovled in that cause, and I know a number who are.
Now, regarding porn and lad mags, I think that IS academic. Has there been any headway, even assuming the cause makes sense, here? I am not aware of any demonstrable effect of the lobbying or workshops the anti-porn brigade has made.
And, as you stated so cogently above, the anti-porn stuff is really a right-wing thing. It’s not really about women’s rights. If it were, there would be more dialogue with the women currently involved in the field. The fact that there isn’t makes this cause more of a morality-based one than a woman-centric one.
You’re right that rad fems DO things besides chat. I guess, bottom line, I don’t think the things they do that stem directly from their philosophy have tangible results. So I don’t understand how, if DOING whatever it is doesn’t make you happy, why you’d do it.
— Octogalore Apr 29, 12:01 PM #
PS—by “worthwhile,” I don’t mean by my standards, but by rad fem standards.
The original query was: are there things that are unique to rad fem philosophy, the doing of which is so worthwhile that it makes up for unhappiness along the way?
Trafficking: no. Rape and DV shelters: no. Don’t need rad fem philosophy for this.
Porn and lad-mag lobbying: do need rad fem philosophy, no tangible result.
Conclusion: if unhappy as rad fem, no reason to continue as rad fem.
— Octogalore Apr 29, 12:13 PM #
well, to me it’s not “academic” if it results in things like y’know new laws being enacted and enforced, stores shut down, people prosecuted…
— belledame222 Apr 29, 12:15 PM #
as for the rest—you know, i just can’t say what is or isn’t worthwhile from a radfem perspective, because i’m not one. Which is totally fine, too, you know?
— belledame222 Apr 29, 12:16 PM #
as per the “cult” thing: yeah, we’ve batted that one around before, came to no satisfactory conclusions. yeh the term’s problematic, but then so is the thing it’s attempting to describe.
maybe “conspiracism” is more accurate.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism.html
— belledame222 Apr 29, 12:18 PM #
You’re right that rad fems DO things besides chat. I guess, bottom line, I don’t think the things they do that stem directly from their philosophy have tangible results.
Something like that.
I’m saying that radical feminism simply doesn’t make sense outside of theory. It makes an interesting framework for explaining the origins of and current state of human behavior, but it’s not a handbook for revolution. I think that what Belle said was telling—that she knew feminists that could be considered “radical” but that they didn’t behave as if radical theory was also a code of conduct. It’s only when the intellectual concepts are forced to also be personal philosophy informing a code of conduct that you end up with wonky shit like teaming up with right-wingers, sincerely suggesting uniforms, and patiently waiting for the artificial wombs to arrive. And, it's only when a person has tuned the Ideas into psuedo-religion, that you end up with the sort of arguments we're seeing online about accepting theory as gospel, and radical feminist conversion on a soul level.
— Veronica Apr 29, 12:24 PM #
Which is to say that I think there’s a difference between Radical Feminism as an academic endeavor and thought exercise, which I just don’t find nearly so problematic. And, Radical Feminism as a personal philosophy with an intense social aspect as practiced by people with questionable agendas.
— Veronica Apr 29, 12:30 PM #
(Woot, three in a row again.)
And, I think that the distinction between the theory and the forced practice is something that shows up in online arguments. There is internal friction that results from asserting that “Radical just means ‘getting to the root’ of sexism and patriarchy,” and then turning around and implying among those that internalize radical feminism as psuedo-religion that Radical actually refers to taking a stronger stance against sexism, a more hardcore devotion to women, and an hierarchy of True Feminism with Radical being the truest form that removes the veil from thine eyes.
— Veronica Apr 29, 12:43 PM #
well, we’re getting nearer the heart of it. i think it has to do with
1) people of a certain sort of personality being attracted to, and then shaping and redirecting, the basic ideas
2) really REALLY overdoing the whole “personal is political” stuffage.
and, i know the “cult” term is problematic—we had whole long threads about this a while ago, wish i could remember where they’re archived—but, yeah, there are definitely aspects that are worrisome;
and while collecting money and funneling it to a leader is one of the characteristics of a cult, it’s not the only one or even (I think) a defining one. the “thought reform” business is where it all starts, and that was where it all began to sound way too familiar for comfort.
— belledame222 Apr 29, 12:59 PM #
anyway, the Lifton stuff i was riffing off is here:
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/lifton_robert_cult_formation.htm
The first method characteristically used by ideological totalism is milieu control: the control of all communication within a given environment. In such an environment individual autonomy becomes a threat to the group. There is an attempt to manage an individual’s inner communication…
—milieu obviously less carefully hemmed in if it’s all online, but it can still be plenty intense, as we’ve seen.
Two other features of totalism are a demand for purity and a cult of confession. The demand for purity is a call for radical separation of good and evil within the environment and within oneself. Purification is a continuing process, often institutionalized in the cult of confession, which enforces conformity through guilt and shame evoked by mutual criticism and self-criticism in small groups…
...Three further aspects of ideological totalism are “sacred science,” “loading of the language,” and the principle of “doctrine over person.” Sacred science is important because a claim of being scientific is often needed to gain plausibility and influence in the modern age. The Unification Church is one example of a contemporary tendency to combine dogmatic religious principles with a claim to special scientific knowledge of human behavior and psychology. The term loading the language’ refers to literalism and a tendency to deify words or images. A simplified, cliche-ridden language can exert enormous psychological force reducing every issue in a complicated life to a single set of slogans that are said to embody the truth as a totality. The principle of doctrine over person’ is invoked when cult members sense a conflict between what they are experiencing and what dogma says they should experience. The internalized message of the totalistic environment is that one must negate that personal experience on behalf of the truth of the dogma. Contradictions become associated with guilt: doubt indicates one’s own deficiency or evil.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of totalistic movements is what I call “dispensing of existence.” Those who have not seen the light and embraced the truth are wedded to evil, tainted, and therefore in some sense, usually metaphorical, lack the right to exist…
— belledame222 Apr 29, 01:08 PM #
I do think that a major defining characteristic of a cult is that it has a leader and is primarily exploitative. I’m not especially sure that conspiracism works either for the same reason. Though, yeah… I brought up the whole parallel with what he’s calling “sacred science.”
Honestly, what’s happened here recently is a lot closer to high school clique behavior than Jonestown. I don’t know that trying to label “them” as a cult or a conspiracist group is helpful.
Are some of them taking radical feminism to a near-religious place? Yes. But, that doesn't mean that they're a cult. Might mean they're as much fun as The Church Lady on a Satan=Santa kick, but it doesn't mean that they're nearly as destructive or paranoid as the kind of thing that Lifton is describing.
— Veronica Apr 29, 01:59 PM #
I don’t think radfem is in any way a cult in the true sense, but it does have certain culty characteristics in the way it’s been manifesting online recently. To be honest the parrallels that alarm me are the ones that can be made to revolutionary political movements that went horribly wrong in the past. Clearly we’re not going to see Stalinist purges because radfems don’t have enough real-world clout to do anything like that, but the pattern is similar. My concern is that I don’t think most people who identify as radfem are actually like Pony, StormCloud etc. I think most of them have internalised the theory and are applying it in practical ways – volunteer at the shelter, etc. I think that what we’re seeing online is a minority viewpoint even within their own community.
Someone in the WW thread made a statement about there only being a few dozen radfems in the world – in practical terms that’s nonsense. I could find you a few dozen radfems right here in the Bay Area without trying very hard, probably more. But in terms of radfems who think the same way that those particular people do, ie radfem theory interpreted as a religion, they may be right. There may well not be very many of those people.
The question is why all of the radfems who aren’t like that are allowing those people to dominate the debate. Maybe the others are too busy with practical activism to pay attention to what’s happening online.
— CassandraSays Apr 29, 04:20 PM #
“My concern is that I don’t think most people who identify as radfem are actually like Pony, StormCloud etc.”
Yeah, that. I don't remember there being blackmailing, stalking, and harassment instructions in Intercourse, ya know? Or, a collected list of acceptable names to call other women.
— Veronica Apr 29, 04:44 PM #
>Yeah, that. I don’t remember there being blackmailing, stalking, and harassment instructions in Intercourse, ya know?>
No, but there was that whole business where she called for Susie Bright’s execution, apparently.
There’s some stuff wrt Sheila Jeffreys or rather some of her fangirls as well; i need to look that up.
oh yeah, and there was the whole harassing of Sandy Stone (TG woman working at Olivia records) out of a job.
so, no, it’s not just online. I dunno if it’s particularly “radfem,” but it’s not new.
— belledame222 Apr 29, 07:13 PM #
>I don’t think radfem is in any way a cult in the true sense, but it does have certain culty characteristics in the way it’s been manifesting online recently.>
Yeah, that.
As came up before, these are loaded terms. I’m not trying to say I actually think we’re gonna be seeing a radfem Waco or anything of that sort anytime soon.
but the whole point for me of the Lifton business is—it can really fuck with your head, this shit, and tbh i really see a shitload of headfuckery going on here. Yeah, it looks like junior high from the outside; but then again junior high felt pretty serious at the time too…
— belledame222 Apr 29, 07:16 PM #
>The question is why all of the radfems who aren’t like that are allowing those people to dominate the debate. Maybe the others are too busy with practical activism to pay attention to what’s happening online.>
Maybe. In some cases I’m pretty sure that’s the case.
In others though…not as sure what’s going on there. Fear, I think, not wanting to rock the boat. ironically enough. and/or, they just don’t see it as as big a deal because it’s not them on the hot seat.
— belledame222 Apr 29, 07:20 PM #
Belle, you said “well, to me it’s not “academic” if it results in things like y’know new laws being enacted and enforced, stores shut down, people prosecuted…”
Has anti-porn by rad fems achieved these things?
— Octogalore Apr 29, 10:04 PM #
All by themselves? Depends how you look at it. Directly achieved the goals they were after? I wouldn’t say so. Affected the overall zeitgeist and influenced some cases? Yes.
Here’s a starting point, the MacKinnon and Dworkin ordinances.
more currently see the extreme pornography business in the UK; that’s a lot of what was driving the whole blow-up over the Ladyfest Leeds business (i.e. the anti folks were particularly ire’d because the workshop organizers are/were against the new ban/criminalization.
as you can see from the Wiki article, there’s some contention about What The Butler Decision All Means, Dear, even though yes the courts did draw on D/McK’s work.
and then there’s say this Leftist/socialist site which connects the Meese Report et seq rather emphatically to Dworkin and MacKinnon:
here
on the other hand, when it says they “borrowed rhetoric” from the anti-porn feminists, which i’m sure is true, you also consider that the anti-porn feminists, while coming from a different direction than the right-wing moral crusaders who came before them, almost certainly weren’t totally uninfluenced by their techniques and language.
so.
again, though, where i think they most influence policy: take a look at Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
and read their About page.
— belledame222 Apr 30, 12:13 AM #
—crap, doesn’t want to embed the links, let’s try it again this way:
All by themselves? Depends how you look at it. Directly achieved the goals they were after? I wouldn’t say so. Affected the overall zeitgeist and influenced some cases? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.ordinance Here’s a starting point, the MacKinnon and Dworkin ordinances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipornography_civil_rights_ordinance
more currently see the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography extreme pornography business in the UK; that’s a lot of what was driving the whole blow-up over the Ladyfest Leeds business (i.e. the anti folks were particularly ire’d because the workshop organizers are/were against the new ban/criminalization.
as you can see from the Wiki article, there’s some contention about What The Butler Decision All Means, Dear, even though yes the courts did draw on D/McK’s work.
and then there’s say this Leftist/socialist site which connects the Meese Report et seq rather emphatically to Dworkin and MacKinnon:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/pornPR27.html
on the other hand, when it says they “borrowed rhetoric” from the anti-porn feminists, which i’m sure is true, you also consider that the anti-porn feminists, while coming from a different direction than the right-wing moral crusaders who came before them, almost certainly weren’t totally uninfluenced by their techniques and language.
so.
again, though, where i think they most influence policy: take a look at http://www.catwinternational.org/ Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
and read their http://www.catwinternational.org/about/index.php About page.
— belledame222 Apr 30, 12:18 AM #
...a more direct perspective on the UK business, if you haven’t seen:
http://burnthewitches.blogspot.com/2007/04/blogwars.html
— belledame222 Apr 30, 12:33 AM #
Belle, thanks for the links.
I see MacKinnon as apart from other rad fems in that she decided to leverage family connections, education, and various power structures to get what she got done. A number of the moves she made along the way are not ones that many rad fems espouse. And she, actually, did NOT walk the talk in a lot of ways, because apparently it did make her unhappy. Her hairstyle, clothes, male relationships, etc., did not reflect the thinking of rad fem. So I see her as more of an amalgam than a representative of that philosophy.
Re the trafficking site, yes, that’s certainly a good example of affecting policy. However, I continue to believe that the elements of that organization that make a difference are not unique to rad fem philosophy. The “about” page does equate all prostitution with trafficking, yes, but that’s just verbiage, not linked to the effects of what they do. Anti-trafficking is a feminist cause.
While I think one can point to representatives of any philosophy who are constructive, I think one has to look long and hard at whether the tenets of that philosophy themselves lead to a productive game plan. And I think the answer here is no.
— Octogalore Apr 30, 12:44 PM #
I think we’re talking at a bit of crossed wires here.
If what you’re asking is, “does anyone follow the tenets of radical feminism to the letter and has it accomplished what it’s said it would do, aka apparently Revolution,” then well no, I don’t expect so. I doubt most philosophies would hold up that stringently.
If you’re asking whether there’s any point to being a radical feminist as opposed to any other kind of feminist, and particularly whether the endless body-and-attire-and-sexuality “examination” sessions that some people subject themselves and others to make any positive difference to anything, and are answering “no,” well, preaching to the choir, here.
What I thought you were asking was whether radical feminism has had any concrete impact on the body politic in a way that differs from that of feminism as a whole/other feminisms, and to that, I’m saying “yes,” in certain specific arenas.
whether you think that’s a GOOD thing is something else again, of course.
but it’s part of why I’ve been paying attention all this time.
and no, I don’t think you’re correct that that “about” page is just verbiage, at all: it is directly connected to them pushing the Swedish model as opposed to decriminalization and workers’ rights for sex workers. YES it has a concrete effect. and they DO have influence.
I’m going to post about that more later in the week, hopefully.
— belledame222 Apr 30, 04:01 PM #
tangentially, and related to another subject that interests me a lot (and i haven’t dealt with nearly as much as i’d meant to): the religious/spiritual left, or rather religion/spirituality and the left. this one talks about more than one type of “reformed” (inc. “radical feminist):
http://culturekitchen.com/lilian_m_friedberg/forum/confessions_of_a_reformed_radical_f
— belledame222 Apr 30, 08:12 PM #
Belle – OK. I do grant your point on the “impact on the body politic” assuming that you can demonstrate that this group has in fact influenced methods for combating trafficking, and it appears that you can.
On the other hand, wouldn’t you agree that it’s likely the “endless body-and-attire-and-sexuality “examination” sessions that some people subject themselves and others to” represents, oh, probably 98% of what radical feminists actually DO, whereas maybe 2% of them, max are involved in causes that are specific to the tenets of radical feminism. I’d say maybe as many as 50% of them or more ARE involved in causes of a more generally feminist nature, eg DV shelters, rape crisis centers, pro-abortion rallying.
Possibly more critically to my point, I believe it would be difficult to prove that the “certain specific areas” that radical feminism impacts would NOT have been impacted in this way but for radical feminism. After all, the Bush administration trafficking office supports the Swedish Model . (http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/348 in case that link didn’t show up). For every “certain specific area” in which you can point to a specific impact, I’d bet there’s a white republican man allied to it.
So I guess my point is more that – not that I can prove that there is NO impact on the world stemming directly from radical feminism. But I think these areas’ success stems from their overlap with interests of the patriarchy. For this reason I do not see radical feminism capable of logically leading to, even step by step, the dismantling of the patriarchy. For reasons I’ve bored people with enough recently to reiterate, I don’t think that’s possible. And that’s why doing rad fem, I continue to believe, needs to stem predominantly (I added that in there for you) from personal benefits, eg happiness, one derives from it.
— Octogalore Apr 30, 10:24 PM #
>But I think these areas’ success stems from their overlap with interests of the patriarchy.>
well—as it happens, i actually think you might be right, which is why i mentioned the CmcK intro business.
(o, i can hear the screaming now…)
like i said, though: i didn’t realize you were asking for someone to make a case that it’s uniquely benefited the world in the way it said it was going to,
more, “is this worth paying any attention to at all.”
i mean, yes, there are places where it dovetails with the RR’s agenda; but i think it’s a mistake to simply say it’s the same as the RR (which some people do)
— belledame222 May 1, 08:58 AM #
and then too, i suppose, one could make the argument that while reactionary forces support the Swedish model, they would not have come up with it themselves; punishing prostitutes a la the current U.S. model seems to work just fine.
i don’t think i support the Swedish model, but given a choice between it and the one we have now, I suppose…
— belledame222 May 1, 09:02 AM #