GC Participants: Do you consider yourself a radfem?

submitted by usehername from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Radish 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I think you have to define your terms here. My understanding is that "radical" feminism means "to the root" which means addressing the root cause of oppression. (spoiler: it's men) I agree with the concept but don't know whether that makes me a radical feminist by other standards, because it seems so complicated now. Why is because it is obvious and makes sense.

My understanding of political lesbianism as originally practiced had to do with devoting one's energy and time to women and withdrawing from the physical and emotional labor and did not mean compulsory genital activity with women. Now I am told that it means forcing oneself to be a lesbian regardless of attraction, which is not going to be healthy for you or for any woman you engage with sexually on that level. I do believe in the former; men have taken enough of our time and support. I don't believe in the latter. I don't think it's a good idea to engage in sex you don't want. Seriously, that sounds a lot more like being a TRA. I am a lifelong lesbian, however, so my perspective may be different from some.

Also, if you're going to go on vaguely about "anti-science beliefs" you need to define your terms and say what is anti-science about your understanding of radical feminist ideas. Your (and many others, I guess) concept of political lesbianism may be icky and too close to trans demands that we be attracted to them, but is not opposed to science or denies science in any way. I don't know of any radfem, or any person with radfem ideals who is "anti-science" but then again, I don't get out much.

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

My understanding is that "radical" feminism means "to the root" which means addressing the root cause of oppression. (spoiler: it's men) I agree with the concept but don't know whether that makes me a radical feminist by other standards, because it seems so complicated now.

I also want to address the root cause of women's oppression, but it seems there is a specific philosophy detailed in literature by such people as Andrea Dworkin, Shelia Jeffreys, and Julie Bindel, which I do not agree with.

My understanding of political lesbianism as originally practiced had to do with devoting one's energy and time to women and withdrawing from the physical and emotional labor and did not mean compulsory genital activity with women.

I have heard that explanation before, but the fact is, prominent radfem activists like Julie Bindel (possibly a real lesbian, but it's hardly relevant because she believes that she chose to be a lesbian and that sexual orientation is a choice https://www.newstatesman.com/society/2014/07/julie-bindel-theres-no-gay-gene-and-i-love-idea-i-chose-be-lesbian) and Sheila Jeffreys do consider themselves actual, real, women-loving lesbians. From Sheila Jeffreys's book, "The Spinster and Her Enemies" :

Sheila Jeffreys is a lesbian and a revolutionary feminist who has been active in feminist campaigns against male violence, pornography and prostitution in Britain and in Australia for twenty years. She is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Melbourne, where she teaches sexual politics and lesbian and gay politics.

She calls herself a lesbian and clearly thinks she's qualified to teach "lesbian and gay politics". I also saw a video of her where she said she was surprised and excited when she realized she could "choose to be a lesbian".

Your (and many others, I guess) concept of political lesbianism may be icky and too close to trans demands that we be attracted to them, but is not opposed to science or denies science in any way.

It is opposed to science because they're claiming that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation, which is simply impossible, and studies have shown that there are people who are truly only attracted to one sex. The fact that conversion therapy fails every time also gives credibility to the fact that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. As a lesbian, I'm sure you can understand that you will never be attracted to men, even if you really tried. Are you really saying that the claim that it's possible to choose your sexual orientation isn't anti-science?

what is anti-science

Other than the idea that you can choose your sexual orientation, I've also heard claims that PIV sex is completely unnatural. If a penis is never meant to enter the vagina, which they say should be used exclusively as a birth canal, then why does the cervix raise during ovulation? How are humans supposed to procreate? If the man were just supposed to put his penis right at the vaginal opening to ejaculate, then why wouldn't the cervix become lower in order to catch the sperm?

They also claim that birth is inherently an act that destroys women by design, which justifies their claim that all PIV is rape and women only enjoy sex with men because of trauma bonding. That does happen, but humans enjoy sex because it is necessary for the survival of the species, and the only reason birth is so traumatic and dangerous for humans is that farming caused us to have a diet that's poorer in nutrients, meaning a human won't grow as tall (therefore smaller pelvis), but the high carbs and sugar cause the baby to grow big. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

[–]Radish 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I actually based my understanding on some of the second wave feminist writing I read when I was young. I would have to go through and look it up, so perhaps my understanding is wrong. I never got around to reading Jeffries, although I have a pdf of Lesbian Heresy that I need to get to. I've read Julie Bindel on the subject and disagree with her interpretation completely. I find the idea of sleeping with someone who doesn't really feel it kind of repulsive.

There is a difference between something not being scientifically proven or simply wrong with being actively anti-science, which is a different position altogether. There is disagreement among many things within the scientific community. I would say that one can change one's sexual orientation at will is both wrong and not scientifically proven, but does not say that science is wrongor that they are opposed to science.

Perhaps my understandings of terms are wrong.

I do know that Dworkin never said that all heterosex was rape.

People are pretty threatened by radical feminism, generally speaking. There are a lot of ideas out there. Many people call themselves radfems. There is not an organized gospel or anything like that. So the terms are all up to interpretation. I do know for me that being gender critical is rooted in radical feminist philosophy.

And, of course, it's all just my interpretation and I could be wrong.

Also, I respect science.

[–]Nosce_te_ipsum 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are a lot of ideas out there. Many people call themselves radfems. There is not an organized gospel or anything like that. So the terms are all up to interpretation.

I completely agree. I also think this is the case for every movement or ideology out there (at least the ones that don't act like cults). There are some core values and principles that most people who are part of that movement share, but there are also a lot of divergent opinions, especially when it comes to issues that are not the primary target of that particular movement.

From my personal observations, most radical feminists seem to be critical of political lesbianism, and it's also not a subject that is very often discussed in radical feminist circles, so it makes me think it's definitely more of a fringe opinion (like other comments have mentioned).

[–]usehername[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There is a difference between something not being scientifically proven or simply wrong with being actively anti-science

Conversion therapy is scientifically proven not to work, so saying it does work is anti-science, the same way that the vaginal steaming is proven not to cleanses your vagina or uterus, improve fertility, or balances hormones as is claimed, so to say that it does is anti-science. If there were evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to take a look and maybe even change my views, but there isn't, so claiming that it's true is just ridiculous, and even if you disagree that it's anti-science, it's definitely not science. I'm not in the habit of believing things without proof, or with proof disputing it. It's sort of religious in my eyes. If a woman believes that she was straight and became a lesbian, she is bisexual. It irritates me to see the erasure of bisexuality as a concept.

And like I said, there's a lot I do agree with, but even if a lot of radfems disagree with the idea of political lesbianism, some very prominent radfems are very vocal about supporting it and they're essentially the face of the movement.

Anyways, I appreciate your perspective.

[–]lefterfield 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Conversion therapy is scientifically proven

This doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be scientifically proven. What you mean is, the evidence is against any indication that it is possible, and there is additional evidence that attempting it is harmful. All this focus on "science proves" and "anti science" is very religious and should be avoided.

[–]usehername[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nothing can be scientifically proven.

That's just not true. Humans have used science to prove lots of things, like the fact that the Earth is round, for example. Here: political lesbianism is a personal belief not backed by science. Better?

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Humans have demonstrated via evidence that the earth is round, taken pictures of it from space and done calculations using the distance between various locations. It could be mathematically proven to be round, and I'm pretty sure that was done. And sure, I agree with your statement about political lesbianism too.

[–]Radish 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (15 children)

Sexuality and attraction can change to some degree over a lifetime. I don't mean that I could turn around tomorrow and be all into men, but I know at least one woman who honestly believes that she was straight until her early 20s and became a lesbian. I don't really know what's in her mind, so I have to take that at face value, I guess, since it is her feelings about it. To me that does not seem possible. Neither position is scientifically provable, so therefore, saying one is anti-science is not true. Yes, things touted as medical treatments that go against the scientific laws would be considered anti-science.

I don't think there's "a face" to the movement. Radical feminists don't recruit, or have settled dogma, or anything else. Some are better known than others, those who dare to speak up. That doesn't make them more right or anything they say law.

Also, I'm opposed to religion, which I don't think is good for people, so I don't really care for seeing anything used in the way religion is, not radical feminism, not science.

We can disagree without one of us being wrong, which is what makes this an interesting conversation. Thank you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know at least one woman who honestly believes that she was straight until her early 20s and became a lesbian.

She might be bisexual or she might be a lesbian. The fact is, it takes many people well into their 20s or beyond to figure out who they are & what their sexuality is. This is especially true for people who are lesbian, gay or bi.

The human brain doesn't stop developing until age 25 - which is one of the reasons I think it's damaging to expect pre-teens, teens & young adults to openly proclaim their sexual orientation & to applaud those who slap sexual-orientation identity labels on themselves & others. Moreover, many people - particularly those of minority sexual orientations & who grew up in religious & conservative families & milieus where homophobia & shame were rife - have to overcome a huge amount of real & perceived social stigma as well as their own internalized prejudices before they feel comfortable exploring, expressing & publicly stating their orientation.

Taking a longer view, some people do change apparent sexual orientation later in life. Many women who didn't realize they were bi in their youth enter lesbian relationships after they've been married to men & have borne & raised children. Quite a few women who were just an eensy bit bi in our college years & lived as straight women for most of our adult lives end up partnered with women in our retirement years.

Also, there are people today & in the past who are or claim to be entirely asexual & who don't deal with the issue by adopting lifestyles of celibacy. I knew many Roman Catholic nuns who lived & died without claiming or expressing sexual orientation. On the other hand, my own father in his mid-60s married a woman who had been an entirely celibate RC nun for 45 years, from the time she was 16 to 61. I had another friend who spent his early adulthood as an Episcopal priest & was celibate his whole life until nearly 70 when he came out as gay.

Neither position is scientifically provable, so therefore, saying one is anti-science is not true.

Are you saying that sexual orientation can't be determined using the methods of science? I don't think that's entirely true. Sexual attraction & arousal cause physiological responses that are observable & measurable. At the same time, however, I don't think there's always & necessarily a direct correlation between what stimuli individuals respond to physically & what their sexual orientation is. I think this is especially the case for women, but it might also well be true for boys & men. We humans are a complicated, funny lot.