radical feminism ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[glitterspitter]

okay.

it seems that everyone is using the term "radical feminist" to discribe a feminist who has gone over the edge, hates men, wants a complete seperation of the sexes, loves abortions, etc.

well, i have considered myself a radical feminist since i was in high school and recently have seen my views come into alignment with socialist feminism.

to me, being a radical feminist means i am MOBILIZED toward change, a restucturization of our society, not only "reforms". i recognize the need to work within the the current system to get certain rights that we deserve (such as pay equity), but i think radical change is in order. i realize this kind of feminism is probably the most scary to some people, as people, esp. those in power, fear change, however, my beliefs do NOT mean that i think men should have NO power. it does NOT mean that i think that abortion is peachy and everyone who's feeling not up to having a kid should go out and have one right away, it does NOT mean i think men should all be moved to an island far far away.

like this definition from
here (http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/ecocult.htm):

[Radical feminism] views the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines between biologically-determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior in order to free both men and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles.


the reason i am also starting to see myself as a socialist feminist is because the issue of class is of great interest to me. i am beginning to see how much it factors in to the equation.

here (http://www.student.virginia.edu/~uvanow/different.html) is one somewhat incomplete definition of socialist feminism:

Socialist Feminism links women's oppression to the class structure. Sexism is a way of rewarding the working class male; it gives them control over women. Women's work is less valued because it does not produce exchangeable goods.



the links i have posted have some other definitions as well. and there are of course many more sources on the net and elsewhere.

there is so much more to learn for all of us! it doesn't make you any less of a feminist to not be a radical feminist, but PLEASE do some research, than *think* before you use this term in such an insulting way. if it wasn't for many "radical" feminists we wouldn't be where we are today.

[aphrodites kiss]

Glitterspitter -

I do like the definition of a "radical feminist" that you have included and I will go and look at the websites you have linked because they look interesting.

However, my question to you is this: You acknowledge that there is a type of feminist that is man-hating, abortion-loving etc etc. These feminists seem to scare a lot of people (men and women) away from the movement of gender equality. Fact is, that in a forum like this, we are inevitably going to discuss these types of people. If you don't like the term radical feminist, how would you describe them? What term would you use to distinguish them from other *less-radical* (for lack of a better term) feminists?


-- ak

[glitterspitter]

However, my question to you is this: You acknowledge that there is a type of feminist that is man-hating, abortion-loving etc etc. These feminists seem to scare a lot of people (men and women) away from the movement of gender equality. Fact is, that in a forum like this, we are inevitably going to discuss these types of people. If you don't like the term radical feminist, how would you describe them? What term would you use to distinguish them from other *less-radical* (for lack of a better term) feminists?


no, i did not aknowledge this type of feminist because anyone who thinks this way is NOT a feminist by the very definition of feminism!

people love to talk about "man haters".... do you really know any? i've never met ONE single person (let alone feminist) who REALLY hated men beyond a little bitching. and if you do know one, then these people are obviously just as misguided as misogynists.

if you are talking about seperatist feminists, well, i guess we'd have to ask them WHAT KIND of seperation between the sexes they advocate, why, when, and where they advocate it, but they don't all hate men either and they are not all lesbians.

people are scared away from issues of gender equality for many reasons including they either a) do not understand feminism and/or have certain views that they feel cannot fit into it or b)are the very people in power (read:white middle class males) who are terrified of ANYONE who wants equality.

the short answer to that is simple. these raging man-hatin', abortion "lovin'" feminists simply DO NOT EXIST.

[aphrodites kiss]

no, i did not aknowledge this type of feminist because anyone who thinks this way is NOT a feminist by the very definition of feminism!


Sorry, thats my bad. I misread part of your earlier post :)


the short answer to that is simple. these raging man-hatin', abortion "lovin'" feminists simply DO NOT EXIST.


Do not exist now or never existed at all? Or just exists on a *quieter* level? It's a very strong stereotype that I presume (though don't really know) has some kind of backing. I do think that people believe these types of women exist. So, to know the history of it would be useful to everyone in trying to make some kind of progress on the issue.

I don't know a whole lot about this kind of thing, which is why I want to ask all these questions. And if there are people here who are more in the know than I am, I should take advantage of them ;)

Just wanted to clarify that :)


-- ak

[BonanzaJllybean]

i agree with most of what glitterspitter has posted here. i dont think that those particular man hatin' baby killin' dykes from hell really exist either. rather, they are the characature that those individuals threatened by feminism have created to discredit feminists of all kind.

however, i do wish to argue this one point... you said that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. well, while i agree that it affects people of all race, i dont think its fair to claim its the most fundamental for everyone. to you, it is. however, a black woman may feel that the oppression against her race is more fundamentally important. your mentality was one of the downfalls of the seventies feminist movement... by demanding that gender be put before race, women of racial minorities became alienated, and the feminist movement became the white middle class feminist movement.

[redline]

i agree with most of what glitterspitter has posted here. i dont think that those particular man hatin' baby killin' dykes from hell really exist either. rather, they are the characature that those individuals threatened by feminism have created to discredit feminists of all kind.

Oh they exist. But I am claiming neither you or her to be one. So if Radical is in the wrong, I'll come up with a more acceptable one.

[Samantha]

redline, if they exist, then name one.

i dont think that those particular man hatin' baby killin' dykes from hell really exist either. rather, they are the characature that those individuals threatened by feminism have created to discredit feminists of all kind.

I agree 100%

I am weary with feminists having to answer for the evil stereotypes about them CONSTANTLY.

Instead of women having to prove over and over and over that they don't hate men, why don't men have to shoulder the burden of proof that they don't hate women? I look at the low status of women in my country, know the frighteningly high rape statistics are still WAY undercounted, am aware that American men put American women in the emergency room more than heart disease, car accidents OR cancer do...

I want to hear a man explain how these things can continue at the rate they do if most American men didn't hate most American women. Just for this thread, the burden of proof that men don't hate women is on you.

[Cold Fire]

<font color=mediumorchid>
I am in much agreement with glitterspitter and Samantha:)

Thanks for clearing that up.
~** Jess

[IrisMagpie]

Originally posted by Samantha


Instead of women having to prove over and over and over that they don't hate men, why don't men have to shoulder the burden of proof that they don't hate women? I look at the low status of women in my country, know the frighteningly high rape statistics are still WAY undercounted, am aware that American men put American women in the emergency room more than heart disease, car accidents OR cancer do...

I want to hear a man explain how these things can continue at the rate they do if most American men didn't hate most American women. Just for this thread, the burden of proof that men don't hate women is on you.

Yeah. Amen.

[glitterspitter]

however, i do wish to argue this one point... you said that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. well, while i agree that it affects people of all race, i dont think its fair to claim its the most fundamental for everyone. to you, it is. however, a black woman may feel that the oppression against her race is more fundamentally important. your mentality was one of the downfalls of the seventies feminist movement... by demanding that gender be put before race, women of racial minorities became alienated, and the feminist movement became the white middle class feminist movement.

excellent point, thank you! that's another reason why i see myself shifting towards socialist feminism and i have recently read many articles on "multiracial" or "multicultural" feminism. of course with these types of theory there is the danger of alienating certain groups as well. luckily feminist theory is a living, breathing thing and we are dialoguing (as right here:)) every day.


Samantha: you are always SO right on! i was going to respond exactly that. "name ONE of these women."

redline: see Samantha'S post.

[BonanzaJllybean]

you're from LA? i'm in Orange County right now. such a drag :P i'm glad that you recognize the racial problems in your previous argument. i dont know that marxism is exactly the answer though.

[vanmorrison]

Men do have to shoulder the burden of proof as well. Many people in society, including quite a few males(!), earnestly believe most males are fuck-ups but there are a few "nice" guys out there(somehow, the "nice guy" qualification for genetic freaks removes the sexism I guess.....NOT).

So, I think many guys, including moi, feel the pressure to buck the societal sterotype that we are an asshole who will screw over other people, especially women, our favorite targets. We feel the burden of proof to establish that we are not evil through our actions and words everyday.

Also, I think opponents of feminism do emphasize and exaggerate negative feminist stereotypes. However, the sterotypes are not total fiction in all cases. Feminism has a long history of numerous schools of thought/points of view/authors, etc. Not all of these people have lived up to feminist ideals at all times. Females and feminists are not perfect. To believe all feminists have been even-handed is a holier-than-thou attitude totally out of tune with reality IMO. There have been some occasional slip-ups in male bashing and some so-called feminists who were downright sexist through the years. For example, feminist professors who refuse to teach male college students(my feminist professor from college thought that was about as hypocritical as you could get).

Also, some quotes that illustrate blatant sexism from so-called "feminists"...


"MAN: an ordinary creature who needs to be watched." A Feminist Dictionary, Pandora Press, 1985.

"I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan- Ms. Magazine

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL men keep all women in a state of fear." Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will, p. 6)

"As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene." Dr. Germain Greer

I could go on for pages with that type of stuff, but I'll leave it at that.

I do not think these quotes are representative of feminism overall. I believe, in reality, it's 1-2% of cases or so. But, to believe that feminism and all its proponents are completely even-handed and never espouse any hate for men is ignorant.

All broad political/social movements have people who take things too far and often compromise the original intent of the movement. Feminism is no different. Furthermore, men and women are equal in not only their abilities but also their faults. Women can fall prey to sexism as well. Slapping a "feminist" label on themselves does not mean they automatically live up to the spirit of feminism.

[redline]

Taken from the US of Justice Statistics Bureau

----
Most victims and perpetrators in homicides are male

Male offender/male victim 65.1%
Male offender/female victim 22.4%
Female offender/male victim 10.1%
Female offender/female victim 2.4%

Victimization rates for males have fluctuated while those for females have declined

Males were 3.2 times more likely than females to be murdered in 1999
In 1999, rates for males and females reached their lowest point in more than two decades
----

----
For every violent crime category but rape and sexual assault, victimization rates were significantly higher for males than females. Males were twice as likely as females to experience robbery and aggravated assault. However, there were 4 rapes or sexual assaults per 1,000 females age 12 or older and 0.4 rapes per 1,000 males.
----

----
* Males, blacks, and the young were more likely than others to experience violent crime --
--1 in 16 males and 1 in 23 females
----



Ok so this would show that men actually hate men more then women. So we would therefore be the "persecuted" gender, by the afflicting populace. On sexually related, women were by far, more assaulted then males, but in all other categories men had higher statistics.

I left out all racial profiling otherwise this would end up as a separation of whites versus blacks, and statistics don't look to well in that respect. Also color is meaningless to me, as well for the most part gender. Equality is what I look for, not race, color, gender, or religion.

But if you want to look at statistics, there you have them. So really this is just showing that as a people, we are killing ourselves this much per year.

On a side note, i'm looking for statistics to show me the repeated cases of assault on females. I would care to go out on a limb, and say that overall violent assaults on women, is probably hugely infested with repeat victims. Those that have a violent bf or husband and stay with the guy, and so are repeatedly in the emergency room because of this. I've seen it happen. Now you can debate about why women stay with them (love, fear, co-dependence etc) but that is right now besides the point. Since I'm trying to find numbers only, from sites other then feminist ones.

Conclusion is, without racial profiling, men are far more apt to be both victimizer and victim. Why, I don't know, but I am neither of those cases.

So when I hear someone was raped, beaten, or killed I feel the same sympathy for both men and women. I would rather see us get rid of race and gender in the mildest terms, and see people view each other as human, rather then black-white, female-male, Muslim-catholic.

That would be my irritation with different sects of feminism, if you want to strive for equality, I'm there to back you up, if you want to create another division, you're on your own.

I agree that pride in your culture, race, or gender is good, I have no problems with that, but if you're going to point the finger at another group, make generalizing comments, then fuck off. In then end we are all humans, I'm neither the devil, or an angel.


As for the idea that man-hating, ultra feminists dykes don't exist, just do a little searching around on the internet. They exist like white supremacy exists, and to say they don't is naive. Anything that can exist does exist, and some are more subtle then others because of the need to be socially acceptable. But you can see it leak out from time to time like vanmorison aptly brought out in several quotes. Those are the types of comments that piss me off, and cause me to have negative feelings towards feminism. UnBlonde in another thread talked about being a humanist with (I forget exactly) a strong bond to her sisters. That is what I think feminism should strive for, along with all races, and cultures.

Feminism seems to be a very strong cause, and it seems that somewhere along the line the idealogy that they started out with, has become blurred. I find myself, agreeing and disagreeing pretty much the same amount of time. Maybe i'm slightly biased, sounds fair enough, but I think women needs to see things from the male perspective, as much as men do toward the women's.

[The March Hare]

Well, there are women who say men are to blame for everything. I've known them and argued with them. They want to deny men of their sex and claim it as their own. These kinds of women exist, and I have met them. I'd just like to know what I'm supposed to call them...

[glitterspitter]

these types of women may exisit, fair enough, but my point is:

THEY ARE NOT FEMINISTS!!!

that is NOT what feminism is! get it?

[glitterspitter]

BonanzaJllybean,

yes, i live in la. the greatest city in the WORLD! are you in o.c. for the holidays? yeah, i'm not a big fan of o.c., but there are nice beaches there :)!

as for marxism, i guess i coulnd't go too much into detail about that, because i feel like i have to study it further. all i know is that my focus as a feminist has shifted greatly to class, and race and class often fall across similar lines, unfortunately. i'm coming from a difficult position here because i AM a woman of color (latina), but i am also middle class, private school educated, and eventually (hee) college educated (well, i go to a CC, it's a goos CC, but i'm gonna transfer), and i have many
friends who are in fact white, but lower-middle class or whatever. and in all of us there is struggle, political, and also personal.




redline, have you been buying into the crock of shit that is the "men's movement"? it may have started out with good intentions, but it has embarrassed itself, and done women AND men a grave injustice.

as a side note to everyone: it seems that many men (here and elsewhere) keep taking this to the "women think men suck and are emotional retards" level. while of course that factors in, that is not what i'm talking about. i'm talking POLITICS here. equal rights, not greeting card slogans.

[redline]

THEY ARE NOT FEMINISTS!!!

They claim to be, whether you agree they are or aren't. Do they all have to sign up through you to join?

redline, have you been buying into the crock of shit that is the "men's movement"? it may have started out with good intentions, but it has embarrassed itself, and done women AND men a grave injustice.

I'm involved as much as you are in the "Men's Movement". Please don't use sad attempts to discredit a valid point, by affiliating me with different groups. Again, look I agree with a lot of what you say.

You say I'm using "radical" inappropriately, so I agree to come up with a new term. But I'm not going to agree with you on everything, being male or not, you don't have a monopoly on "right".

Also you talk about your political stand, but I have no idea where you stand on anything. You give me the definition from you handy dandy feminist dictionary, but I still don't understand why you would disagree with what I said in my last post. Since I kept pushing "EQUALITY" but I keep getting "Separation and Isolationism" from you. Since you keep lashing out on my beliefs, How terribly understanding of the male perspective. Why should I respect your views if you won't mine?

BTW - Since this post I've been randomly asking women (from the girl at the coffee shop, to my female friends) on what the words "radical feminist" paints for them. I have yet to come across a powerful up-building political explanation, everything has been negative and I have been being fair in the people I ask. I'd like to perform a far more professional approach to this, and have been thinking of spending a day in Seattle (which I feel is a liberal city) and do a study of women and men, and what radical feminism means to them and why. Maybe then we'd understand what people are thinking, and their reason for coming to that conclusion. Maybe then you'd have you're bra burning self proclaimed radical feminist that are dragging the name through the mud. I'll be fair in my evaluation, sticking to places that would draw in the more intellectual crowd, rather then the opening doors at a boy band concert, and strip clubs.

If I'm coming across too biased, vote yourself mod and ban me.

[Samantha]

redline, your post shows nothing more than what feminists have been saying all along:

MEN ARE TOO DAMN VIOLENT

That their victims are women, children, and men does nothing to diminish this sad fact.

They claim to be, whether you agree they are or aren't. Do they all have to sign up through you to join?

No, but in a group comprising several million people around the world you'd think the actions of a handful of people wouldn't be used to negatively color all several million. That's what you're doing and it's wrong to hold women to a higher standard of "group purity" than you would any other international group of tens of millions.

Since this post I've been randomly asking women (from the girl at the coffee shop, to my female friends) on what the words "radical feminist" paints for them.

A pointless project for what you're trying to get at. You might as well ask random people for their opinion on South African segregation and its political aftermath. Having a pussy doesn't give you any knowledge about the rich history of radical feminist theory any more than having a dick makes you knowledgeable about cars. Education imparts these things.

[hilltoptree]

Ah, gotta love the stereotypes.

I would wager that hillbilly woman with no education who tells her asshole boyfriend to "Fuck off" and leaves him after the first time he yells at her to be more of a feminist than someone who's read "rich history of feminist theory."

[glitterspitter]

If I'm coming across too biased, vote yourself mod and ban me.


why was that even neccessary?


i'm not going to argue with you because it is very obvious that you already have decided what you think about ME (not to mention the movement) and i'm not really trying to change anyone's mind here, just give a few clarifications.

thanks to Samantha for being much more eloquent than i.

[Samantha]

Well its already been established that you don't know what the longstanding political movement of feminism has wrought or what feminism outside your tunnel-vision view of it means so your continued ignorance here is no suprise, hilltoptree.

Perhaps it was a feminist action to take, but that doesn't make her a feminist, a word taken on by people who seek to improve the lots of all women, not just themselves. Looking out for your best interests makes you human, not a feminist.

[hilltoptree]

Oh wait, I'm out there working with men on a daily basis to prove that women can hold a job and life, make money and are equal instead of sitting around bitching with my righteous pissed-off sisters.

Aren't you the one who was pissed when they asked tori amos about her view on women and music and she said something like, "why ask, just go out and do it."

And you have a *very* fucked up view of feminism...if you think that reading about feminism somehow trumps living it, then I now understand why you think that women will never be equal.

You somehow expect some magnificent change to happen through goodwill and books? Change happens one life at a time, and I think that any woman who makes her life better for herself definitely gets my respect as a feminist, especially one better than you.

[glitterspitter]

hilltoptree

why do you insist on discounting the work/worth of other women? no one is coming in here, the feminism forum, and saying that your work is any less important than ours. why are you saying that to us? if you honestly believe that all feminists sit on their behinds and read all day (with intermittant bitching), then you need to get a serious fucking clue. you are obviously full of yourself an astronomical extent, but please, for one second, can you at least have a conversation without trying to insult Samantha, myself, or other feminists?

[redline]

A pointless project for what you're trying to get at. You might as well ask Irish people for their opinion on South African segregation and its aftermath. Having a pussy doesn't give you any knowledge about the rich history of feminist theory any more than having a dick makes you knowledgeable about cars. Education imparts these things.

The idea was to find out WHY people are negative towards the words "Radical Feminist". If you ask an Irish person about South Africans, for the most part you aren't going to get the negativity like the words "radical feminist" induce. So it seems to be that education isn't working, or isn't getting to the majority of the people. I would think, that if education to the masses about what Feminism really means is what you want, that you'd be interested in hearing why people have come to such bitter images concerning feminist. However there probably are many books written on this by feminist authors, so I guess my observations would be both amateur, and inconsequential. Then again, it would be a male perspective.


MEN ARE TOO DAMN VIOLENT

I think the world is too violent. But yes, men are behind the majority of all violent acts. Also proves the me being (a nonviolent) male, am statistically far more at risk then you are. So the point was to show, both women and men are at risk from these types of Men. So I was looking for common ground, and a way that I too could relate to the feminist cause in some respects, and how you could also relate me.



I'm not going to argue with you because it is very obvious that you already have decided what you think about ME (not to mention the movement) and I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind here, just give a few clarifications.

Wrong on both accounts.

*edit*

[glitterspitter]

okay then

[vanmorrison]

Sorry, but people who identify themselves as feminists, particularly high-profile authors, professors, and authors, are "feminists" insofar as they represent the movement to others. You can try to distance yourself from them after they mess up with some sexist comments or ideologies. But, no amount of distancing can remove the fact that these people do exist, have existed, and represent the movement to a certain degree by simple virtue of identifying themselves as "feminists."

For example, I'm a pro-life person. I like to think of myself as a person who values life and, relatedly, does not advocate violence, particularly violence that imperils life. Pro-life advocate crazies who bomb clinics, kill abortion doctors, etc. are not "pro-life" in my book. I do everything in my power to distance myself from these hypocritical nuts. However, they are still a part of the pro-life movement on a pragmatic level just because they represent themselves as "pro-life." IMO, they are a very, very small component of the movement, but still represent the movement to a certain degree nonetheless.

The travesty is not in recognizing the existence of hypocritical people like violent pro-lifers and sexist feminists, but in opponents overexaggerating their numbers to trash the movement. In truth, they are a very small percentage of the movements. All broad movements tend to have dipshit, hypocritical elements in small numbers. Feminism is not an anomaly in that regard.

[Snow White]

<font color=purple> Being educated is one way to empower women, and being strong in everyday life is another. They are both as equally productive and empowering to observe.

Furthermore, why bother fighting about who qualifies as a feminist? If you call yourself a feminist, you pretty much are one. There are so many definitions floating about that you could always find at least ONE camp that supports your view on feminisim. (Well, within in reason. If you believe that a feminist is a woman that likes cheese...well...you get the point.)

I pretty much support the overly cliched button quote: Feminisim is the radical notion that women are people too. Basically, in my worthless opinion, feminisim at it's most basic level is the belief that as a PERSON a woman is entitled to the same opportunities as a man. The other beliefs that come into play pretty much just qualify what type of feminist you are.

[glitterspitter]

i just want to clarify that this thread was NOT started to tell anyone who is and who is not "cool" enough or in agreement with ME enough to be a feminist.

i just wanted to define radical feminism. some people came and asked "what about the man-hating feminists?" and i simply responded that these women do not exist.

there are probably reasons why people who think this way may call themselves feminists. in fact, i probably would agree with a lot of their political stands.

however by definition of the word "feminism" these people are NOT feminists.

no, redline, i, all by myself, do not completely define define what a feminist is. however, the dictionary and countless perfectly legitamate books on the subject do. in fact, together, we are redefining certain aspects of it every day. and women who believe in the total subordination of men (i have yet to meet one of these fantasy women in real life, btw, but apparently real life has lost all relevance to some people) ARE NOT FEMINISTS by definition of the word! (please don't make me repeat this again!)

[Democrat22]

i feel i need to come in a back up glitterspitter here, b/c she's trying to make a valid point. anypone who has taken any feminist class, from fem theory to intro to women's studies, has probably learned that there exist different types of feminism, just as there exist different types of any other social and political movement.

first, picture a pie slice. white hetero males make up the top portion; in other words, they historically have gotten the biggest piece.

liberal feminism, which is probably the most popular, wants to decrease the white hetero males' portion and allot it to other people. in other words, we want priveleges too!!! they essentially want to rearrange the pie so that everyone gets a part of it.

radical feminism lends itself to the idea that there shouldn't be a pie; that instead of simply rearranging the pie, let's build a new system. they're "radical" b/c they essentially want to abolish the patriarchy and establish equality of the sexes. it is very socialist in its ideals, and very lofty in its goals.


there are 2 other technical types of feminism, but i don't have my book here at home and i haven't taken that class in 2 years, and i really forget their names. sorry about that.


the point is, when people say "oh, she's such a radical feminist" they usually don't realize that there are many forms feminism can take.


btw, did you know that no one actually burned their bras during the 60s? one day a news station was filming something and a few women took off their bras and i believe threw them into a bonfire, but it wasn't a feminist statement. it just became this symbol that the media has held onto for decades. maybe i should start a "myths about feminism" thread...

[BonanzaJllybean]

i think that would actually be a great idea. (the myths thing)

and i can answer for redline why people have such a negative image of what a radical feminist is... actually i believe i already DID... but i'll repeat myself... the negative image of what a radical feminist is was created by those individuals who stood to lose something if radical feminists had their way (i.e. conservative white men). these guys control the mass media: they own the media corporations, manage them, fill the employment ranks as writers and editors, etc etc... bit by bit, little negative stereotypes became predominant in mainstream culture as those negative stereotypes were perpetuated by the media. that started in the sixties and seventies. by now, feminism is almost completely discredited because of the evil bra burning man hating dykey moon sister image it was given by the media. thats why i hold that such women really dont exist, or if they do they are of such minutely small number that it is absolutely ridiculous to even consider them as the "typical" feminist, radical or not. the question is not whether these women are feminists... the question is "do they accurately represent feminism?" of course there are many variations of what feminism is, but i would say that the "radical feminist" stereotype does not accurately represent real radical feminism. rather, such images of man-haters represent male fear and insecurity. the man-haters are pretty much a figment of male imagination, conjured up by the fear of losing power to women.

glitterspitter- got yer back ;)

[glitterspitter]

Democrat22 and BonanzaJllybean!


*exhausted*