I am writing an article

[Bird]

As a woman in her late 20s (for about 2.5 more months!), I make a real effort to reach out to college-age women. I think I'm still close enough in age and experience to be able to speak to them without sounding like their mothers (not to denigrate moms).

I try to have conversations where feminism is just a matter of fact. I use it in my everyday speech with them, and slip in a feminist perspective and analysis. I also lend out a lot of books!

I can see it having an effect. I make a solid personal effort to create those bonds with younger women, just as older women have done for me. I see that as feminism's greatest hope: one generation of women reaching out in friendship and support to the next, not judging but sharing ideas and hope.

I remember being 20 and thinking all the battles were won too. I'm glad there were older women there to help me on my way, and I want to give that back. And I still deeply value the wisdom and support that my elders can give to me.

We need less second waver/third waver/whatever you call it divisiveness. Reaching across generations will make all the difference.

[Vera]

Terence McKenna, a teacher from whom I learned much about consciousness, used to say that "the shaman's response to a crisis is to push the art pedal to the floor" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist). It seems to me that through art, radical feminism could raise consciousness on a mass level. I'm thinking of "Submission," Ayan Hirsi Ali's film collaboration with Theo Van Gough, in which Koran verses are written on women's bodies. Art that exposes the underlying woman-hatred of the major religions could go a long way in waking up people who have allowed themselves to go numb.

If radical feminism has failed, it's in not grabbing hold of the few tactics available that might actually work. And I believe the reason we haven't done this is because of in-fighting and disunity. I put the blame for the in-fighting squarely on the patriarchy, whose toxic models of human interaction we've breathed from the time we were born. We've got to get smarter than that. We've got to be more awake.

(Edited to correct a typo)

[Dawn Coyote]

Given the NA fascination with the strange lives of others, why doesn't some network follow some feminists around with a camera to see how they live and how they make their choices in the day-to-day world. Don't tell me that wouldn't appeal to the freak-show loving public, and while probably humiliating to feminists, at least it would be subversive. There's no way a show like this wouldn't throw sexism into sharp relief.

[Jack-Booted Thug]

Actually, I'm far too young to start any 2nd waver/3rd waver divisiveness. My mother was the certifiable, dope-smoking, hippy 2nd waver. I learned about this Golden Age (respectively) from her. What I'm relating is my experience with young women now, most of whom would not know to what 3rd wave referred. My plaint is really, "What the hell happened?" In no way do I blame the young women for their enpornulation or for their lack of exposure to the feminist canon. I find the backlash much more severe than Faludi described. It's really very sad when it's the shy, Orthodox boys in my IDF unit who point out to their female comrades when they (the females) are being disrespected. Again, what the hell happened?

[shermanvolvo]

It is my personal opinion, shared by some and not shared by others, that the distinction between radical feminism and feminism without the modifier (what a convoluted sentence this is becoming) is about changing the structure of the social system v. making changes within the existing system. 

I would disagree with this only because there are other genres of feminism which advocate changing structures versus reform.

I would call liberal feminism reformist, and anarcha-feminism, Marxist feminism, eco-feminism and radical feminism revolutionary.

Does that make sense?

I am presently creating an increasingly large pamphlet about anarcha-feminism, basically to remind so called revolutionary boy (and some grrrl) anarchists about women as an oppressed class, and why feminism MUST be part of ANY and ALL revolutionary movements (i.e. Labour, environmentalism, animal rights, you name it).

That anti-capitalism is great, but anti-capitalist analysis isn't good enough unless we examine how capitalism affects individuals uniquely, based upon their sex, disAbility, 'race', etc.

And that there is a BIG difference in the experiences of people based upon the multiplicities of oppressions and privileges we face.

Basically, I am calling on anarchists to recognize their privilege, and I am focusing on sex, and to a lesser degree, disAbility because I feel disAbility analysis and inclusion is SORELY missing in most so called revolutionary movements (and I say so called because in my mind, it is not revolutionary until there is genuine - and not token - inclusion of women, PWD, etc.

And while this focus is on anarchists, I believe that it could be similarly targeted towards environmentalists, Labour, and so forth.

Monika

[shermanvolvo]

In my view the radical feminist believes that gradual change within the existing system will never represent real change because the basis of the system is flawed -- some might say patriarchial.  Feminists (without the modifier) are seeking equality, fairness, and the rest of a list too long for this place but believe that our current system is solid, such changes can be made within the current system, and that those changes will bring about sex equality.

I really like how you write change within the existing system will never represent real change because the basis of the system is flawed.

This really nails it.

It is not enough that we have a female president or prime minister, more female lawyers, or even that women make the same wages as men. Because these are small concessions which do not address the underlying issues of hierarchy based upon sex (aka patriarchy).

Male privilege must be eradicated and reforming institutions (i.e. family, religious, educational, legal) will not work because they are ROOTED in inequalities between men and women (as well as other oppressions). They are largely created by men for men (although I certainly recognize how women have internalized the patriarchy and subsequently been a part of the patriarchy, because hell, we have been socialized since the day we were born!) In addition, women's contributions have been allowed, for the most part, when they are based upon the values of patriarchs, and so forth.

Anyways, enough blabbing. I am glad you are writing this article. May I ask where this article will be published?

Monika

[Thalia]

Terence McKenna, a teacher from whom I learned much about consciousness, used to say that "the shaman's response to a crisis is to push the art pedal to the floor" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist).

That is an amazing quote (paraphrased or not).  As an artist, and someone whose temperament is not at all suited for activism, it's hard not to feel guilty about not "doing more" and I tend to dismiss my own contributions.

[octogalore]

Sasha, I too would love to read the article.

I think radical feminism has been successful only up to a point, and will not as currently constituted move far beyond that point.  For some of the reasons Nausicaa suggests regarding critical mass, and also because there is too much low-hanging fruit to get to a revolution without some incremental steps.  An ideology which disagrees with the theory behind the incremental steps, I think, is doomed to have limits.  I think those limits will be that radical feminism will continue to be effective in reaching women, such as those who come to IBTP, and illustrating ways in which issues like abortion and the wage gap don't begin to capture the overarching effect of the patriarchy.  So that's a great accomplishment. 

But I think a high % of those women, once intrigued, will be turned off by the vagueness of the revolution concept.  In the meantime, they will know at some level that economic and professional equality will eradicate a number of the problems IBTP mentions, such as forced pregnancy, women being valued as sex objects alone, men "owning" women.  They will do the math and realize that taking some of these incremental steps may help them with the immediate problems, whereas a revolution does not seem imminent, they don't know how to bring it about from the current starting blocks, and it may not address the immediate issues in their lives.

[B. Dagger Lee]

Now, see, octogalore, I don't think of you as a NOT-radical feminist, rather I think of you as the Eeyore of Rad Feminism!

Big sharky smile on my face.

[Sasha]

I have to finish writing first.  And I'm writing lots of things.

[octogalore]

BDL: absolutely!  Eeyore knew it was more important to find his tail than to play "go around the mulberry bush."  I'm STILL trying to find mine.

I also like Eeyore's fierce independence:

"When stuck in the river, it is best to dive and swim to the
bank yourself before someone drops a large stone on your
chest in an attempt to hoosh you there."
Eeyore from "Eeyore's gloomy Little Instruction Book" by A. A. Milne

[B. Dagger Lee]

Sneaky question, Sasha, since the answers could provide us with our marching orders.  I'm thinking about it.

[Sasha]

*sssshhhhhhhh*

[Natalia]

Vera, your thoughts about art and feminism are quite beautiful.

This is something I struggle with, as a student in the humanities. I once asked a radical poet whom I very much respect what she thought about the politics of (literary) form. She told me (paraphrase), 'I used to really believe in it. I don't so much anymore.'

Those elements of culture which have a wide reach and mass appeal are now almost by definition commodified. People flock to the Van Gogh exhibits, not because they're interested in postimpressionist art or the historical resonances of his work, but because Van Gogh is now more or less a brand name, and you can get some of his major works printed on a mouse pad.

In the age of mechanical reproduction, the aura of the work of art has been replaced by the aura of the commodity. Pretty soon Ikea will probably start trotting out faux Gee's Bend quilts.  I love that people are now respecting poor black female quilters, but the culture industry is by definition so removed from politics that the success of the Gee's Bend quilters doesn't extend to raising consciousness, or suggesting that perhaps poor black women as a class are human and shouldn't have to be systematically oppressed (or, say, live in FEMA trailers).

I'm not trying to derail your suggestion or minimize the value of art. But (as you're probably all too aware) the relationship between art and political action can often be frustratingly fuzzy.

It occurs to me that perhaps I focus too much on the dissemination of art. Perhaps the answer is not to get consciousness-raising songs into people's iPods. Perhaps the answer would involve something more like getting people to take out the earbuds and pick up a guitar--that is, give people access to the means of producing art, rather than thinking of them as passive consumers of corporate-produced/disseminated art.

[Vilda Dentata]

I don't know if Radical Feminism can be classified as "failing" or "successful." I think it is very much a state of mind or a way of looking at things - an ideology, if you will. Of course there is a radfem movement, but I don't know if the revolution is far enough underway to have failed or succeeded.