Radical feminist answers

This blog is (mostly) inactive, but will stay up as a resource for the radfem community. If you're interested in becoming a mod, send us a message! ASK THE TEAM -- Meet us -- Tags -- Guidelines -- FAQ

[radfem-answers]

Ok so I have 2 questions: 1) is "swerf" even a real thing? Do some radfems really exclude sex workers? 2) is it possible to be a radfem and not trans exclusionary?

All radical feminists are ‘terfs’ and ‘swerfs’ in the eyes of libfems/transactivists/queer theorists.

TERF is ‘trans exclusionary radical feminism’ - which was not coined by radical feminists. Radical feminism is not trans exclusionary because radical feminism is not about trans individuals. The idea that all of radfem ideology is based on hating trans people (which is what the acronym ‘terf’ suggests) is not only inaccurate it is also unbelievably arrogant, as if to imply that radical feminists base their entire ideology on the existence of trans people. They don’t. radical feminism existed before transactivism the way we see it now was even conceived. 

Radical feminism is MALE exclusionary (and here i am referring to biological sex, ie. XY, testosterone, penis, testes, etc). Trans women are male, therefore radfems do not include them in their analysis. And that is because radfem analysis thinks of the female body as crucial to women’s oppression. So radfems are transwomen exclusionary because everything they talk about interms of gendered socialisation and girlhood cannot be applied to transwomen. 

However, radical feminists do include transmen, because they are female and therefore the analysis of female oppression applies to them. There are trans individuals who ascribe to radical feminism - more often than not they are trans men but some transwomen are also gender critical. However, we generally understand that transmen, although radical feminism is for them and includes them, might not be for them personally and that is ok. 

It is perfectly possible to advocate for trans rights and liberties, while at the same time acknowledging that the basis for the oppression of women and trans people IS NOT THE SAME. we are fighting for different things. Radfems can be respectful of trans people and their own struggles, and understand that these separate struggles might have some intersections with the struggles of women. So yes, I think you can be a radfem and support trans women and men, and include trans men as part of your feminism. 

SWERF stands for ‘sex worker exclusionary radical feminism’ and again, was coined by the libfem/transactivist/queer theorists - it is not something radfems call themselves. It is also highly ironic because the fact that 92% of polled sex workers want out of the industry means that we are the ones who are actually listening to sex workers. Sex work is not just ‘work’, it is not qualitatively the same as being a cashier in a coffee shop, and liberals attempts to equate them are totally disingenuous and frankly misogynist. I personally stand much more hard on the issue of the sex industry than I do about trans individuals, because one only needs to open ones eyes to realise that an industry based off men’s sexual ownership of women is obviously unethical and patriarchal. 

Feel free to ask more questions about this if you are still not sure

-a. deroy

[lifemattersjournal-deactivated2]

Pro-life feminists were out in full force yesterday at the SCOTUS rally. We are the new face of feminism and we will abolish abortion in our lifetime!! 

[radfem-answers]

No u are not a feminist if u are pro life because u are advocating that women sacrifice their bodies to another being for a certain amount of and labour on their behalf (pregnancy IS LABOUR) and not be compensated for it.

Pregnant women face all kinds of discrimination. Add to that the intersections of race, class and age and it is fair to say that women are not treated well for being pregnant, having children etc.

No one should be able to force another woman to be pregnant. If u have ever been pregnant, willingly or unwillingly, u will realise that it isn't a walk in the park. U feel constantly like shit: nausea, anxiety, hunger, sleep deprivation/insomnia, fatigue, bloating, depression, swollen joints, new aches and pains every day. It also compromises your immune system so you are more susceptible to any range of illnesses eg flu etc. Being pregnant is a literal medical condition and u CANNOT FORCE WOMEN TO GO THROUGH IT without their consent. Do you know how many women had to be pregnant all the time? How many women married at 15 and spent their entire short lives pregnant before dying (often in childbirth itself).

I feel like too much pro-life bullshit and particularly the 'feminist angle' is based off this mythical ludicrous belief, popularised in media, that pregnancy is the best time of a woman's life. It is categorically not. It sucks. If men could experience pregnancy even for a week they would give us abortions because it is inhuman to deny a woman her RIGHT to live happily and safely in her own fucking body.

If you are prolife it by definition shows you value the potential life of the unborn embryo over the ACTUAL, LIVED EXPERIENCE of women. That makes you a class a misogynist sorry not sorry

[radfem-answers]

Hello. I would like to be an ally to lesbians but I don't understand. I guess I'm very uneducated but research doesn't seem to help. I don't understand the way lesbians understand men's attraction to women as opposed to women's attraction women.Lesbians seem to make very sexually explicit statements and photos, of women then vilify men for doing the same, calling it sexual objectification and porn. This confuses me becuase either something's inherently wrong or it isn't?

Firstly I will say I am not a lesbian and there are other lesbian feminists who will be able to phrase this much better than me. The way I understand it is that the male ‘gaze’ - i.e. how men view women and the ideals men have for women is entirely different from the female ‘gaze’ (if there is such a thing) precisely because women and men are brought up and treated differently. All men are raised to regard women, any women, as for their consumption. This includes everything from catcalling to media stereotypes to pornified images of women - everything men create with regards to women in some way objectifies us and assumes ownership of us. 

Lesbians are not men therefore they by definition have not received this socialisation, therefore their views (sexual, personal, romantic, intellectual) about women are framed in a different set of norms.Lesbians see women completely differently from men. 

I think we should also be very careful for falling into the trap of shaming lesbians for a) protesting against their fetishisation, by men, in porn b) but also not allowing them to produce content that DOES reflect their relationships. Same sex relationships are sexual, just as much passion and emotion and beauty goes into them, and I personally want to see as much lesbian content that is actually made for lesbians by lesbians. And again, because lesbians and men have different perspectives, this content is inherently different. Porn is a system of exploiting women - that cannot be said about lesbian-created content on tumblr. 

Social actions do not exist in vacuums. The perpetrator of the action actually matters for context. It isn’t about right or wrong, it is about HARM and how much of it we’re doing. 

Now I will tag some lesbians who hopefully can correct me and explain this better, if they wish. 

-a. deroy

@lesbianfeministwiitch @lesbian-lizards @mcdyke

[mcdyke-deactivated20171112]

I think it is pretty simple, to be honest. If you are a feminist, then you should understand the power dynamic between men and women; and the objectification of women that aims to subordinate them. 

Saying “I love women,” or “I love vagina,” or “I want to fuck women” is not inherently bad. Lesbians (and gay men) have been forced to treat their lovers like friends to make straight people comfortable. But we have sex. We like it. We are allowed to talk about it without being compared to straight men. 

Patriarchy is the overarching problem, and the “male gaze” is a result of males viewing women as an object of desire for them to consume. Lesbians don’t oppress other women. 

I get that the anon admitted they’re “uneducated” about these things but anon worries me. Non-lesbian women make a habit out of comparing lesbians to men, which demonizes us and outcasts us from feminism. Lesbians are not men. An individual heterosexual relationship is like a micro example of patriarchy itself. That’s the way it is in every relation between males and females. Two females? Why would you ever assume it would be the same?

[radfem-answers]

Thank u for this commentary :)

[radfem-answers]

Hello. I would like to be an ally to lesbians but I don't understand. I guess I'm very uneducated but research doesn't seem to help. I don't understand the way lesbians understand men's attraction to women as opposed to women's attraction women.Lesbians seem to make very sexually explicit statements and photos, of women then vilify men for doing the same, calling it sexual objectification and porn. This confuses me becuase either something's inherently wrong or it isn't?

Firstly I will say I am not a lesbian and there are other lesbian feminists who will be able to phrase this much better than me. The way I understand it is that the male ‘gaze’ - i.e. how men view women and the ideals men have for women is entirely different from the female ‘gaze’ (if there is such a thing) precisely because women and men are brought up and treated differently. All men are raised to regard women, any women, as for their consumption. This includes everything from catcalling to media stereotypes to pornified images of women - everything men create with regards to women in some way objectifies us and assumes ownership of us. 

Lesbians are not men therefore they by definition have not received this socialisation, therefore their views (sexual, personal, romantic, intellectual) about women are framed in a different set of norms.Lesbians see women completely differently from men. 

I think we should also be very careful for falling into the trap of shaming lesbians for a) protesting against their fetishisation, by men, in porn b) but also not allowing them to produce content that DOES reflect their relationships. Same sex relationships are sexual, just as much passion and emotion and beauty goes into them, and I personally want to see as much lesbian content that is actually made for lesbians by lesbians. And again, because lesbians and men have different perspectives, this content is inherently different. Porn is a system of exploiting women - that cannot be said about lesbian-created content on tumblr. 

Social actions do not exist in vacuums. The perpetrator of the action actually matters for context. It isn’t about right or wrong, it is about HARM and how much of it we’re doing. 

Now I will tag some lesbians who hopefully can correct me and explain this better, if they wish. 

-a. deroy

@lesbianfeministwiitch @lesbian-lizards @mcdyke

[lesbian-lizards]

Yeah, I think you got the main points. 1) Not all lesbians are feminists (anti porn, etc.). Lesbians are people and have as differing opinions as any. 2) With that said, lesbians are not men, and can only “objectify” women as far as any other women can (news flash: straight/bi women “objectify” women, too). Sexual attraction doesn’t inherently mean objectification. Can some lesbians be crude at times? Sure (see point 1). But again, we are women and most of us are sexual, too.

[radfem-answers]

Hello. I would like to be an ally to lesbians but I don't understand. I guess I'm very uneducated but research doesn't seem to help. I don't understand the way lesbians understand men's attraction to women as opposed to women's attraction women.Lesbians seem to make very sexually explicit statements and photos, of women then vilify men for doing the same, calling it sexual objectification and porn. This confuses me becuase either something's inherently wrong or it isn't?

Firstly I will say I am not a lesbian and there are other lesbian feminists who will be able to phrase this much better than me. The way I understand it is that the male ‘gaze’ - i.e. how men view women and the ideals men have for women is entirely different from the female ‘gaze’ (if there is such a thing) precisely because women and men are brought up and treated differently. All men are raised to regard women, any women, as for their consumption. This includes everything from catcalling to media stereotypes to pornified images of women - everything men create with regards to women in some way objectifies us and assumes ownership of us. 

Lesbians are not men therefore they by definition have not received this socialisation, therefore their views (sexual, personal, romantic, intellectual) about women are framed in a different set of norms.Lesbians see women completely differently from men. 

I think we should also be very careful for falling into the trap of shaming lesbians for a) protesting against their fetishisation, by men, in porn b) but also not allowing them to produce content that DOES reflect their relationships. Same sex relationships are sexual, just as much passion and emotion and beauty goes into them, and I personally want to see as much lesbian content that is actually made for lesbians by lesbians. And again, because lesbians and men have different perspectives, this content is inherently different. Porn is a system of exploiting women - that cannot be said about lesbian-created content on tumblr. 

Social actions do not exist in vacuums. The perpetrator of the action actually matters for context. It isn’t about right or wrong, it is about HARM and how much of it we’re doing. 

Now I will tag some lesbians who hopefully can correct me and explain this better, if they wish. 

-a. deroy

@lesbianfeministwiitch @lesbian-lizards @mcdyke

[radfem-answers]

Thank you for your DDlg-shaming posts. I've been looking for a blog like that quite a while. My question is - don't you think that apart from romanticizing child abuse and rape culture, DDlg 'community' has other psychological effects on the participating girls? It is absolutely consensual and I don't see enough of opinions on girls who allow this to happen. Both of the partners have equal guilt. (1)

In my opinion, girls who participate in DDlg relationship - the so called "littles", are most of all avoiding responsibillity and the burden of adulthood; they simply do not want to grow up which I, personally, connect with gold-digging, laziness, and stupidity. They are either not capable of being mature and responsible, or just too spoiled and by the time It's time to grow up and take life in their own hands they refuse to do it and require the same hand-feeding as when they were younger. (2)

-----------------------------------------

Fetishising paedophilia, which all members of the DDlg community do regardless of sex, is inherently disgusting and immoral. So yes I judge both parties for it. Women who say ‘but consent’ have clearly neither though critically about a) paedophilia b) incest c) rape d) misogyny and how DDlg might contribute to all of them. 

However, I’ve heard somewhere that there are quite child sexual abuse victims and survivors in the community that I can understand why girls would act in this way etc etc and fundamentally, women are not to blame. (I saw this on the grapevine somewhere if any radfems out there wish to chip in on this please do! Also I might be completely wrong on this :/)

- a. deroy 

[radfem-answers]

Hey, one thing I don't quite get is why radfems feel the need to "criticise" women if men are to blame. If it's literally just because the anon asked I guess it kind of makes sense but I still don't quite get your angle...Why criticise women for being feminine rather than criticise men for expecting femininity?

I’ve re-read my answer and it was definitely a bit curt - i’ll give you that and I apologise to the anon. 

I absolutely do criticise men for expecting femininity - as a radical feminist I believe that men have created and reinforced these norms for centuries, and it is MEN who are harming women sexually, physically and psychologically. I absolutely criticise the anon’s boyfriend for expecting her to deep throat him, even though she admits it makes her uncomfortable. His expectations arise because society (specifically: porn, advertising) shows him lots and lots of images where women deep throat their boyfriends and appear to be ‘enjoying’ it, and that this repeated exposure to this norm is what makes him a) want it and b) think that that is perfectly normal, sexually. Conversely, women have been exposed to these same images, and have therefore believe that this is good, even though it is clearly uncomfortable?  

Both of these actions serve the reinforce the norm. Women are not to be blamed in their own oppression, but their social actions (and those of everyone else) contribute to holding up these systems of oppression. Without women’s learned submission to men, patriarchy could not have lasted - we are literally over half the population. So my point is that some women’s actions uphold patriarchy. This does not mean that men’s actions do not contribute to patriarchy, because they obviously do, and much more so - but anon was defending her action, and for the right for that action not to be criticised, so I answered based on her question. 

I understand that it is very hard to not perform femininity in a patriarchy - I struggle with it daily. That is because it is difficult to contravene norms. You risk social, societal and interpersonal punishment for contravening norms. You are rewarded for conforming to them. I just ask that women look critically at their actions. That does not mean necessarily change them - but think about them, Why am I doing that? Why does that make me ‘feel empowered’? ‘Why do I feel better when I perform femininity’ etc etc. 

I ask this of women because I think feminism is for women, and only when women see daily the injustice that is done to them, and understand why, can we actually organise and band together and demand better. Most men, as far as I’m concerned, are lost causes. 

- a. deroy

[radfem-answers]

I'm sorry but I deep throat my boyfriend all the time and it is 100% consensual and I am willing to be a little uncomfortable if it means he has fun and it works vice versa. I had an ex-boyfriend who did fetishise pain and it was AWFUL only because it wasn't consensual. Fetishising rape is an issue, but deep throating isn't always rape. Consent is the key here, not making people feel bad for wanting their man to feel good.

Consent is not the arbiter of justice. Ask yourself WHY you are willing to be uncomfortable for the sake of your boyfriend’s pleasure. CRITICISE. THINK. 

you can deep throat your boyfriend all you want, but it is not *subversive* for women to put aside their own comfort for the sake of men. It is literally the hallmark of patriarchy. Therefore, deep throating is not feminist. It does not counter any cultural/societal/even SEXUAL norms. 

If radical feminists talking about that makes you personally ‘feel bad’, then you have tied your activism in with your life, and since you cannot be a perfect feminist in a patriarchy, you will ‘feel bad’ about lots of things radical feminists say. It isn’t feminism’s job to make people ‘feel better’ about everything they do. It is meant to force you to criticise your actions. It is not pleasant - it is infact very painful. But that is the reality of being in a political liberation movement. 

-a. deroy

[radfem-answers]

i do consider my self a radical feminist. My question is revolving around your view when it comes to sexuality. I understand and stand with your crusade for the stopping of objectification.I feel like a crucial step that you overlook is reclaiming the feminine body. i feel instead of censoring the feminist body we need to embrace it and reclaim it. The feminine body should no longer be something to be ashamed of nor is it something to be controlled each person should have autonomy. Thoughts?

hey anon - I’m curious what you mean by the “feminine body” and the “feminist body.” There’s a female body that I do think we should embrace (and even reclaim, in a sense), but the phrase “feminine body” implies something much different, and “feminist body,” well...I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean in this context. 

But assuming you’re referring to the female body, I believe you’re referring to the sex-positive view that female nudity and sexuality shouldn’t be censored as zealously as they currently are. I agree with this somewhat - I think it’s ridiculous that you can show gruesome violence on TV but god forbid someone see a lady’s nipple. But if “reclaiming the feminine body” means being a-okay with pornography and half-naked, hypersexualized women being used to sell everything from phones to cars to chapstick, well, that I’m not okay with. I don’t want to reclaim that which objectifies me and degrades me. I don’t want to reclaim shit like this when “slut” is still seen and used as a slur. I don’t think reclaiming (i.e., taking objectifying / degrading practices and terms and suddenly deciding they’re “feminist” or even progressive because who the heck knows why) is a very effective strategy - at least not for radical feminists. - mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

"Ask questions to radical feminists from diverse backgrounds." "I’m a het-partnered bisexual" "21 year old het-partnered bisexual" "white, het-partnered bisexual" Mmm-hmm. Yeah. Okay.

that tagline was there when I became a mod, and I presume it’s a holdover from when we actually did have a “diverse” group of mods. things change, people leave, new people come along, yadda yadda yadda, suddenly we aren’t really that diverse anymore. I’ll change it if it’ll make you feel better . - mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

I think lesbians are ugly and stupid and bisexual girls are just confused. Feminism is wrong and bad. You broads should get married and have children.

- mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

Is this blog still active?

not especially! idk about the other mods but I’m a senior in college and I’m gearing up for grad school, so I have a lot on my plate currently. I’ve found that, to answer a good question thoroughly and completely for this blog, I practically have to write a mini research paper - and given the sometimes contentious nature of radical feminist ideas (even within the radfem community itself), I’ll inevitably have someone jumping down my throat about something. So with that on top of all the writing I have to do for school, it’s hard to find the motivation to answer questions as thoroughly as I want to. 

With that being said, you can still ask questions, but I can’t promise a timely answer. This blog will stay up as a resource for the radfem community, but unless something changes you probably won’t see too many posts from us in the future. - mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

I'd like to ask if you don't mind. On objectification u mentioned "fighting fuck toy" on miss representation. Well, what if a character in media did have big breast and nice body but they don't pose in a sexy way, don't even use their breast, have great character development, and who they r is primary? Even act more realistic and Idk maybe mention how they had to make breastfeeding smaller bc of back pain (idk just thinking of something)? Is that still objectifying just for having big boobs?

hey anon - you pose an interesting question, but honestly I have never seen a character (in mainstream media anyway) with huge breasts who isn’t sexualized in some way? I think a character can have large breasts or be otherwise attractive without being objectified, but the key word here is “can.” Sure, she can have big boobs without being objectified, but in a world where the vast majority of media outlets are controlled primarily by men, such a non-objectified character would probably not exist. But if you can think of an example, I’m all ears. - mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

update!

hey all - mod rfp here. I probably should have said this like a month ago but I just wanted to apologize for how inactive this blog has been lately. unfortunately school has been eating up a lot of my time and energy, and with all the writing I have to do (especially being a senior english major...lmao) answering questions kind of gets put on the backburner. I can’t speak for the other mods, but they’re probably pretty busy with work / school / life / etc. as well. so if you’ve asked a question recently and you were wondering about it, I apologize for leaving you hanging! I can’t really say when I’ll be getting back into the swing of things, but for now I’m slightly more active over at radfemprincess!

take care everyone! - mod rfp

[radfem-answers]

you have answered a while ago something about socialist feminism. i was wondering what are some differences between radical and socialist feminism if there are any? thanks

Socialist feminism is a branch of feminism that looks to criticise and overcome the economic barriers that hinder womens’ liberation. They understand that a significant factor into the continued subordination of women is the fact that men have kept them on a short leash economically, restricting their abilities to own property, work, give away property they own, make wills etc.

Socialist feminism is rooted in socialism, and so socialist feminists are normally critical of capitalism and argue that women’s liberation will only be achieved when capitalism is overthrown.

Radical feminism is similar in its analysis but sees the root of women’s oppression in the gender hierarchy, and not in economic restrictions. However, it is possible to be both. Socialist feminism takes a lot from radical feminism and vice-versa. For example I would say I am both a socialist as well as a radical feminist, and while socialism influences how I think about feminism, it is secondary to radical analysis. You would be hard pressed to find a radical feminist who is not also critical of capitalism.

-a. deroy

[radfem-answers]

Hello, I want to ask something that was bugging me for a while. I've been reading a lot of stuff about religion recently and especially about the situation of women in islam. I have always been an atheist and considered religion to be one of the greatest tool of oppression. What is you stance on this, especially in regards to Islam? Diana. Thank you.

Part of feminism is to be critical of all patriarchal structures and any others that serve to enforce patriarchy. Most major religions are patriarchal - they involve the worship of a male deity, they place greater value on men and grant them greater power within their religion. All the Abrahamic religions function in this way. Pretty much all non-liberal Christianity (Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Calvinism etc) has rules restricting what women can do and what religious rights they have. In the Catholic Church, for example, women are still not authorised to hold any leadership position within the church, and this is justified with reference to a woman’s ‘true role’ in society (ie nurturing - which directly reinforces the gender hierarchy). Not to mention, of course, that religion is used as a way of oppressing women on the axis of their sex, by propagating anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-sex education on a regular basis.

Religion is socially constructed, much like gender, and is in my opinion inherently conservative, because it comes from a lack of understanding or fear about the world. Religious doctrines are simply ways of justifying an existing norm through a perceived 'higher power’. In the case of women, religion does not directly oppress them (this is gender). However religion can be used to reinforce gender, and indirectly lead to woman’s oppression.

I do not know enough about Islam to make a comment on this, but consider this: any religion that deliberately restricts the autonomy of females, and teaches such practices as a standard part of their religion, is patriarchal and misogynistic. So when a church service has the words: 'We pray for the total outlaw of abortion in this country’ - that is perpetuating the oppression of women.

-a. deroy

[radfem-answers]

How do you draw the line between acceptable appreciation of human beauty and objectification? I used to be really quiet and shy, but now I'm much more flamboyant and enjoy being looked at by strangers.

Objectification has to have one or more of these qualities. I definitely think you can appreciate how beautiful someone is without reducing them to an object. In your case, it’s fine to want to be looked at, but there’s really no way to ensure that the people looking at you aren’t objectifying you, especially if you’re a woman. - mod rfp