Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda?

Posted on | September 3, 2014 | 53 Comments

“Every woman who remains in sexual relation to man is defeated every time she does it with the man because each single experience for every woman is a reenactment of the primal one in which she was invaded and separated and fashioned into a receptacle for the passage of the invader. . . . The female in relation to the man is only half a woman and a disadvantaged one at that. . . . You are who you sleep with. Thus the lesbian rightfully says she is the woman par excellence. . . .
“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . It is now recognized that any Marxist-Socialist analysis must acknowledge the sexist underpinnings of every political economic power base. Gay liberation cannot be considered apart from women’s liberation. . . . The mere feminist is an incipient revolutionary. She is a woman in revolt against her prescribed and confined feminine role but she has not yet envisioned the solution to her dilemma . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution . . . The issue keeps turning back over and over to the oppression of women. . . . The lesbian as practicing woman is now reversing the cultural appraisal of womanhood.”
— Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (1973)

“The word ‘homophobia’ defines fear of lesbians as irrational. . . . This is completely at odds with radical lesbian politics. We cannot think of lesbianism as a challenge to heteropatriarchal structures and values and simultaneously claim that there are no reasonable grounds for men (or heterosexually identified women) to fear us. . . If lesbianism is a blow against the patriarchy, the bonding of women against male supremacy, then it is entirely rational for men to fear it. Contemporary psychology evades these political implications of lesbianism and presents us as essentially harmless.”
— Celia Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins, Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology (1993)

With several thousand words in draft awaiting completion of new installments of the “Sex Trouble” series, I felt an obligation to give readers a small taste of what I’m reading in radical feminist books. After all, you paid for these books — “Hit the freaking tip jar!” — that I ordered via Amazon, and it’s important that readers supporting this project know that they’re getting what they’ve paid for.

Johnston’s reference to a “Marxist-Socialist analysis” as a basis of her own lesbian-feminist agenda in 1973 is important to understanding what the feminist movement’s actual goals were at the outset. Johnston makes clear that “women’s liberation” is part of “the social revolution to end the sexual caste system” (i.e., heterosexuality), which she describes as “the sexist underpinnings of every political economic power base.” She wrote this more than 40 years ago, in a book praised by such feminist leaders as Gloria Steinem and Alix Kates Shulman. Considering what Kate Millett’s sister Mallory has recently written about the Marxist influence on the Women’s Liberation movement, doesn’t this seem rather significant?

When feminists talk about “patriarchy,” they mean that our society is one in which all women (collectively) are oppressed by all men (collectively); therefore heterosexuality is inherently oppressive to women, hence the reference by Kitzinger and Perkins to “heteropatriarchal structures and values,” i.e., what most people consider simply normal life. It does not matter, ultimately, whether any particular feminist is herself a Marxist or a lesbian; the movement of which she is a part is ideologically committed to these understandings of women’s oppression and demands a “social revolution” to overthrow the “system” of “our oppressive society.”

More than four decades after the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement (so-called “Second Wave” feminism), the question is whether what Johnston called “the oppression of women” (in 1973) by what Kitzinger and Perkins called “male supremacy” (in 1993) has been significantly ameliorated by feminism. The more any feminist in 2014 considers herself “radical,” the more likely she sees the glass half-empty, believing that women’s oppression has scarcely been eroded at all. Yet no feminist of 2014 can repudiate the original radicalism of Women’s Liberation while simultaneously claiming to be part of the same movement, nor can a contemporary woman call herself “feminist” without accepting the movement’s radicalism as now institutionalized within Women Studies programs and other feminist organizations. Otherwise, the label “feminist” has no useful meaning.

There is no such contradiction, however, if feminism is actually a political movement with a coherent understanding of its own purposes and goals. Insofar as feminism is indeed such a movement, then its purposes and its goals cannot be an ad hoc improvisation, continually revised, so that what feminism means on Wednesday becomes something different on Thursday. Nor can there be multiple and diverse “feminisms,” if such a movement is to claim to speak for the interests of all women. Otherwise, any woman could claim to speak on behalf of the movement, arguing for anything that happened to cross her mind.

Feminism must be one thing or another. It cannot be everything. And if radical feminists don’t speak for feminism, perhaps someone should explain that to the radicals. Good luck with that.

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

53 Responses to “Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda?”

Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda? | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
September 3rd, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

[…] Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda?. […]
DeadMessenger
September 3rd, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

I think that later, me and my husband will play Primally Invaded Wench and Invader.

h/t Jill Johnson – great idea, Jill!

p.s. This is a form of political movement in which the goals are coherent, universal, and understandable by all normal people. So deconstruct this, feminists. [hand gesture]
RS
September 3rd, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

When one understands that “Patriarchy” is synonymous with “Western Classical Liberal Society,” Feminism begins to make sense. I should say, Feminist reaction to certain events makes sense. For example, we’ve heard nary a peep from Feminists about the abomination of Rotherham or any of the myriad of crimes perpetrated by Muslims against women. The reason? They see radical Islam as a temporary ally in the cause of destroying the West. Of course, how they propose to fight such forces when Western Classical Liberal Society is gone is not discussed. Either they haven’t thought that far ahead, or they’re cynically manipulating gullible young women, while knowing they will never succeed in their goal. But at least their Sinecures of Whining will be secure, protected by the society they constantly attack.
DeadMessenger
September 3rd, 2014 @ 9:20 pm

Be interesting to see the feminist reaction to being forced to wear a burka or hijab.
Quartermaster
September 3rd, 2014 @ 9:33 pm

It’s a shame we can’t do it in public just to see the poor Lesbo’s heads explode. Bonus points for doing it with our spouses just to grind it in their faces.

The required immodesty, alas, places it out of reach of any sane conservative, but the the thought of their reaction is delicious.
Zohydro
September 3rd, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

I think that’s actually a thing…
DeadMessenger
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:03 pm

It’s a thing, all right. A thing that’s messed up. But then, I expect nothing less from you, Z.
RS
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:06 pm

That would be the point where “The Patriarchy,” taking the form of U.S. Marines, would not look so bad.
M. Thompson
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:13 pm

“Patriarchy” is pretty much the all-purpose boogeyman of Feminism, or a meaningless conspiracy theory.

What’s scary is those who believe it in, like any conspiracy theory (Truthers, anti-semites, anti-vacination types, etc.)
Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:17 pm

Funny how the idea of supposedly “religious” older men abusing young girls gets barely a peep out of radical feminists. Did I miss Amanda Marcotte doing a string of posts on it? Where is Sandra Fluke expressing outrage?
Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

I went to Raw Story to see if Ms. Marcotte posted about the Pakistani Rape Gangs in the UK. I did not see any posts but I did find this:
Zohydro
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:30 pm

I’d read today the Bangèd Beast’s latest outrage is the family supper hour… Fluke is still having a sad over Hobby Lobby…
Tyranny of the Home-Cooked Family Dinner | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

[…] And speaking of a radical feminist! […]
concern00
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

The fact that “women’s oppression has scarcely been eroded at all,” despite their best and significant efforts, almost conclusively demonstrates that what they’re railing against, in all likelihood, does not exist.
maniakmedic
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:51 pm

I’m a tad embarassed to admit I’ve sometimes wondered if anybody who reads Stacy’s blog on a regular basis and has a significant other decides after reading one of these posts that they’re going to spite radfem lesbians by gettin’ busy with the SO. Not that the radfems would know, but they seem so upset at just the idea of heterosexual women enjoying intimate time with their husbands that if I had a husband I’d feel compelled to do my part to make them upset (and to make him happy – which would be the more important thing, but who doesn’t love spiting radfem lesbians and see that as a delightful bonus?).
DeadMessenger
September 3rd, 2014 @ 11:46 pm

Their (the radfems’) implications are just so darn offensive, and so contrary to God’s will, that I can’t help going off sometimes, even though I shouldn’t.
David R. Graham
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:07 am

Mental disease, not to mention spiritual hell.
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:11 am

I’m not defending feminists by any means, but might I remind you that all ultimately true conspiracies start out as theories?

Actually, mostly I’m defending myself. I’m a really suspicious, skeptical person, so, for example, while I wouldn’t call myself a “Truther” in the context that you mean it, I do believe there is more to this story than has been revealed. And I’m very suspicious about the timing surrounding the boatloads of “missing” money reported by the Pentagon the day before, and never spoken of again. I’m also anti-vaccination to the extent that I don’t like the idea of injecting mystery stuff into people. A LOT of vaccinations have not been longitudinally tested, or questionably “tested” by “researchers” funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. There has also been cases of contaminated materials. Just look at the cervical cancer vaccine, killing young girls.

I guess if somebody wants to call me a conspiracty theorist, that’s their call, but Einstein once said that condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
RKae
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:27 am

I’m with ya. Too many things get tagged as “conspiracy” (a word to disarm), but if people would, instead, use the word “corruption” then they might see the reality of it.

There is corruption everywhere there is a mountain of money to be made or lost.

The FDA & pharmaceutical companies have a revolving door of management that resembles a game of “Red Rover, Red Rover.”
RKae
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:28 am

Remember: Multiculturalism enriches your culture!
RKae
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:37 am

If it’s abortion without apology (as the T-shirt states), then why do women get depressed afterward? Why is it that even women who staunchly believe in abortion speak of it in hushed tones, and go over to their friend’s apartment after an abortion and talk soothingly to her? Why the tea and sympathy if it’s “just a tonsillectomy”?
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:19 am

You’re right RKae! I *feel* enriched, even as I type this. /sarc
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:24 am

You are so, so right.

The Bible says that “by their fruits you shall know them.” Well, this is a priniciple that even non-Christians can live by.

Let’s look at the fruits of…mmm…let’s say, “certain organizations”, and we’ll see that all their various fruits can be summed by by the word “corruption.”

Have these organizations given us any reason to trust them? I’m going to say “no.” Let’s use pharmaceutical companies as examples. How many times have we seen commercials that name side-effects far worse than the disorder that they supposedly treat? And, oh my, I could give hundreds of different examples here. A reasonable person could extrapolate many more.
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:27 am

And let me just throw out the phrase “mind control.” Going back to our illustrious host’s article, feminists have freely admitted their goal of implementing mind control of “malleable” children, for example. I don’t see why we cannot extend this concept to many other organizations and even governments.
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:29 am

And by the way, RKae, I like the way that you get to the heart of a matter with laser-like focus. Excellent reasoning.
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:33 am

Because their heart tells them one thing, while their brain (or what’s left of it) tells them another.

God gave everyone a conscience, whether they like it or not. And it’s the conflict between godly conscience and fleshly corruption that causes people problems, most commonly depression. Until they multiplex these two things, and bring one (corruption) into submission of the other (conscience), they will have no real peace.
Käthe
September 4th, 2014 @ 2:23 am

They hate “white trash” and poor women (I’ve known that for a while) and they luuuurve Muslims so go figure.

If the rapists had been Mormons or Catholics and/or the victims prep school girls headed for Smith, THEN we’d hear from them.
Käthe
September 4th, 2014 @ 2:25 am

I thought you were kidding…my bad.

So I guess if some people work full time and still end up doubled up in motel rooms the answer is not to wonder why there aren’t better jobs available, but to freak out about the “patriarchal expectation” that you should eat a home cooked meal at a table instead of squashing roaches in the sink while eating Wendy’s.
Daniel Freeman
September 4th, 2014 @ 3:46 am

Let us take as a hypothesis that the problem is what feminists say it is, and that they are earnestly fighting against it in the way that they say they are. If they have not actually had any significant impact — despite the massive sums of public funds that have been funneled their way — then it follows that they are so criminally incompetent that there should be public service announcements warning against giving them money.
concern00
September 4th, 2014 @ 4:00 am

Maybe they haven’t made any gains because they’re the weaker sex?
I thought feminists were crazy, but ... - Crowhill Weblog | Crowhill Weblog
September 4th, 2014 @ 8:52 am

[…] Read the quotes at the top of this page — Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda? […]
Bodycrimes
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:16 pm

Bollocks. There is no such thing as a vibrant, long-term political movement that remains homogenous. Republicans today don’t believe the same things as Republicans of the pre-War period; contemporary Tories would make historical Tories squeal in horror.

Of course, just as in every other political (or otherwise ideological movement), there will be those who claim they speak for an entire constituency. And then there will be those who push back against it, offering their own vision of what the movement represents.

In the case of feminism, you have a movement that came out of several ideological and historical streams. Along with Marxist and socialism, you also have the descendants of the Roussean-Wollestonecraft ideals of the Enlightenment, and the Victorian reformers reacting to the industrial revolution. So no surprises that there’s a lot of diversity sheltering under the one umbrella.

What’s important are the bedrock principles of a movement. Everything else is up for grabs.
Bodycrimes
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

Funny, we must be exposed to different media. In Britain, there’s been huge reaction to Rotherham by feminists. And considering that the story was broken by a feminist – Julie Bindel – it’s a bit of stretch to make this claim.

Or were you expecting American feminists, who know nothing about the situation, to wade in? To what end, exactly?
Bodycrimes
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

Why, exactly, would you expect Americans to be commenting on a situation in Britain about which they know nothing?
John Hasley
September 4th, 2014 @ 3:01 pm

Why do I read this and think of the Lysistrata? Unlike feminists, Aristophanes was funny (well, intentionally). (Even if sooo un-PC that he could never be done on stage now.)
Steve Skubinna
September 4th, 2014 @ 4:40 pm

Right. Because it’s so nuanced that we can’t hold any opinion about women being enslaved unless we’re mincing Limey poofters.
K-Bob
September 4th, 2014 @ 6:04 pm

But all we ever see from them is more grabbing.

The bedrock of Feminism was replaced long ago with Marxism. And Marx was all about the Big Grab, sheltered by the Big Lie.
K-Bob
September 4th, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

Times says it was Andrew Northfolk.
K-Bob
September 4th, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

Women over there must have different body parts than women over here. I suspected it all along, of course.
Alec Raws
September 4th, 2014 @ 8:10 pm

Hmmm, so anti-penetration lesbian “feminists” are into fisting and giant dildos.

Great series Stacy. Been reading your stuff about Carmen Rios and it is amazing to see how overtly these lesbians practice exactly what they claim to abhor. The fact of penetration makes heterosex an act of domination they insist, and on that basis, something to be hated and shunned. Then these same lesbians go posting about how into fisting they are and how they most like to do each other with the biggest dildos they can buy.

Okay, so these half-male brained half female-brained ladies love to get fuc%*d, just like every other female, and they love to do the fuc%!ng, just like every other male, but then at the same time there is this fabulous dishonesty, claiming that penetration is a horrible thing when they are loudly and proudly as far into the most extreme penetration as a bath house gay man on viagra and meth.

Psychopaths is the correct diagnosis. Haters in the nth degree, absolutely determined not to admit the slightest iota of honesty towards the objects of their hatred: the other male brained people with whom they are in competition for the objects of their sexual desire.
RS
September 4th, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

I’ve not seen a comment from you before, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. May I suggest you read all the posts in the “Sex Trouble” series linked above. Our host sets out a very persuasive argument using the words of Feminists themselves and current trends in “Women’s Studies” to make a persuasive case. Read all those and then come back. In fact, the objections mentioned in your third paragraph are discussed nicely.
RS
September 4th, 2014 @ 9:28 pm

Well, to say we “know nothing” is in fact a stretch, given that with the new-fangled internet thing everyone’s talking about, it’s possible to read European papers. And given that American feminists spend their time decrying the “tyranny of the family dinner” when there are horrific acts of actual violence perpetrated against women, one might expect a comment or two condemning the culture which allows that to happen. But no, American feminists pen 300 page diatribes about “rape culture” using statistics that are made up.

And BTW, I don’t see the worthies at The Guardian refraining from commenting about American issues.
Daniel Freeman
September 5th, 2014 @ 1:48 am

Lol!! Good one.
Daniel Freeman
September 5th, 2014 @ 1:52 am

So, what is the bedrock of feminism? Please cite references.
concern00
September 5th, 2014 @ 3:08 am

So they’re inherently doomed to fail because the hetero-patriarchy is in fact the natural order of things.
Allen
September 5th, 2014 @ 3:48 am

I can only assume these people are ignorant or crazy. Perhaps both. Mammalian reproductive strategy is not a social construct, and they don’t seem to understand it. “Save the Whales!” Kill off the male whales because they’re probably rapists anyway.
I swear, box of rocks, fence posts, and other inanimate things come to mind when I read their ideas.
Quartermaster
September 5th, 2014 @ 6:27 am

Yes, very different.
Quartermaster
September 5th, 2014 @ 6:29 am

Those people need to look at a leftist Congress that has slowly strangled business in this country.
Joan Rivers: Exit a Brilliant Diva | Regular Right Guy
September 5th, 2014 @ 2:50 pm

[…] Whose Agenda Is the Feminist Agenda? […]
Is Rachel @Maddow’s Haircut Waging War Against Heteronormative Patriarchy? : The Other McCain
September 6th, 2014 @ 3:29 pm

[…] “I can only assume these people are ignorant or crazy. Perhaps both. Mammalian reproductive strategy is not a social construct, and they don’t seem to understand it.” – Allen, commenting on radical feminism […]