~ archived since 2018 ~

Most feminists are radical feminists by the literal dictionary definition of radical feminism: "the belief that society functions as a patriarchy in which men oppress women"

May 5, 2021
1985 upvotes

This is the full definition of radical feminism given by Wikipedia:

Radical feminists assert that global society functions as a patriarchy in which the class of men are the oppressors of the class of women. They propose that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of oppression, one that has existed since the inception of humanity.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Radical feminism has its roots in the 1960s during the civil rights movement where it compared the position of women in society to the position of African Americans. Something that many African Americans, including African American women, objected to at the time.

The word patriarchy started being used in that context during the early 1970s where it quickly became associated with the movement. Radical feminism is the only type of feminism with it's own distinct ideology and vocabulary. Other forms of feminism largely borrow from existing political theories. They just focus on women (or gender equality) within those frameworks more heavily.

For example, the definition of liberal feminism, also sometimes called "mainstream feminism", is,

Gender equality through political and legal reform within the framework of liberal democracy.

This is the definition that feminists like to cite when they fall back on their "dictionary argument". The only problem is that patriarchy theory is not a part of this definition, or of liberal feminism more broadly. In fact radical feminists often criticize liberal feminism for rejecting their views about the patriarchy.

Patriarchy theory benefits radical feminism by abstracting away the explicit comparison to racial oppression that it is based on. During the 1980s, after the civil rights movement, this interpretation helped give it wider acceptance. This was especially true in academia where it became the basis for gender studies.

Radical feminism doesn't just attempt to appropriate the struggles of African Americans onto women. It also tries to adopt the rhetoric and beliefs of black supremacy and frame the narrative in an "us vs them" mentality. Something that was rejected by black civil rights activists. And makes radical feminism more of a women's supremacy movement than a movement for true equality.

A further development in radical feminism was intersectional feminism, which tried to give room for other forms of oppression besides oppression against women.

Many intersectionalists try to say that intersectionalism is a response to radical feminism, as if that somehow makes it "different" or "better" than radical feminism. But the reality is that intersectional feminism is still founded on the idea that women are oppressed through a patriarchal system enforced primarily by men.

This type of feminism has become popular in BLM, LGBT, and SJW spaces, but has recently started facing backlash from inside some of those groups as well. The intersectionalist approach emphasizes oppression and an "us vs them" mentality inside of these communities. And it is often viewed as a radical, unhelpful approach in this context as well.

So have you ever met someone trying to distance themselves from radical feminism, but then also claim that there is a patriarchy, or that women are an oppressed group of people?

Just because this belief is more common today does not make it any less radical than it was in the 1960s.

Men do not oppress women. And women's issues do not come anywhere close to the struggles of African Americans. Including, and especially, in history.

Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/

https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/types-of-feminism-the-four-waves/

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/MensRights.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Most feminists are radical feminists by the literal dictionary definition of radical feminism: "the belief that society functions as a patriarchy in which men oppress women"
Author Oncefa2
Upvotes 1985
Comments 272
Date May 5, 2021 2:04 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit /r/MensRights
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/most-feminists-are-radical-feminists-by-the.829223
https://theredarchive.com/post/829223
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/n5goi9/most_feminists_are_radical_feminists_by_the/
Top posts by Oncefa2
Comments

[–]Nice_cock_6900 83 points84 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I hate radical femnism

[–]justatouch589 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I hate even more how radical feminism is now socially accepted in the mainstream.

[–]Nice_cock_6900 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

me too

it's so annoying

[–]justatouch589 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And if we speak out against the overcorrection, they label us sexists.

[–]Nice_cock_6900 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

that happens all the time

if someone disagrees with a "radical feminist"

then everyone will say:

"tHaT's SeXiSt"

[–]Oncefa2[S] 105 points106 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Something interesting I noticed when doing research for this is just how common radical feminism is online on places like Reddit and Twitter. Presumably in comparison to the real world.

I honestly was not expecting Wikipedia to be a good source because I assumed radical feminism had all but entrenched itself into mainstream feminist discourse. There are still some biases in those articles of course. Radical feminism is portrayed in a generally positive light in the article. And there's a lot of apologetics around the comparison of women to black people. But it paints a much different picture than what you typically find online.

For example, the word patriarchy only shows up twice in the liberal feminism article. Once in the history of feminism section (with a [citation needed] tag), and once in the criticism section. Where it's noted that radical feminists criticize liberal feminism by saying women will never be free until we tear down the patriarchy. Liberal feminism is also described as the "mainstream" form of feminism, which you would not guess if you looked at feminism on Reddit or Twitter.

Maybe that should be obvious. But you do see radical feminism in real life quite a bit. The word patriarchy, and the idea that women are oppressed, aren't exactly foreign to most people. So maybe radical feminism has gained inroads within the last few decades. And is more prominent online because of how common it is among younger people and among progressives.

That would also explain why so many people buy into this idea that "feminism used to be better" (including some feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, and of course Warren Farrell who used to be a feminist himself). That would make the "backlash against feminism" that people talk about really more of a backlash against radical feminism. Since that seems to be what everyone is upset about.

Radical feminists, and radicals in the wider women's movement that came before it, have always been around. But I don't think they have ever dominated the movement to the degree that they do today.

Which is a problem since radical feminism negatively affects men and actively stands in the way of gender equality.

But on the flip side, I guess it's technically true that feminists can be allies as well. I'll leave that up to feminists to decide for themselves though. It shouldn't just be on MRAs to call out radical feminists: it would be nice to see this from other feminists too. And to be clear, that means calling out the belief that there is a patriarchy and that men oppress women.

If they want us to go along with their dictionary definition of feminism, then they also need to go along with the true dictionary definition of radical feminism when they claim to be opposed to it.

[–]tenchineuro 49 points50 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

But on the flip side, I guess it's technically true that feminists can be allies as well.

Theoretically, perhaps. But if you say IRL, show me.

[–]triplenipple99 14 points15 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

In my experience older feminists seem alright which would support OP's notion. Camille Paglia is a good example.

[–]tenchineuro 12 points13 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

My only issue that the handful of women who usually get brought up in these situations are called anti-feminist, anti-woman and traitors to women by the feminist movement and a great many women and feminists. So their feminist credentials are at least questionable.

And others like Cassie Jaye, who have stopped calling themselves feminists still find the idea of being called an MRA reprehensible. Cassie Jaye literally shudders at the idea of being called an MRA in one interview. So while superficially these women may be fellow travelers, they really are not on the side of the MRM. What Cassie Jaye would rather be doing is helping girls in some foreign country (interviews are great), she'd rather be doing that than helping boys and men in her own country. And I suspect, despite all the good she's inadvertently done for the MRM, as soon as she is able, she'll be off without so much as a goodbye.

Don't get me wrong, I bear these women no ill will. Cassie Jaye is a pretty and soft spoken women and people listen to her like they'd never listen to a man. But they are on their on side, whatever exactly that might amount to.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cassie Jaye is a documentary maker, not an activist. She previously made a film looking a SSM, but she’s not a gay activist either. There is a difference between being supportive of something in general and an actual activist. Most people are not activists of any kind.

[–]lSuperSuccl 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well to be fair women in other countries like the entire Middle East have it far worse than men in America or England.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They have higher life expectancies.

It's just that men in those same countries are that much worse off.

You're better off comparing men and women from the same country than men from a wealthy county and women from a poor country. Where they still tie by certain measures of happiness and quality of life.

[–]Ilikevats19737o 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I live in Lebanon (a country in the middle east) women there are treated like a queen but ya I agree about other countries

[–]tenchineuro 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well to be fair women in other countries like the entire Middle East have it far worse than men in America or England.

To be even fairer men in other countries in the Middle East have it far worse than both men and women in America or England.

What does this have to do with feminists being allies?

EDIT: The Middle East is not a country. Neither is Middle Earth.

[–]No-Perspective5346 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To be even fairer men in other countries in the Middle East have it far worse than both men and women in America or England.

Explain pls. Not a hate comment I promise. Just genuinely curious.

[–]steawesome2013 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are the ones who are constantly working and dying for the corrupt governments.

[–]SeeBeyond1983 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol im public im not gonna pay em any attention, noones gonna watch some angry person rant. Its hard enough for people not to lose their sh1t in traffic over a slow driver or some other lame infraction. Noone stops to hear musicians play, consumer drones and worker bees.

I see it cos im quiet, il sit and hear someone playing their instrument, then watch the world walk by like they have more important things, like shopping, or getting the bosses lunch.

Its all weird and funny but sad.

[–]SeeBeyond1983 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In public, apologies, ive got a touch screen and thumbs

[–]CommunicationDue9315 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What’s interesting is how different lived experiences produce different perceptions.

For example I have spent most of my adult life as a student and employee of universities. On top of this a spend quite a bit of time online. This has resulted in me being forced into close contact with feminists for decades and as such my hatred of them has grown, as well as my concern for the evils they create.

Whereupon if I had never gone to university or gone online, I might just never think of feminism at all.

I think this is the problem for the majority of reasonable men and women. They just have no idea how insane and pervasive feminism has become in certain spheres because they don’t inhabit them.

[–]Gold_Balance_9856 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes true. This is how I was exposed to radical feminism. They hijacked a trauma subreddit. Go figure 🙄🤦‍♀️

I was unaware of how vile these people are and how they really feel about and treat men. It’s shocking. Not a fan.

I am also apparently oppressing them since I do not share their specific belief that being abusive to men is entirely acceptable. It’s not only that, they are completely entitled to behave in that manner. The fact that we do not share any sense of solidarity because I won’t support that is interesting. None of this has anything to do with equality whatsoever.

[–]FlatspinZA 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel bloody oppressed every single time my wife wants to elevate our station in life by spending money we don't have.

Granted, I couldn't ask for a better wife, she does lots of 'wifey' things, but heck, when does it stop?

On a side note, she told me she was buying a broom along with some lipstick she wanted (we have a joint account), and I was like, "Why do need a broom, we have a bloody expensive Dyson, and a dustpan & brush?"

Five minutes later she was telling me off for her having to justify why we need a broom. We have a broom, one of those industrial brooms you use in the garden. I told her to fill out her request in triplicate.

Obv. I got the finger.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not an expert on this topic but I feel this is a trend with everything about society these days - It divides society more but masks it with "equality".

[–]vwatchrepair 10 points11 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Laughs in men only being drafted since forever. And other crap similar to it.

[–]XHF2 32 points33 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

Warning, it found this sub on r/againsthatesubreddits

They will likely try to find ways ban this subreddit, call it bigoted, mysognyistic, etc.

[–]OccultRitualCooking 21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A story as old as time. We know.

[–]west52 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Show me the hate in the post. I'll wait.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 13 points14 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

We're not opposed to feminism.

We're opposed to radical feminism.

The fact that most feminists are radicals is not our fault. They need to be better if they get offended by that.

[–]EmirikolWoker 27 points28 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

We're not opposed to feminism.

Speak for yourself. The foundational principals of all flavours of feminism are inherrently anti-male when you examine what needs to be true for them to accurately describe reality. Feminists can claim that it's "just about equality", but it's equality based on bigotted assumptions, presuming psychopathy on the part of men as a class.

Egalitarian values, and mens rights advocacy in particular, is innately antifeminist.

[–]ellipticcurve5 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, depending on your definition of feminism. I think you are getting too caught up in the labels and definitions to assess feminism accurately. Lets say someone says that feminism is about equality. Then you can call yourself a men's rights feminist. Someone who fights for equality on the basis of men's rights. Now, most feminists aren't like that. Those that believe in the so called 'patriarchy' are the ones we are really combating. By definition, these are the 'radical' feminists. Many would not call themselves radical feminists, but, based on their beliefs, they are. Hence most 'liberal' and 'intersectional' feminists are actually radical feminists that focus on different aspects of radical feminism. Now, if we want to call feminism egalitarianism, I am totally on board. But I think that we should move away from these labels and focus on beliefs.

[–]Nobleone11 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, depending on your definition of feminism. I think you are getting too caught up in the labels and definitions to assess feminism accurately.

No, they're getting caught up in actual evidence illustrating that feminism doesn't practice what it preaches and hasn't done so for decades.

[–]StarZax 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those that believe in the so called 'patriarchy' are the ones we are really combating

And that's exactly the point, the patriarchy stuff is soooo engrained in the minds. We are at a point where feminists obviously think that patriarchy exists even if they are just not militants, not really into the movement, they are still way too sympathetic to the patriarchy narrative.

So yeah I don't really give too much attention to the labels, to me a feminist is a feminist, they already believe in the patriarchy so there's already something wrong. It could be worse if they are really into radical stuff, but it's still wrong

[–]EmirikolWoker 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, depending on your definition of feminism.

All forms of feminism believe in class warfare between men and women with men winning.

Lets say someone says that feminism is about equality. Then you can call yourself a men's rights feminist. Someone who fights for equality on the basis of men's rights.

You call yourself what you like. I won't call myself a feminist, because I don't believe in class warfare between men and women with men winning.

Those that believe in the so called 'patriarchy' are the ones we are really combating.

So feminists then.

if we want to call feminism egalitarianism, I am totally on board.

Feminism's first big act was one of female supremacy, the creation of a two-tier citizenship where one class of citizen had the right to vote without the obligation of civil and military conscription, and the other paid for their vote with that conscription. It was never about egalitarianism. Have you read the Declaration of Sentiments? It's rotten all the way down.

But I think that we should move away from these labels and focus on beliefs.

That's exactly what I did by examining the foundational principle of feminism (class warfare between men and women with men winning) and unpacking it.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

All forms of feminism believe in class warfare between men and women with men winning.

I really appreciate your analysis of feminism. I've linked to it a thousand times before. I'd say it's more like 99% though, not all. Especially today where radical ("patriarchal") feminism has basically taken over. Most non radicals jump ship so it kind of escalates the problem.

But I don't think that's always been true for all feminists throughout all history here. Some literally just wanted a few laws changed. Kind of like the MRAs of today. In fact after we changed those laws, the non radicals disbanded because they didn't have anything to complain about anymore. Roe v wade in 1973 was the last major thing in the US. After that it's basically been radicals complaining about non problems (or at least very small social problems) and attacking men for no reason.

This is normally a moot point but I think it's relevant here.

[–]EmirikolWoker 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But I don't think that's always been true for all feminists throughout all history here.

Check out the Declaration of Sentiments. It's been based on class warfare between men and women with men winning from the start.

[–]JestyerAverageJoe 113 points114 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

People mistakenly think that "radical" means "extreme." Radical means root. Radical feminists are feminists who see men as being the "root" of the problem. And radical feminism is mainstream.

[–]neos7m 37 points38 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd say your etymology could be improved - yes, radical is an adjective pertaining to roots, but the interpretation IMHO is "the purest, truest form of feminism; where feminism has its roots; feminism focusing on its roots, i.e. its core". Which if you think about it makes it sound even more mainstream.

[–]commentsarenothing 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't it just be a different type of feminism? I always thought radical meant different, very different. In this instance it seems to mean extreme. Please explain to me. Genuinely interested. Not a troll post.

[–]maxlvb 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are hundreds of different species of ducks. But ALL ducks walk like a duck, and quack like a duck. That makes them all ducks...

If (for some reason) you dont understand that analogy...

There are hundreds of different kinds of feminism (according to feminists.) But ALL feminists talk about feminism, and and believe in feminism. That makes them all feminists...

[–]commentsarenothing 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about the etymology of radical.... That was the subject I was referring to

[–]maxlvb -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

  • etymology

The history of a linguistic form (such as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/etymology

Feminism is still feminism no matter how much you want to analyse it to the 'nth degree'...

IOW A duck is still a duck.... 😉

Feminism: Equality, when convenient.

[–]commentsarenothing 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am talking about the etymology of the word radical. I had an interest in it. I don't know who you are talking to. I'm not talking about feminism AT ALL. omg just stop already.

[–]deusdeorum 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't mistakenly think radical means extreme.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

You've described (root) one sense of it's meaning and use. It also is synonymous with extreme.

[–]SharedRegime 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

rad·i·cal/ˈradək(ə)l/ Learn to pronounceSee definitions in:AllMedicalLinguisticsMusicMathematicsBotanyPoliticsChemistryadjectiveadjective: radical

  1. 1.(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough."a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework"Similar:thoroughgoingthoroughcompletetotalentireabsoluteuttercomprehensiveexhaustiveroot-and-branchsweepingfar-reachingwide-rangingextensiveprofounddrasticsevereseriousmajordesperatestringentviolentforcefulrigorousdraconianOpposite:superficial
  • forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something."the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples"Similar:fundamentalbasicessentialquintessentialinherentinnatestructuraldeep-seatedintrinsicorganicconstitutiverootOpposite:minor
  • (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.
  1. 2.advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.Similar:revolutionaryprogressivereformingreformistrevisionistprogressivistleftistleft-wingultra-leftsocialistanticapitalistextremeextremistfanaticalmilitantdiehardredswivel-eyedderogatory BolshevikOpposite:conservativereactionarymoderate
  • characterized by independence of or departure from tradition; innovative or unorthodox."the daring, avant-garde spirit of the music was too radical for the conservative audience"
  1. 3.LINGUISTICSdenoting or relating to the roots of a word.
  • MUSICbelonging to the root of a chord.
  1. 4.MATHEMATICSof the root of a number or quantity.
  2. 5.BOTANYof, or springing direct from, the root or stem base of a plant.
  3. 6.INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICANvery good; excellent."Okay, then. Seven o'clock. Radical!"

nounnoun: radical; plural noun: radicals

  1. 1.a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.Similar:revolutionaryprogressivereformerrevisionistleftistleft-wingersocialistmilitantzealotextremistfanaticdiehardultraredderogatory BolshevikBolshevistOpposite:conservativereactionarymoderate
  2. 2.CHEMISTRYa group of atoms behaving as a unit in a number of compounds.
  3. 3.the root or base form of a word.
  • any of the basic set of 214 Chinese characters constituting semantically or functionally significant elements in the composition of other characters and used as a means of classifying characters in dictionaries.
  1. 4.MATHEMATICSa quantity forming or expressed as the root of another.
  • a radical sign.

Every definition of radical.

Copy pasted this directly from google.

I do believe where you get the "root" definition for it is under the noun definition, which just means the root of a word. So you are actually wrong on all accounts. I bolded and italicized the definition I believe you were referencing.

The root word of feminism is Femina which is latin for Woman. Youre argument is reaching hard even if you did somehow come to the correct answer (that being that radical feminsts see men as the inherit root problem to all of society) the way you got there was incorrect.

[–]giustiziasicoddere 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't need to scout much around: just read "The second sex" by Simon de Beauvoir. It's all in there.

[–]Yoguls_monkies 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A good read, not sure I agree that these ideas have there roots in the 1960s though.

“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” - From the Declaration of Sentiments, 1848.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I kind of alluded to this in the comment I left above.

The term radical feminism goes back to the 1960s. The term patriarchy (in this context) comes from the very early 1970s. The dictionary definition of radical feminism can be found in 1983, at the latest, and hasn't changed much since then. The concept definitely goes back further than that though.

[–]Accguy44 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if this becomes more widely known, they’ll just change the definition of the term. “See, it’s not radical feminism [anymore]”

[–]DanteLivra 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

mumble mumble internalized misogyny.

  • A confused radical feminist

[–]themolestedsliver 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great post that I am going to consider when looking forward. Thanks

[–]Lui_Le_Diamond 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The us v them mentality many extreme political groups adopt needs to die out entirely. It forces us into conflict with each other, and only hurts rather than help.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know of a place or time in which the oppressed class had longer life expectencies than the oppressor class.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or fewer legal rights.

Or worked more.

Or died more.

It really doesn't make any sense. But that's (radical) feminism for you.

[–]dontpet 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think most people don't put a lot of thought into gender politics but have a firm belief that women need special support and protection. They wouldn't frame it as patriarchy, because they haven't thought about their justification. They just feel more protective of women.

If radical feminism disappeared tomorrow we would still be in a very similar situation is my guess. I think this sub puts way too much time into focusing on that issue than in developing our compassion for men as the leading item of discussion.

I think we do our focus on compassion for men here. Just let's do more of it, and more in our own lives.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not as bad a situation IMHO. The radfems do a lot of lobbying, and above all have created the “women’s studies” and “gender studies” departments that pose as the “experts” and influence policy and laws! As well as indoctrinate young girls and women either directly if they enroll in those courses, or indirectly through courses and handouts they provide to schools and workplaces. And don’t forget things like the Duluth Model, and the general DV “industry”, where they exploit sympathy for women to further their own ideology.

I agree things would not be a level playing field, but the radfems do have a significant impact, particularly on how society responds to the notion of giving women special support and protection!

[–]sPrAze_Beast 23 points24 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t read any of it but here is a reward because it looks very long

[–]Oncefa2[S] 21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol thank you.

The tldr is that radical feminism is the belief that women are / were oppressed much like how black people are / were oppressed. They literally tried to appropriate the idea from the civil rights movement in the 1960s, which was addressing real issues of racial injustice against black people, so they could feel like victims.

Most people who try to distance themselves from "the radicals" are themselves, by definition, one of the radicals. Radical feminists believe that there is a patriarchy. So if feminists are going to throw around the "dictionary definition" of feminism, meaning "equality of the sexes", then we need to start reminding them of the dictionary definition of radical feminism.

[–]Nice_cock_6900 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok makes sense i think they should look at the definition

[–]banwavereality 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

saved

[–]Noob_master_slayer 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Patriarchy" is a tool that man-haters disguised as "feminists" use to shut down any men's right talk because radical feminists want women to supersede men, and want "the future is female" to become true. This works because if someone believes that "patriarchy" exists, then by definition, male issues are non-existent. And that's exactly what radical feminism espouses.

[–]eupraxia128 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Egalitarianism is what feminism pretends it is. But the funny thing is, if feminism was actually egalitarianism we wouldn't call it feminism.

[–]MetroidJunkie 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"You don't understand, though. Us small voices without any actual power or influence call ourselves Feminists, so we're the true definition of it and they don't count"

[–]lestratege[🍰] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism is wrong in its very premise that men are a class. I mean, did they not read Marx?

Same for women: pretending that duchesses are oppressed by peasants is just a way to justify living like a duchess off the work of peasants.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually it is a debased form of Marxism! What they’ve done is swap economic class for sex (gender if you must use that word). Identity politics has done that too. Socialism for rich people perhaps?

[–]Throwawayingaccount 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I'm against using that definition.

Words mean what they are commonly and usually meant to be.

It's absurd when racism is redefined as "power plus prejudice", or whatever definition is convenient to make it so that telling someone they don't qualify due to skin color is fine because they're too pale.

It's equally absurd to apply this definition, and use it to rope in people with extreme feminists.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's literally how feminists themselves define it. You're entitled to your opinion though ;).

[–]Angryasfk -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You realise this “power plus prejudice” is a feminist thing don’t you? It means they can never be sexist towards men. It’s very much an “intersectionalist” doctrine. And this is the real point: are you really a feminist if you don’t believe in “patriarchy” and “patriarchy theory”?

[–]SeeBeyond1983 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats why i ignore em to the end. Turned hermit, don't support their talks, business or governance.

[–]SeeBeyond1983 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Give them the entire economy, but dont work for them, make your own money, make them do every last bit of it, food, water, mining, piping, fuel, textiles, machinist jobs, education, just dont lift a finger to help them do it lads, let em be the slaves of the economy, all alone,

[–]TigersLyonsCheetahs 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Who funded feminism?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some funding came from wealthy female feminists (that’s how the development of the contraceptive pill was funded, and also why it’s a female pill and not a male one - they weren’t interested in funding a male pill as they wanted women to have the choice). Then later it came from their take over of women’s refuges/shelters and the control of the funding that comes from that. And then there’s the university departments! And where universities are funded by the state, that means the taxpayer funds feminism!

[–]950Adv 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Combine all female stereotypes and multiply that by 100 = feminism.

(Also, they need men to remove these "oppressions".)

[–]kdidongndj 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

To try and simplify a complex ideology such as radical feminism with one single line from wikipedia is a bit silly.

Radfem ideology is basically the belief that men are inherently bad as rulers of the world, and that the entire world must be restructured against their rule. They largely do not believe in trans people. They believe women and men are intrinsically different and a man cannot 'become' a woman and vice versa.

Modern feminism generally just doesn't like gender as a concept. They want to make it into something fluid and changeable. Radfem believes strongly in the concept that men and women are completely different, and that in our world men are on top and women are at the bottom. Whereas radical feminism focuses entirely on women, modern feminism is more about the broad spectrum of groups 'oppressed' by the patriarchy, including the LGBT people or feminine men etc.

The term 'radical feminism' is somewhat of a broader meaning in some respects to mean any feminism which is radical. But the actual specific meaning of it in discussions about this stuff is not broad, its a very weirdly specific form of feminism which rejects a lot of stuff in modern feminism. Today, radfems is often synonymous with TERFs.

[–]Oncefa2[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No today we often call them intersectional feminists.

TERFs aren't the only type of radicals out there. And what you're talking about in general is known as cultural feminism, which yes is a type of (older) radical feminism, and is obviously related to (modern) TERFs, but that is not the only form of radical feminism. Especially not today.

I'd argue that TERFs evolved out of cultural feminism and intersectionalists evolved out of radical ("patriarchal") feminism.

[–]ItsKaptainKilljoy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The OP acknowledges the differences in feminist ideology, but there is also broad disagreement about strategy. Sex-positive and sex-negative feminists agree on a lot of ideological grounds, but subscribe to different strategies about how women should react to sex. Do you topple the patriarchy by burning your bra or looking fantastic in it? Does prostitution exemplify sex slavery or female entrepreneurialism? Depends on who you ask.

There are feminists who agree about the patriarchy but disagree strongly about how to address it. Legislative advocacy? Lesbian separatism? Writing obtuse academic papers? Restructuring society?

I think these strategic differences are important to address. There is a huge, huge difference between a feminist who just believes in the patriarchy, and a feminist who thinks the patriarchy can only be toppled through revolution.

[–]CommunicationDue9315 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well after the second wave of feminism, the normal feminists all quit.

The only ones left WERE the radicals. Hence all feminists today are also radicals because they were indoctrinated by the lunatics who couldn’t quit when the normal women did.

[–]Gold_Balance_9856 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I just can’t with this 🤦‍♀️ I’m a woman with a history of trauma involving men and here’s my breakdown:

Feminists are entitled narcissists who prioritize looking for ways that they can continue to be constantly offended and victimized for their gender and sexuality. It’s fucking insane. They obviously do not support equal gender rights…constantly being oppressed by men allows them to have an excuse for virtually anything, assume responsibility for nothing and to assert their superiority over men by cutting them down. The manner in which they treat men is appalling because it’s straight up fuckjng abusive. Their entitlement gives them the right to say and do anything to anyone because THEY are oppressed victims, dammit.

As a woman with the wrong belief system, apparently, I am not accepted. Thank goodness for that. Women who don’t support their specific bullshit ideals do not count. Isn’t that ironic.

If I hear the words/phrases patriarchal system, misogyny, toxic masculinity, you fill in the blank……whatever is in their cult manual….I’m going to scream.

I’m not exactly sure how these blood sucking b*tc hes came to normalize their abuse of men but it’s time that they hop aboard the Lolita express and go live in their own commune where they have plenty of Birkenstocks and koolaid.

I’m a fairly tolerant person of others, but I’ve recently come to see the light and this segment of the population is on my shit list.

[–]sarahmarinara 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

FUCK YEAH ITS FUCKING RADICAL TO BE A FEMINIST. Feminists have more fun, bitch.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter