Radical feminists believe that all women are “sisters.” They insisted that men’s control of both women’s sexual and reproductive lives and women’s self-identity, self-respect, and self-esteem is the most fundamental of all human oppression
Do you think all feminists are the same?
Are you finding it difficult to navigate through feminist texts?
(Kate Millet, Sexual Politics (1970))
Roots
Radical feminism calls for a radical reorganisation of society in which male authority is abolished in all social and economic contexts. Radical feminists perceived themselves as revolutionaries rather than reformers. Unlike liberal feminists, who joined fundamentally mainstream women’s rights groups, these revolutionary feminists were not interested in resolving women’s issues by being included in systems they were excluded from. These feminists focused on ‘conscious-raising’.Women gathered to share their personal experiences as women. They discovered that their individual experiences were not unique to them but widely shared by many women. Radical feminists believe that all women are “sisters.” They insisted that men’s control of both women’s sexual and reproductive lives and women’s self-identity, self-respect, and self-esteem is the most fundamental of all human oppression.
Radical-libertarian Feminists believe that exclusively feminine gender identity is likely to limit
women’s development as fully human persons. They encourage women to become androgynous persons, that is, persons who embody both (good) masculine and (good) feminine characteristics or, even any mix of masculine and feminine characteristics, good or bad, that they choose. They view sex and reproduction as oppressive and dangerous for women.
Radical-Cultural Feminists affirm women’s essential “femaleness”. They believe that it is better for
women to be strictly female/feminine. Instead of being like men or being androgynous, they should try to be more like women, emphasising the values and virtues traditionally associated with women
(“interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature,
immanence, process, joy, peace and life”) and de-emphasising the values and virtues traditionally
associated with men (“independence, autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination,
violence, transcendence, product, war, and death”). Despite cultural variations among themselves, they argue that all women share one and the same female nature, and the less influence men have on this nature, the better. They view sex and reproduction as liberating and empowering.
Feminist Gayle Rubin argued that the sex/gender system is a “set of arrangements by which a society
transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity.” Patriarchal society uses certain facts
about male and female biology as the basis for constructing masculine and feminine gender identities and behaviours that empower men and disempower women. In doing so patriarchal society convinces itself that these ‘constructions’ are somehow “natural” and therefore it is a person’s ability to live up to the expectations of the gendered identities linked with their biological sex that makes them normal.
Feminists contest this view by arguing that sex is separable from gender and that patriarchal societies use rigid gender roles to keep women passive (obedient, kind, cheerful, and friendly) and men active (competitive, aggressive, curious, responsible, and ambitious).
Women’s Oppression
Kate Millet in Sexual Politics (1970), insisted that the root of women’s oppression is patriarchy’s
sex/gender system. She claimed that male-female relationship sets the tone for all power relationships.
Male control over all spheres of life is key to maintaining patriarchy.
Patriarchal ideology exaggerates the biological differences between men and women making men
dominant and women subordinate. This ideology is so influential, claimed Millet, that patriarchal
societies are able to secure the consent of the very women they dominate. This is done through
institutions such as academia, family, religious groups, and language. When this conditioning fails,
coercion and intimidation are used to attain submission. Millet stressed women’s need to act masculine if they wanted to avoid the cruelties and barbarities of a patriarchal society. Millett preached a determined effort to destroy the sex/gender system—the basic source of women’s oppression—and to create a new society in which men and women are equal at every level of existence.
Radical cultural feminist, Marilyn French speculated that the first human societies were probably
matri-centric (mother-centred), and mothers most likely played the primary role in the group’s survival-oriented activities of bonding, sharing, and harmonious participation in nature. Nature was a friend, and as a sustainer of nature and reproducer of life, the woman was also a friend. Resources became scarce with the increase in human population which led humans to take matters into their own hands. They drilled, dug, and ploughed nature. The more control humans gained over nature, however, the more they separated themselves from it physically and psychologically. Unsurprisingly, these negative feelings intensified men’s desire to control not only nature but also
women, whom they associated with nature on account of their role in reproduction.
This need for control would lead to conflict. French claimed that feminine values of love, compassion, sharing, and nurturing must be reintroduced. While it seems like French also saw androgyny as the solution, her work Beyond Power (1985) suggests that she valued feminine values more than masculine values. Her understanding of masculine values involved a reinterpretation of the same. Because ‘humanness” had been linked with destruction and masculine control. Guided by the value of having power over others, the masculine world accommodates only those thoughts and actions that keep a small group of people in power. Thus, to be a total man, or patriarch, is not to be a full human being. In contrast, the feminine world, guided by the value of having pleasure— by which French meant the ability of one group or person to affirm all others—accommodates many ways of being and doing. French emphasised it is good for us to have power as well as pleasure in our lives, provided our power manifests itself not as the desire to destroy (power over others) but as the desire to create (power to do for others)
Besides articulating their ideas on sexism and its solution, these feminists have had intense debates on various other issues such as sexuality, motherhood, lesbianism, and pornography to name a few. I will be taking up debates on reproduction in this part and the rest in part II.
Debates on Reproduction
Radical-libertarian feminists believe women should substitute artificial for natural modes of reproduction. They are convinced that women’s minimum involvement in reproduction would allow them to engage in society’s processes. In The Dialectic of Sex, (1970) Shulasmith Firestone emphasised the relations of reproduction rather than of production as driving forces in history. The original class distinction is rooted in men’s and women’s differing reproductive roles.
As soon as technology overcomes the biological limits of natural reproduction, said Firestone, the
biological fact that some persons have wombs and others have penises will “no longer matter culturally.”
For Firestone, steps towards educational, legal, or political equality are severely limited in making
fundamental changes for women if natural reproduction remains the rule. The joys of giving birth were seen as a myth enforced by a patriarchal society. Family disputes over property also stem from natural reproduction as men so fervently wish to pass on their property to their biological children.
Firestone was critiqued for her plans to achieve women’s liberation by radical cultural feminists. They
denied the claim that women’s oppression was rooted in female biology and insisted that men’s jealousy of reproductive abilities instead was the root of oppression.
In Of Woman Born (1976), Adrienne Rich noted that men realise that patriarchy cannot survive unless men are able to control women’s power to “bring or not bring” life into the world. She pointed out how men took control of the birthing processes as male obstetricians replaced female midwives, and made the rules for pregnancy and birth-giving. This intrusion alienated women from the process that made it a mere thing that just happened to women.
Rich concluded that if women reclaimed their pregnancies from the authorities, they would no longer
have to sit passively waiting for their physicians to deliver their babies to them. Instead, women would
actually direct the childbirth process, experiencing its pleasures as well as its pains. These feminist
concerns over patriarchal control over women’s reproduction inspired Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale, which is the basis for the TV show of the same name.
Cultural feminists also pointed out that the new reproductive technologies would simply increase men’s control over women’s bodies. Robyn Rowland, another radical-cultural feminist, highlighted the work of microbiologist John Postgate who wanted to control the size of the human population proposing the development of a “man-child pill,” which would ensure the conception of boys. Girls would become scarce and the birthrate would inevitably plunge. Postgate conceded that under such circumstances men would probably start to fight each other for the sexual and reproductive services of society’s few remaining women. Rowland imagined a scenario where only a few super-ovulating women were allowed to exist, where their eggs would be snatched, frozen. The replacement of women’s childbearing capacity by male-controlled technology would, she said, leave women entirely vulnerable, with nothing left “to bargain” with men. She claimed that historically women were valued for their childbearing abilities and if these abilities are left to the devices of men, what role would women have in this world?
Critique
Both radical-cultural feminism is critiqued for propounding so-called essentialism, the view that men
and women are fundamentally and perhaps irrevocably different because of their natures. Jean Bethke Elshtain claimed that the idea that men are men and that women are women and there is no way to change either’s nature is both a political danger and an analytical dead end. This is rooted in a history of oppressor groups telling the oppressed to accept their fate because ‘that’s just the way it is”. Essentialist arguments were used to justify slavery and maintain colonialism. Categorising women as nurturing and life-giving and men as corrupt and out to destroy, radical feminists fall into the trap of doing unto others that which they do not want to be done unto themselves.
The fact is that not all women are mere victims and not every man is an oppressor. Elshtain cited
examples of women’s involvement in 20th-century political revolutions to highlight the active roles
women have played in social history. She also highlighted men’s support of women in their liberation
struggles.
Radical feminists were also critiqued for their understanding of patriarchy as simply men everywhere
hating women everywhere. To claim all various practices such as Sati in India, foot binding in China, and female circumcision in Africa, boil down to the same thing, show no awareness of the rich diversity of different societies. Elshtain claimed that the term patriarchy is a useful analytical tool for women who are beginning to rethink their political and personal experiences of oppression. Beyond this, patriarchy becomes a blunt instrument. If chanted incessantly, the formula “men over women; women for men” becomes monotonous and even meaningless.
These ideas of female positivity and male negativity then lead radical feminists towards the utopian vision of an all-women community. This community, they believe will be warm and nurturing, and supportive. However, this could not be further from the truth as Elshtain claimed that both men and women were humans and both vices and virtues are bound to appear in an all-women community. She warned radical feminists about their ideas about women’s purity as they were eerily similar to what Victorian men used to pedestalise women, to keep them away from political and economic participation.
References
- Jaggar, Alison M., and Paula S. Rothenberg, eds. Feminist Frameworks. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984
- French, Marilyn. Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals. New York: SummitBooks, 1985
- Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970
- Rowland, Robyn. “Reproductive Technologies: The Final Solution to the Woman Question.” In Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? ed. Rita Arditti, Renate Duelli Klein, and Shelley Minden. London: Pandora Press, 1984
- Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Public Man, Private Woman. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981
Naomi Joy Yadav is the gender and communications officer at Ashray Trust, an NGO working against human trafficking and gender inequality. She holds a Masters degree in Gender studies from Ambedkar University Delhi. Her interests range from makeup to music to sports and “taking the fun out of everything” by looking at all these from a gendered lens
