Can Radical Feminism Be Cured?

Cathy Young has a good read in follow up to the Edward's bloggers affair. Two brief clips and a link below:

A caricature is an exaggeration of truth. Marcotte's summary of Parker's position is an outright, slanderous lie....

Since Marcotte includes the full text of my actual words in her post before proceeding with her bizarre reading of them, I have to conclude that she's not a liar; she's delusional.

It's impolitic to say so, but what radical feminists don't understand is that the vast majority of Americans don't see them as individuals advocating a political ideology. Strip away the PC protection behind which they hide and the reality is most people view them as a psychologically disturbed subset of women in general. And that isn't an unreasonable characterization once you look at the forces which drive them: self-absorption; anger; and paranoia.

Paranoia? Yes. I'm no die hard Right to Lifer, but even I can appreciate that there are people who value life as almost a force over and above all else, one worthy of protection, even before birth. But radical feminists don't appear to appreciate that view. They see that movement as an assault against them and their wombs. The fact is, I doubt much of America is the least bit interested in what goes on in or around their collective womb. But that doesn't stop radical feminists from screaming persecution every chance they get.

The anger is obvious and there are so many snips in the Young piece I'll link, I won't even bother with more quotes. These are extremely angry people, quick to lash out at a number of people and groups - from the Catholic Church to the Republican Party, etc. The self-absorption is obvious, too. SO much so that they can't even consider something growing inside of them as having a life of its own.

The real issue now is that the radical feminist ideology has created a convenient echo chamber for itself in academia and through various aligned groups. So, when I ask, can they be cured? I mean it. I imagine a great many do reach out for help. Unfortunately, more and more, they are most likely to do it within the little echo chamber I mentioned above.

You end up with therapists and counselors as sick as the patient, performing no real mental health function other than offering unconditional positive regard. Unfortunately, without some salting with a few serious grains of truth for what America sees as mostly a disturbed group of individuals, all you are likely to get from that is more of the same. And that's pretty much what we have been seeing from the more radical elements of the women's movement for the last ten years.

Sadly, we have a growing number of obviously troubled and unhappy, angry, self-absorbed, paranoid women desperately seeking some greater cause, while lacking the ability to look outside of themselves to find it. Radical feminists, as we learned from the Edwards affair, can be dressed up, but at the end of the day, who would really want to take them out?

Cathy Young's very good piece on Pandagate and male bigotry here.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Please define "nonradical" feminism.

[seekeronos]

I have a cure:

Lock them up in a room with angry young male Islamists.

Then let the laughs and hijinks ensue as one side tries to convince the other that its gender is superior.

Man-haters vs. pan-humanity haters.

If we are lucky, they might cancel each other out like an antimatter-matter reaction.

[Kite]

O.o...

Isn't that like what would happen if an unstoppable force hit an un-movable object? I'm pretty sure it would have the same effect.

Total.Unstoppable.Destruction.

[3reddogs]

As usual, another post full of generalizations and pronouncements masquerading as facts.

"self-absorption; anger; and paranoia."

Sounds more like a description of a neocon but, oh wait, you've "found your cause" ... propping up the worst president in history.

[madmatt]

self-absorption; anger; and paranoia.

Are you sure you are not talking about the bush administration?

[Chris]

What exactly is a "radical feminist" by the way? Do you just know one when you see one, or do they have a political agenda that you can define?

[Devil's Advocate]

Riehl's paranoia "du jour": radical feminists. Can Riehl be cured? Alas, no. His psychosis is multi-facetted. Therapists have given up on the patient.

[ME]

I'm more concerned with whether the disease of right-wing-authoritarianism can be cured. It's far more dangerous to society than feminism.

[Dan Riehl]

"a political agenda that you can define?"

I think they're beyong being political, as I said. I wouldn't describe a owmn who believes in equal rights for women, equal work equal pay, etc etc, and yes, even choice, as being radical, if that's what you're implying. The saddest irony of radical feminists today is how quick many are to dump on a Condi Rice, or Malkin, or even Coulter, all of whom, whether you agree with them or not, are successful women.

Were "feminism" actually at the heart of radical feminists, that wouldn't be true.

[liberalpercy]

You said: "It's impolitic to say so, but what radical feminists don't understand is that the vast majority of Americans don't see them as individuals advocating a political ideology."
Don't you dare speak for 'the vast majority' unless you have something to back it up. I remember when 'girls' were given few choices and had to fight to get degrees in anything but Home Economics or Teaching. Like minorities, they have been victims of generations of discrimination by the White Male power structure - and still are.
You may think you speak for the vast majority of Americans, but that's probably because you only speak to other White Men. So - if there are a few 'radical' feminists who get under your skin, buck up and take it like a man.

[Robert]

Nice job Rhiel.
You point out 3 women with strong aversions to the truth, but at least they are successful.

Could you come up with any woman whose ethics are not a joke, but are still succesful?

[Dan Riehl]

Don't you dare speak for 'the vast majority'

LMAO What, should I do it as MArcotte did and just try and use a bigger mouth? You know what I'm saying is true, perhaps that's why the anger. I dont' disagree with your points on the history of women in America. Why you discount is that much of it was by choice. Those choice were broadened, as they should have been, through the early feminist movement - I'm not denying that. But then look at what gets posted right after, the Sec State has no credibility blah blah blah. Put two of you libs next to one another and it's hard to know which is the caricature and which is the truth.

Rice's ehtics are above reproach - the second commenter just doesn't like her politics - so any alleged respect for women is off the table. Pathetic - no principle there at all to admire.

[aLiberal]

they quit, ok? what more do you want? you people are incorrigible, i dare say.

[Dan Riehl]

they quit, ok?

I dare say, I'd rather they hadn't. And this post is on radical feminism in general. Are you suggesting that isn't something one is allowed to question, or debate?

[aLiberal]

Dan-
It's your blog, and you can post about whatever you want, no doubt. but, at the same time, you are blogging about this because of the whole amanda marcotte thing. i seriously doubt that if it weren't for that episode you would have posted this. your piece is largely stereotypical, generalized and uninformed, but it's your right to say whatever you want. but on your own blof you can rant as much as you want, but you've got to realize you really don;t know what you're talking about.

"It's impolitic to say so, but what radical feminists don't understand is that the vast majority of Americans don't see them as individuals advocating a political ideology. Strip away the PC protection behind which they hide and the reality is most people view them as a psychologically disturbed subset of women in general. And that isn't an unreasonable characterization once you look at the forces which drive them: self-absorption; anger; and paranoia."

This based on what- your opinion? i bet you think homosexuals need to be cured, too.

[seekeronos]

I think that radical feminism has done more to screw up the minds of American women than any other particular evil.

A few things are:

- the "perpetual victim of the patriarchy" gambit;
- the "all men are rapists or closeted rapists" (gimme a small break! some of us "evil mens" actually do want to keep our penises in our pants, and there are a fair number of "pretty" women we'd no sooner touch with a ten-foot barge-pole for thier personalities or lack thereof)
- all men are "body fascists" i.e. the high heels, foot binding, make-up, bras, shaven legs, etc... (well, few men enjoy dating something that looks like Ms. Yeti, so... )

- the "gotta have a career that outshines most men in prestige and paycheck, AND hold down a family"

The last one gets me the most. The man-hating shrews, the Ms. Yetis, and the Paranoid Rape-Baiters I can care less about and steer clear of; but the woman who is so frustratedly frozen up over balancing career and family needs whilst trying to out-produce her peers is a real head-scratcher.

By no means am I against career-seeking women,nor against paying them according to their ability or thier production (merit-based pay) regardless of thier gender; nor am I saying that women should "stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, etc"... but to the degree that *indoctrinating* women that they must go into the workplace and have a fulfilling career, as opposed to a supposedly less fulfilling role as a home-maker and a wife, has probably done more harm to our economy and society than good.

Sure, we can claim economic growrth as a result, but the trade-offs are latchkey children, a proliferation of over-expensive, overcrowded, and poorly staffed child care facilities, and families that simply cannot survive in today's market unless BOTH parents work full time jobs.

Of course, the flipside to that is that not everyone has to live in the 'burbs in million dollar houses with two matching Lexus SUVs parked in the yard; my point is that we have allowed a not-very-constructive mandate to evolve which despises the Breadwinner Dad and the stay-at-home Mom of two generations ago.

The Single-Earner Family is close to extinction in America.

In some parts of the country, this has trickled down to the working class (non-Doctor/Lawyer/I-Banker folks) to the point where some folks cannot even consider buying an entry-level home (a typical 3-BR 1.5-BA house in the greater NYC suburban area is around $450,000 USD) without both parents slaving away and hopefully getting overtime.

[Dan Riehl]

"i bet you think homosexuals need to be cured, too"

I thought one just was - the religious guy - haggert, or whatever??

But, no, actually you'd be wrong if you are implying I think they need to be "cured" of something due to their sexual preference.

[aLiberal]

ok, fair enough. btw- ted haggard is now "completely heterosexual." question to the ladies: would you marry him now that he's "cured"?

[MrRepublican]

Down with uppity women.

Mr. Republican

[templar knight]

I imagine if Mr. Ted Haggard had some money, there would be a number of women waiting in line to marry the guy.

And while we are on the subject, I just don't understand why feminists(maybe they have, and I just haven't seen it) seem to have little if any problem with the "girls gone wild" phenomena, and the general slutting down of American women in general, including some of which we all recognize, i.e. Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears, Nicole Richey, Angelina Jolie, and a large number of other women who seem to be admired and promoted by women's magazines and other media. It seems to me that these women do more to damage women's credibility than anything I've seen of late. Just curious.

[Roderick]

seekeronos: Sure, we can claim economic growrth as a result, but the trade-offs are latchkey children, a proliferation of over-expensive, overcrowded, and poorly staffed child care facilities, and families that simply cannot survive in today's market unless BOTH parents work full time jobs.

Roderick: See I find it ironic that if women did like conservatives want and stayed home then our consumer culture would not be possible and conservatives wouldn't be able to bash 'Europe' saying that our GDP is bigger than theirs... blah, blah, blah.

I really get off on seeing women like Kate O' Beirn and even Ann 'the man' Coulter on tv bashing feminists because if it weren't for 'radical feminist' like Betty Friedmen and her acolytes they would not be in their positions to bash other women.

[Lisa]

Who the heck is a radical feminist anymore? Seriously?!?!?! When Desperate Housewives and Sex in the City are the numero uno influence on young women today, you KNOW damn well that the "radical feminist" of the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine McKinnon model is dead. I give all props and respect to the "radical feminists" who pushed for the vote and for reproductive rights. But feminists, like everyone else, have gotten too wealthy, pampered, and comfortable to be radical about anything.

[jvf]

Stupidest. Blog. Ever.

[PatD]

"Radical feminists", did someone stop by Stereotypes R Us this morning ?

Perhaps our research efforts would be better spent looking for a cure for other oxymora, something like radical Freeperhood for example.

[yd]

mostly for seekeronos, but also for dan:

i consider myself a feminist because i believe that women should get equal pay for equal work (which they don't); they should be allowed to choose when to become parents (like men); and they should not be subjected to the maddona/whore motif that we see some much (addressing the concept of slutting down (up?) of women). in short, i do not subscribe to gender differences beyond the obvious: that men are physically bigger than women. and in that case, it should be acknowledged (as it is) in jobs where it matters (firefighting, construction, etc.)

all that said, what i find most distressing about how conservatives view feminists is how limiting they make the choices for their daughters. it was stated above that being a wife and mother should be promoted with the same effort as having a career. fine, i havae no problem wiht that. but why is that choice limited to little girls? you can't teach you sons to accept being the stay-at-home parent if the wife is the primary breadwinner? in my opinion, part of the reason there are so many two income households with so little to show for that sacrifice is because men cannot set aside their egos and be the supportive spouse instead of the earning spouse.

as for dan's assessment that women don't get it about saving the unborn, we get it. what we don't get is why you don't understand that something (using thing intentionally) that stays in MY body for 9 months, makes ME fat, and permanently changes MY body (metabolism, etc.) is MY responsibility and MY choice to decide whether to submit myself to it. that is why you hear the refrain of my womb over and over again. because to us that is the issue, my body and your right to tell me what to do with it. as for my soul and that of the unborn child's (if you believe in such), that's between me and god, yet again no place for you and your opinions. but i am drifting into a different topic.

finally for the record, i was latchkey from age 6. I'm now 36. I have two graduate degrees (mba and jd). i received full scholarships to two of the three schools i attended. and i have never been arrested for anything. there is nothing wrong with latchkey when there is a strong parent present. it just requires sacrifices that i'm beginning to notice today's parents simply don't want to make. raising a healthy child is not a job for the faint of heart or those without conviction. i think it is a total cop-out on the part of parents to blame their working lives for not raising their kids properly.

[BobInStamford]

Is there anything that cons arent scared of?? Gays, Iraqis, Mexicans, women. You 28%ers are priceless. Good luck with that surge.

[templar knight]

yd, do you have any children? And I'm not trying to make something of it, just curious. I know, that's difficult on this blog, but I've seen you be sensible before, even if you haven't seen me that way. LOL. Well, there was that one time when I asked you about NYC.

[templar knight]

I'm not scared of you and your sock puppets, Bob.

[BobInStamford]

Hey, you're back from a hard day pumping gas, I see. Tell us again about how your kids are in 'private school'. It's so very impressive.

[yd]

no, i don't. but i have been responsible for relatives' children for extended periods of time. the kids were small at the time, from 4 to 9 years. why?

[Robert]

"Rice's ethics are above repraoach."
LOL

Dan, pay no attention to the fact she lied to the 911 Commission. You might have heard about that commission. It's the same one Cheney and Bush stonewalled so we wouldn't find out they completely dropped the ball protecting America's citizens.

What's your address? I'd like to send you enough money to buy a clue.

[Dan Riehl]

"I'm now 36. I have two graduate degrees (mba and jd). i received full scholarships to two of the three schools i attended. and i have never been arrested for anything."

Okay, I'm sold - as long as I can stay home with the kids and blog, no problem! ; )

[yd]

cute, dan:) unfortunately for you, i'm not taking applicatons at this time, but feel free to leave one anyway when i'm in the market again.

[yd]

excuse the typos. i'm more than a little tired today.

[Susan]

Oh good lord. If feminism is a pathology of "paranoid, angry" people, how do you explain the bloodthirsty screeching of an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage? If you want to talk about delusions of persecution, how about people who shriek that there's a "war on Christianity" every Christmas and Easter, because they can put up holiday decorations anywhere they want except on government property, and that one exception is supposed to be as bad as being thrown to the lions? If you want to read the ranting of a hate-filled, paranoid man, how about that self-appointed spokesman for Catholicism who made it his business to go after those bloggers? Listening to the extreme fringe of any political movement, left or right, whining about persecution from the other side always inevitably sounds like 5 year olds sniveling "He hit me first!" "But he hit me back harder!"

[Dan Riehl]

"i'm more than a little tired today."

Oh, geesh - a headache, already! See what I mean???? Heh!

[Dan Riehl]

"how do you explain the bloodthirsty screeching"

I didn't say there can't be pathology in other groups, including on the Right. As far as Savage - don't know much about him, nor do I want to - sounds nuts. And that's from others on the Right.

[JimK]

It's pretty easy to denote feminists from radicals - a feminist is interested in equality, not supremacy. A feminist has other interests and can carry on a conversation that isn't about, as Amanda Marcotte would say (and has said), her "twat" or her "cunt" or sticking something in or taking it our of said genitalia.

Anyone who pretends that Marcotte isn't a radical female supremacist is a fucking liar, plain and simple. She does more damage to feminism with her obsession about her own vagina and her vitriolic hatred of anything male than any guy ever could.

[templar knight]

Bob, I'll tell you the difference between you and me. If I had to pump gas to make a living for my family and help get my children in a better school, then that is exactly what I would do. I am not too good to pump gas, and as a matter of fact, the second job I ever had was pumping gas. The first was washing dishes in a pizza parlor. I see no shame in either, yet you have the audacity to disparage people who have to do physical work for a living. Hardly a champion of the working class, are you, Mr. Liberal? Quite telling, actually, as I have met very few liberals who give other than lip service to the poor and working class.

yd, I was just wondering. And I really can't express what I am trying to say. I'm afraid it might come across wrong, so I'll drop it.

[Phoenix]

"You end up with therapists and counselors as sick as the patient, performing no real mental health function other than offering unconditional positive regard. Unfortunately, without some salting with a few serious grains of truth for what America sees as mostly a disturbed group of individuals, all you are likely to get from that is more of the same."

Good piece, Dan. This bit stuck out. It's true.

And I couldn't have said it better than JimK. I'll just add that smart women don't need a movement to do what they want these days. Smart women are so past feminism, they're embarrassed by it. They are also capable of looking back and noting the damage it's done to this country.

[seekeronos]

For yd:

I have no problem with a woman as the breadwinner and her husband as the "stay at home Dad". Especially if the situation is such that the woman can earn more than the husband.

The main thing is though, in terms of why women are generally better suited for the stay-at-home role ... at least for the youngest years of their children's childhood, is that women are naturally more well-equipped than men: aside from physically being capable of carrying the baby to term and nursing the newborn, she is also (generally) able to handle the stresses of rearing a child from a very young age better than a man.

This is not a blanket case, but I think it fits the pattern - just as men are *generally* physically stronger and able to handle other sorts of stresses (battlefield, hard labour, corporate politics, alpha-male competition) somewhat better on the average than women.

The Creator (Jesus) endowed each sex with talents and abilities that, while only in a few cases are entirely unique to that gender, they are best handled by one gender or the other... while acknowledging that for those few exceptions, either gender can do the work of the other as needed.

As for the "slutting down" of women, I agree with those who say that this is quite damaging to developing a respectful view of women; the Bible says that men should love thier wives, as Christ loves His church. At least for the Christian, it is ill-fitting to accomodate a "slutted down" view of woman, who is an equal sharer in the promises of God along with her husband.

[workingmom OH]

"...look at the forces which drive them: self-absorption; anger; and paranoia"

In my estimation this statement would be true of any *radical* regardless of the issue at hand. It is no more or less true of radical feminists than it would be radical Christians. The problem is whether the individual is capable of recognizing their radicalism and that -- unfortunately -- is part of the problem: Radicals are incapable of recognizing they are rabid.

There is no coherency or opportunity to debate with a radical of any cloth.

[Evil Progressive]

"... the vast majority of Americans..." That's Welfare Riehl, Toothless Bubba, and Double-wide Joe, when they get sauced at the Horseshit Saloon in Hicksville (Pop. 234), Dumbistan.

[dylan]

JimK,
At Priscilla's stores they sell a plastic version of your favorite "V."
Its called the "pocket p***y."
It won't carry on no conversation or take out nothing on your "said genitalia."
Your new little p.p. will not throw you any supreme radical feminist crap!
C'mon Jim...get out and touch someone.

[Anandakos]

To the Bloghost,

"Self-absorption; anger; and paranoia". Hmmm. I guess I'll have to defer to your greater ability to recognize those states of mind as well developed as it doubtless has been by your circle of acquaintanceship.

For Seekeronos,

Would I be completely off-base in assuming that among the "talents and abilities" allocated by the creator to men would be the roles of "decider", "master" and "protector"? In particular from other men by whom the little lady might like to be pollenated?

By the way, when did Jesus become the Creator? Has there been a coup in Heaven?

[Margaret]

Wow. Equating a woman's complaints about gender relations in society with mental illness is the oldest one in the book. I am amazed that people are still pulling out the "they're just crazy and angry" canard. It's so tired -- not to mention irrelevant and ad hominem.

Look, if you want to dissect, criticize, and disagree with the ideas of Amanda Marcotte or any other feminist blogger, fine. If you want to say that you are turned off by her style, I could live with that. But it strikes me as awfully presumptuous (not to mention off the mark) to assume that a social critic who speaks in blunt terms must have mental problems. It also seems to be an assumption that is made about women more than other social critics. (Black civil rights activits have been derided for being "too angry" but not for being off their rockers.)

As for the "anger" driving someone like Amanda Marcotte, she may indeed by "angry" about many things, just as you claim. She would probably say so herself. But I fail to see how being angry invalidates her point of view or indicates a mental problem. Do you really expect women to be happy and complacent about injustice?

Finally, Amanda is not a "radical feminist." She has routinely taken positions in direct opposition to radical feminism. The word you are probably looking for is "extreme," not "radical." I view her as simply uncompromising (in the best sense of the word.)