Radical Feminism & its dilemmas

 I would like to start with a disclaimer that I am not an expert on feminism. I am a law student

who has been introduced to various aspects of feminism through my course materials and other

means. This article can be used as a good point of entry for people who want to engage with

feminist theory and beyond.

The fight for equal rights and justice for women is a political movement which takes place within

the framework of liberal democracy. Liberalism in essence refers to the rejection of

discrimination of people and has a commitment to the liberty of individuals from unjustified

governmental or private domination. Liberal feminism is based on the belief that women are

rational autonomous individuals who are entitled to the same rights as men. Women should be

treated equally under the law and have equal opportunities. Liberal feminists essentially believe in

reform over revolution. It is important to realize that liberal feminism is indeed responsible for

the relative improvement in women’s place in society. However Radical feminists have posed

critical disagreements with the liberal feminist position and these arguments have considerable

merit.

What does radical feminism propose? Radical feminism considers the problem to not simply be

one that can be solved through reform or by giving rights. The blame that radical feminists put

on is on the structure of oppression. The enemy for radical feminists is patriarchy and the aim

for the movement is the complete uprooting of this very system. This is in contrast to the liberal

feminist position as radical feminists argued that the main difference between men and women

was power, where men have power and women are subjected to it. Radical feminists move away

from the idea of equality and instead make the subjection of women (through, rape, sexual

harassment, pornography, prostitution etc) the central focus of their inquiry. They rely on the

argument that biology is not distinct from the social as science is “socialized” itself. For example,

for the society when a child is born, a vagina is indicative of a girl and a penis for a boy. Further,

the relationship between men and women (both social constructs) is a relationship of

domination. And where is this to be observed? – it is to be seen in the act of sexual intercourse

itself. For radical feminists, in a male-dominated society under the conditions of patriarchy a

woman’s body is always rape-able and every man is a potential rapist. Consent is meaningless or

is a legal fiction under conditions of inequality. The legal system uses the concept of consent to

distinguish sex from rape but in reality, even during “consensual” sexual intercourse there is only

an assumption of equal representation as the mere fact that a woman has a vagina and only men

can penetrate helps in maintaining the hierarchy of men and women. Hence, in essence they

argue that women have been socialized into thinking that penetrative sex is good and pleasurable

but in actuality they are consenting to rape as the very act of penetration is a symbol of male

dominance and hence structural inequality renders consent useless.

I understand that for people engaging with radical feminism for the first time, these ideas might

seem too provocative. But radical feminist ideas are essential in understanding how patriarchy

functions and how structural oppression operates. And a lot of critiques of their ideas that I

summarize should not be misconstrued as a rejection of the valuable contribution of radical

feminists in understanding women’s oppression.

There is tremendous diversity in feminist theory but there are three essential characteristics of

feminism that are to be found everywhere. These include, a distinction between Male and Female

(this can also be read as masculine and feminine, men and women etc.). Secondly, there has to be

a relation of subordination between men and women and third feminism always argues a case for

the female. But it is important to understand the disadvantages, limitations and costs in arguing

for feminism.

A structuralist understanding would tell us that under conditions of patriarchy women are

oppressed and men are oppressors, but at times identities cannot help us predict behaviours. For

example, a person who will typically be identified as male but in fact feels like a woman who has

same-sex sexual desires, when engaging in what should be seen as lesbian sex would in fact have

it be labelled as straight heterosexual sex. We should also be aware of how radical feminism at

times ends up harming women, and in the name of arguing for women’s rights produces

violence against women itself. For example, radical feminists have had staunch opposition to sex

workers and argue that prostitution is a tool used by patriarchy to abuse women. Similarly, in the

realm of sexuality by arguing that under conditions of patriarchy heterosexual women cannot

enjoy sexual intercourse is an argument that is too generalized. Radical feminists would argue

that the women who enjoy sex are simply in false consciousness but in reality, sexuality is a more

complex subject and to disregard so many women’s enjoyable sexual intercourse as simply false

consciousness by radical feminist is problematic. Furthermore, the effects of feminism have

trickled upwards to the state and corporations. The Indian state for example through Beti

Padhao Beti Bachao can be seen speaking in feminist tones, this can also be seen as corporations

opting for feminist values etc. But the issue with this is that feminist theory more often than not

simply dismisses the power it possesses. And through this it has sided with the oppressive

structures that it, itself argued against. An example would be how feminists have argued for

increased and more harmful punishments for sexual offences and this in turn results in

incarceration of minorities. Feminism infantilizes itself by refusing to admit the power it wields.

And lastly the limits of feminism include that it is inevitably tied to the heterosexual. It is

important to remember that Judith Butler in her famous piece Gender Trouble responded to the

same issue by turning feminism against the male/female distinction itself. But perhaps Butler’s

ideas (which a lot of other thinkers have critiqued) cannot escape the accusation of being

heteronormative as they do not question the role of feminism in producing the

feminine/female/women.

The limits of feminism are clearer when we historicize it with the treatment of Marxism.

Feminist tools of understanding were developed to analyse gender-based hierarchies but as issues

become more related to sexuality and less about gender, feminist analysis falls short. Hence it is

not correct to assume that feminism is the last stage to understand the world better just like

Marxism was not able to properly examine all forms of social inequality. These theoretical

frameworks are equipped to handle only specific forms of power relations, and as queer theorists

have shown for other modes of oppression, there needs to be other forms of understanding, or

probably a more flexible version of these.

- Pratik Kumar