The Fall of Radical Feminism in the US 

Radical feminists’ insistence on the rejection of all men would lead to their downfall. Radical feminists wanted to find a female reality deeper than what had been created by males, one that was separate from all males, where all energies could be dedicated to women. As Rudy, a radical feminist at the time, said “our goal was to resist all-male, patriarchal powers” and that “male behavior should not be tolerated but rather should be avoided” (Rudy, 2001, p. 205). But radical feminists believed and advocated for more than a woman-only society, they built the foundations of the modern feminist movement. Radical feminists condemned sadomasochism, pornography, prostitution, cruising, adult/child sexual relations, and all forms of sexual role playing. They believed that these practices were tied to the “dominant/subordinate power relations to the perpetuance of male dominance” (Ferguson, 1984, p.107). 

By being able to see through the hypocrisy of the “sexual liberations,” radical feminists understood that being sexually liberated was, according to Willis (1982), “depressingly shallow, exploitative, and joyless” (Willis, 1982, p. 10). From their point of view, being sexually liberated would require “the abolition of restrictions” as well as “the positive presence of social and psychological conditions that foster satisfying sexual relations” (Willis, 1982, p. 10). But, these women were unable to rid themselves of various stereotypes. They were ridiculed, some argued that they only rejected men because they were too ugly to ever be in a heterosexual relationship. They were called prudes or vanilla and failed to garner the support of enough women needed to truly bring about the revolutionary change they were seeking. 

New Radical Feminism - UK 1977-80s 

Just as radical feminism withered in the United States, the United Kingdom welcomed a new form of feminism which they called revolutionary feminism. This new branch of feminism, founded in 1977 by Sheila Jeffreys, was uniquely British (Mackay, 2014, p. 97). Revolutionary feminism, like radical feminism, “emphasized the importance of autonomous women-only space and organizing” (Mackay, 2014, p. 97). Both theories focus on different forms of male violence against women; using new analyses of patriarchy, male hegemony, dominance, and supremacy; as well as male violence as a form of social control. Both groups opposed pornography and prostitution, believing them to be forms of male violence against women. Notably, British revolutionary feminism differentiated itself from American radical feminism as it did not want to be identified as a cult of women, which was the stereotype attached to American radical feminist groups. Revolutionary feminists believed radical feminism’s weakness was this focus on “cultural, or lifestyle feminism, devoid of revolutionary potential (…) associated with the reclamation of Goddess worship and promotion of environmentalism and New Age beliefs” (Mackay, 2014, p. 97). Al Garthwaite, a revolutionary feminist in the 1980s, argued “Revolutionary Feminism did indeed focus on the separatism as one method of political organizing, but not as a way of life [as] Radical Feminism did” (Mackay, 2014, p. 98). 

Similar to what radical feminism had tried to do, revolutionary feminists problematized men as a group. Specifically, Garthwaite said, “Radical Feminism identified violence against women and the threat of it as the root of female oppression” (Mackay, 2014, p. 98). Another similarity with radical feminism is that revolutionary feminism became associated “with myths and stereotypes, what she [Garthwaite] called ‘baggage’” and the women themselves were called man-haters because the term was often misinterpreted and misunderstood (Mackay, 2014, p. 98). 

The Influence of Queer Theory - U.S. 

From the start, radical feminism faced many controversies and criticism in the United States. Even at one of the first demonstrations, the picketing of the Miss America pageant, critics “genuinely believed the demonstrators must be ugly women, motivated by simple jealousy of the contestants” all because of how “acceptable was the practice of valuing women for their sexual attractiveness” (Shulman, 1980, p. 595). By the late 1980s, Kathy Rudy (2001) argues that “the peaceful ideal of a unified woman-loving-woman world had all but fallen apart” and that “[a]round 1989 the entire world of feminist theory had become suddenly energized with deconstruction” (Rudy, 2001, p. 206-7). New works emerging in the field of queer theory were almost a direct attack on radical feminist theory. Queer theorists argued that biological sex and gender were socially constructed and that the concept of gender “exists on an unstable background of tacit assumptions and fantasies about both ‘women’ and ‘men’” (Rudy, 2001, p.208). 

Queer theory suggests that we must break free from hierarchical sex and gender binaries and that humans did not need to be confined to assigned gender roles. This theory argued that sex and gender were different, and just a system of knowledge, as is religion or a political party, and that such “systems of knowledge and power compete on the side of the human subject, and they divide the abstract idea of ‘the human being’ into fractured, ontological increments” (Rudy, 2001, p. 209). Queer theory provided an opportunity to identify sexual pleasure in a wide variety of identities. Unlike earlier feminists who shamed vaginal orgasms or other politically unacceptable behavior, queer theory provided a place for anyone and everyone to experiment with and gain pleasure from all sexual activities. 

Although the term “queer theory” was not seen in print until 1991 by Teresa de Lauretis, queer culture, and its beliefs were already becoming the dominating feminist discourse (Rudy, 2001, p. 212). By deconstructing the socially created ideas of sexuality and gender, queer theory wanted to disrupt the stability of all existing categories. Radical feminists condemned all men, even gay men, but queer theory was more flexible and gave gay men a voice in the movement. 

The biggest difference between queer theory and radical feminism is their beliefs on sex. Radical feminists were often labeled as prudes or vanilla as they opposed pornography and prostitution and believed that “any penetration during sex was patriarchal and needed to be eliminated” (Rudy, 2001, p. 215). Queer theory disagreed with this perspective, and queer culture believed all sex was good sex because it feels good and provides pleasure. Queer culture even supported “alternative sex practices such as sadomasochism, pornography, man-boy love, group sex (…)” (Rudy, 2001, p. 215). Queer theorists believed that by accepting and promoting various sexual behaviors, those who did explore outside the “normal” parameters of sex and gender would be able to find “sexual liberation." 

Rise of Liberal Feminism 

Queer theory built a foundation upon which liberal feminism flourished. This new school of feminism was “anti-prude” and as Ferguson et al. (1984) calls them, “libertarian feminists” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p.106). Libertarian feminists viewed sex as liberating, as it was an exchange of pleasure between consenting partners. Contrastingly, radical feminists rejected male-dominated heterosexual sex and other sexual acts that they believed “tie dominant/ subordinate power relations to the perpetuance of male dominance” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p. 107). Libertarian feminists endorsed alternative sexual practices and believed that radical feminism’s condemnation created stigmas against sexual minorities and would force women to “return to a narrow, conservative, ‘feminine’ vision of ideal sexuality” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p.107). 

To understand how liberal feminism came to replace radical feminism, we must contrast the two paradigms. Radical feminists saw heterosexual relations as a form of male sexual violence against women while liberal feminists did not share this belief. Liberal feminism focused primarily on breaking away from the “norms of patriarchal bourgeois sexuality [which] repress the sexual desires and pleasures of everyone by stigmatizing sexual minorities” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p. 109). Liberal feminists, similarly to earlier queer theorists, thought the ideal sexual relationships occurred between consenting partners, and that females could reclaim control over their sexuality if they were given the opportunities to explore anything they sexually desired. Radical feminists envisioned women reclaiming control over their sexuality by developing concern with their sexual priorities which are different from those of men and are “more concern[ed] with intimacy and less with performance” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p. 108). For radical feminists, an ideal sexual relationship would also occur between consenting and equal partners (which is impossible under the current patriarchal divisions of power between women and men), but they stressed the importance of emotional involvement, and that the partners must not “participate in polarized roles” and eliminate “all patriarchal institutions” (Ferguson et al., 1984, p. 108). What liberal feminists fail to realize is exactly what radical feminists were trying to emphasize; “the power context that determines most alleged ‘choices’” (Donovan, 1997). Under existing patriarchal institutions, women are placed in unequal and coercive positions that influence their “consent” as they remain unconsciously submissive to the power and control of male ideologies.

STAY TUNED NEXT WEEK FOR PART 3 OF THIS 3-PART SERIES!

References

Capella, M. L., Hill, R. P., Rapp, J. M., & Kees, J. (2010). THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN ADVERTISEMENTS. Journal of Advertising, 39(4), 37–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25780658 

Chan, C., & Beltrand, B. (1985, Apr 27). Andrea dworkin on pornography. Gay Community News, 12, 6-7. Retrieved from https://lib-proxy01.skidmore.edu/login?url=https:// www.proquest.com/magazines/andrea-dworkin-on-pornography/docview/2171700953/se-2?accountid=13894

Comella, L. (2015). Revisiting the Feminist Sex Wars [Review of Battling Pornography: The American Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement, 1976–1986; Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism; $pread: The Best of the Magazine That Illuminated the Sex Industry and Started a Media Revolution, by Carolyn Bronstein, Julia Long, & Rachel Aimee, Eliyanna Kaiser, and Audacia Ray]. Feminist Studies, 41(2), 437–462. https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.41.2.437 

Dworkin, A. (1987). Intercourse. Print. 

Dines, Gail, and Karla Mantilla. “Pornography and Pop Culture: Putting the Text in Context: What Is Pornography Really About?” Off Our Backs, vol. 37, no. 1, off our backs, inc., 2007, pp. 56–57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20838775. 

Donovan, J. (1997). Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed; all the rage; reasserting radical lesbian feminism. NWSA Journal, 9(3), 181. Retrieved from https://lib proxy01.skidmore.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/radically speaking-feminism-reclaimed-all-rage/docview/233240033/se-2?accountid=13894 

Douglas, C. A. (1990, Apr 30). Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America 1967-1975. Off our Backs, 20, 16. Retrieved from https://lib-proxy01.skidmore.edu/login?url=https:// www.proquest.com/magazines/daring-be-bad-radical-feminism-america-1967-1975/ docview/197159491/se-2?accountid=13894 

Douglas, C. A. (2005, May). In memoriam: Andrea Dworkin radical feminist. Off our Backs, 35, 12-15. Retrieved from https://lib-proxy01.skidmore.edu/login?url=https:// www.proquest.com/magazines/memoriam-andrea-dworkin-radical-feminist/ docview/197135676/se-2?accountid=13894 

Federici, Silvia. Beyond the Periphery of the Skin: Rethinking, Remaking, and Reclaiming the Body in Contemporary Capitalism. , 2020. 

Ferguson, A. (1984). Sex War: The Debate between Radical and Libertarian Feminists. Signs, 10(1), 106–112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174240 

Hinchliff, S., Gott, M., & Wylie, K. (2009). Holding onto womanhood: a qualitative study of heterosexual women with sexual desire loss. Health, 13(4), 449–465. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/26649970 

Le Masurier, M. (2016). Resurrecting Germaine’s theory of cuntpower. Australian Feminist Studies, 31(87), 28–42. https://doi-org.lib-proxy01.skidmore.edu/ 

10.1080/08164649.2016.1174925 

Mackay, F. (2014). reclaiming revolutionary feminism. Feminist Review, 106, 95–103. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/24571941 

Meyer, D. (1987). Sex and Power : The Rise of Women in America, Russia, Sweden, and Italy. Wesleyan University Press. 

Rudy, K. (2001). Radical Feminism, Lesbian Separatism, and Queer Theory. Feminist Studies, 27(1), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178457 

Shulman, A. K. (1980). Sex and Power: Sexual Bases of Radical Feminism. Signs, 5(4), 590– 604. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173832 

Prins, B. (2008). Sympathetic Distrust: Liberalism and the Sexual Autonomy of Women. Social Theory and Practice, 34(2), 243–270. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23558667Willis, Ellen. “Toward a Feminist Sexual Revolution.” Social Text, no. 6, Duke University Press, 1982, pp. 3–21, https://doi.org/10.2307/466614.

Read More: WoLF Tracks

Contributors to WoLF Tracks have provided permission to share their content. While WoLF does not necessarily endorse all of the content in WoLF Tracks, we value our members' contributions and request revisions or edits to improve readability. Please read our User Generated Content policy for more information on community content. Learn more about WoLF membership here.