Comments on: Femmostroppo Reader – July 6, 2009

By: Linda Radfem

Linda Radfem — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:57:19 +0000

“Both Liam and I tend to be rather meticulous, verging on hyperpedantic, in how we use words, if you haven’t picked up on that yet.”
I hadn’t.

“I think your tactic of refusing to use it to describe other groups because it has been used to demonise radfems is totally arseabout wrongheaded – using the word “radical” accurately to describe ALL the political/ideological groups to which it pertains is the only way to strip it of the acquired “pop” meaning of “some kind of terrorist”.”

Maybe that’s true here in such highbrow internet spaces.

“Obviously I’m living a sheltered life, since I’ve never had to explain to anyone that a radical feminist is not a terrorist.”

Obviously you are.

By: Liam

Liam — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:21:21 +0000

Having thought about it more, I think we might be getting hung up on words a bit. There's radicalism which denotes strict adherence to an ideal, and radicalism which denotes extremist, fringe politics, and radicalisms which are specific political movements (radical feminism, obviously, but also Radical organised movements in the English, French and Spanish 19th century). They don't necessarily overlap. I think what really was what I meant was that the feminism Palin claims is both very right wing and very uncompromising. On feminist-terrorists: Valerie Solanas is be the closest I can think of, Rebekka.

Up Your Ass may be the only play produced at gunpoint across a chasm of three decades.

What I'd give to be a reviewer in the position to write a sentence like that. [Disclaimer: I've always seen the appeal, in Solanas' SCUM Manifesto of being one of the "few remaining men" eking out my life drugged in a machine economy, riding the wave to my demise---but that perhaps is just me.]

By: Rebekka

Rebekka — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:45:04 +0000

Obviously I’m living a sheltered life, since I’ve never had to explain to anyone that a radical feminist is not a terrorist.

I also think using the “extremism” to describe the right wing that Sarah Palin is a part of is not really accurate. I disagree vehemently with her politics, but I think if we’re going to talk about the extreme bit of the right then it’s fascists and Nazis and and people like the BNP, not Repbulicans, who though repugnant in many ways are still part of the democratic process. It’s like equating the right wing of the ALP with Stalinism.

By: tigtog

tigtog — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:38:29 +0000

e.g.
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney – radical “economic rationalists” aka radical Friedmanites

Franklin D Roosevelt – radical Keynesian

Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins – radical atheists

Quakers & Amish – radical pacifists

The parents of Pop in Sweden – radical gender-egalitarians

Dominionists – radical right-wing Christians

Universal Unitarians – radical religious-tolerationists

Wahabists – radical right-wing Muslims

Alaska Independence Party, Texas National Movement – radical secessionists

By: tigtog

tigtog — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:22:00 +0000

@ Linda Radfem:

Both Liam and I tend to be rather meticulous, verging on hyperpedantic, in how we use words, if you haven’t picked up on that yet.

I think your tactic of refusing to use it to describe other groups because it has been used to demonise radfems is totally arseabout wrongheaded – using the word “radical” accurately to describe ALL the political/ideological groups to which it pertains is the only way to strip it of the acquired “pop” meaning of “some kind of terrorist”.

By: Linda Radfem

Linda Radfem — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:01:16 +0000

Yes I know what radical means, thankyou tig tog. It sounded like Liam was trying to say extremely right wing, and since radical is a term that’s so often demonised as it is, I don’t think it’s helpful to associate it with the hard right or any other form of extremism. It’s difficult enough constantly having to explain to people that radical, as in radical feminist, doesn’t mean one is some kind of terrorist, but rather just that one recognises the heart of the problem.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:09:42 +0000

Yeah, what TT said (though reactionary revolutionaries are generally better identified as counter-revolutionists, if only because that’s when they tend to emerge). Palin’s appeal was certainly one of uncompromising, aggressive, opposition to social institutions, even if they were incoherent appeals. “Drill! Drill! Drill!”, for instance.
Or, to quote the musical;

Dr Who? Dr Hewson!
Sit up straight when I’m talking to you, son,
I’m the magical might
from the radical right,
I’m gonna light up the night
With a scheme and a dream so bright…

By: tigtog

tigtog — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:46:02 +0000

One can be radically anything. The word just means “from the root”, refusing to compromise on fundamental beliefs, so it is entirely possible to be a radical traditionalist just as one can be a radical revolutionary (one can also be a reactionary revolutionary).

By: Linda Radfem

Linda Radfem — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:31:52 +0000

How can one be “radically right wing”?

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:50 +0000

There’s no shame in a bit of healthy political hate, TT, and I’m certainly not going to judge if you indulge. Rational or irrational, political antipathy’s what victory’s made of.
Remember that Palin’s selection was itself an attempt to make a radically right-wing version of feminism into campaign fodder, as if standing for the sentiment that people like Sarah Palin should succeed in life were the same thing as voting for her as an administrator and political leader. Palin’s appeal was and is explicitly anti-political.
Over to Ta-Nehisi Coates:

This is not off-the-cuff. It was prepared in advance, and, on video, it actually managed to make it sound worse. I just don’t think there’s much going on here except a deep-seated pride in a deep-seated ignorance. I don’t know what else to say.