Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Daring to Be Bad

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Books - History - Women's & Gender History

View more figures from University of Southern California

View the page of Alice Echols

Read the Study

Alice Echols reveals how current debates about race, transgender rights, queer theory, and sexuality echo issues that galvanized and divided feminists fifty years ago.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 22, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video provides a detailed narrative about the author's research into radical feminism during the early 1980s, exploring its historical context and evolution. As a graduate student, the author sought to write a dissertation on the 1960s, reflecting on their own peripheral involvement in activism, particularly in Washington D.C., around that time. Initially, there was a cultural prohibition against writing about the recent past, but this began to change as notable books on the 1960s and feminism emerged, highlighting gaps in historical understanding, particularly regarding radical feminism.

The author emphasizes that radical feminism was often misrepresented and overshadowed by liberal feminism, which dominated discussions of women's rights. The focus of radical feminists on issues like bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and a critique of traditional gender roles presented a more comprehensive and transformative vision for feminist politics. This video video radical perspective emerged from the New Left and the Civil Rights Movement, challenging not only the societal norms of the time but also the frameworks within which feminism itself was discussed.

As the author conducted extensive interviews with women involved in the radical feminist movement, they recognized a tension within feminism: some sought to celebrate femininity while others aimed to reject traditional femininity altogether. The narrative captures the internal conflicts within the movement, particularly around issues like sexuality, race, and class, which led to significant debates, including the "sex wars" of the late 1970s to early 1990s.

Overall, the text reveals how radical feminism, while often marginalized, laid the groundwork for significant feminist advances and sought to address the deeper societal structures underpinning women's oppression, ultimately pushing the feminist movement toward a more inclusive and holistic understanding of gender and societal power dynamics.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from the video:

1. **On the initial research motivation:**
- "I had always wanted to write about the 1960s, which I had been very peripherally involved in."

2. **On the challenges of writing about the recent past:**
- "There was this prohibition against writing about the recent past. I, I think that that's lessened somewhat... it wasn't considered kosher... to be writing about the recent past."

3. **On the influence of recent publications:**
- "Then these books about the sixties began to be published... if these people... are doing it and they're young."

4. **On the distortion of radical feminism:**
- "To the extent that it wasn't remembered... it was usually... a pretty distorted version of it. Radical feminists were man haters. That's about as far as it went."

5. **On the overlooked aspects of feminism:**
- "...liberal feminism... would get credited with feminism's successes... I felt lost in this... what were the most visionary parts of second wave feminism."

6. **On radical feminism's emergence:**
- "Radical feminism was... as I was writing... evolving in ways that seemed to me to be fundamentally at odds with some of the founding ideas of radical feminism."

7. **On the importance of personal experiences:**
- "Radical feminism took very seriously the sixties idea that the personal is political."

8. **On the differences between feminist movements:**
- "What was radical feminism? It insisted that the oppression of women was fundamental, maybe even the primary oppression from which all else followed."

9. **On the aspect of autonomy in radical feminism:**
- "Radical feminists... believed that it required the formation of an independent movement that would be autonomous from other sixties movements."

10. **On the dynamic nature of feminism:**
- "Social movements are always changing. They're dynamic... it was a very different animal from what it would become."

11. **On the tensions within radical feminism:**
- "Within radical feminism, there were those who wanted to celebrate women and femaleness, and those who wanted to rebel against the feminine."

12. **On the backlash within the feminist movement:**
- "When activists try to set down the law... it's almost bound to cause a backlash from people who don’t feel seen and don’t feel validated."

These quotes encapsulate some of the central themes of the speaker's research and perspective on radical feminism, its historical convideo, and its evolution over time.

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.695 --> 00:04.735
I began to research that book in the early 1980s,

00:06.375 --> 00:08.115
and I was a graduate student

00:08.775 --> 00:12.675
and PhD students have to do something,

00:12.675 --> 00:14.555
which is write a dissertation.

00:15.935 --> 00:19.515
So I was looking around

00:20.255 --> 00:23.755
and I had always wanted to write about the 1960s,

00:24.565 --> 00:27.955
which I had been very peripherally involved in.

00:28.675 --> 00:32.715
I graduated high school in 1969 in Washington DC which,

00:32.815 --> 00:35.995
you know, there was a fair amount of activism at that point,

00:36.975 --> 00:38.035
it's fair to say.

00:38.535 --> 00:40.395
But there was this prohibition

00:40.945 --> 00:43.755
against writing about the recent past.

00:44.195 --> 00:46.635
I, I think that that's lessened somewhat,

00:46.775 --> 00:50.475
but certainly when I was a graduate student, it,

00:50.535 --> 00:53.755
it wasn't considered kosher as, you know, you might say,

00:53.855 --> 00:56.115
to be writing about the recent past.

00:57.055 --> 01:01.435
But then these books about the sixties began

01:01.455 --> 01:03.515
to be published, and I'm thinking here

01:03.515 --> 01:06.275
of Claiborne Carson's in Struggle about the Student

01:06.285 --> 01:09.315
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which was the most sort

01:09.315 --> 01:12.875
of militant, group of the Civil Rights movement.

01:13.215 --> 01:17.195
And then Sarah Evans wrote a book about the woman's

01:17.195 --> 01:20.075
liberation movement of the 1960s.

01:20.495 --> 01:24.555
And I began to think, wow, gosh, you know, if these people,

01:24.665 --> 01:26.235
they're professional historians,

01:26.235 --> 01:28.195
if they're doing it and they're young.

01:28.615 --> 01:32.155
And the other thing was Sarah Evans's personal politics

01:32.305 --> 01:36.195
effectively ended in 1968, which was just

01:36.215 --> 01:38.715
as radical feminism, which I'll get to in a minute,

01:38.855 --> 01:39.875
was beginning to grow.

01:40.895 --> 01:43.565
And I looked at the situation

01:43.565 --> 01:46.685
and I thought, aha, there is a lacuna here,

01:46.895 --> 01:48.285
there is an opportunity,

01:48.285 --> 01:51.485
there's a whole right history of graphical hole.

01:51.985 --> 01:56.205
So there was that. As a graduate student, I was also aware

01:56.585 --> 01:59.005
as somebody who had been, as I said, sort

01:59.005 --> 02:03.965
of tangentially involved in activism, that there was this

02:04.475 --> 02:08.205
sort of culture wide in America, this sort of forgetting

02:08.585 --> 02:09.845
of radical feminism.

02:10.985 --> 02:13.925
Um, and to the extent that it wasn't remembered

02:13.995 --> 02:17.205
that it was ever remembered, it was usually rem

02:17.315 --> 02:20.125
what was remembered was a pretty distorted version of it.

02:20.395 --> 02:22.805
Radical feminists were man haters.

02:22.805 --> 02:24.165
That's about as far as it went.

02:25.065 --> 02:26.085
And so,

02:26.505 --> 02:28.765
and I could also see in the, the sort

02:28.765 --> 02:30.205
of little thumbnail sketches

02:30.325 --> 02:32.965
that you would get in textbooks, college textbooks,

02:32.965 --> 02:36.445
that when feminism was mentioned, the only part of feminism

02:36.445 --> 02:38.925
that would get mentioned would be liberal feminism.

02:39.705 --> 02:42.325
And it was usually liberal feminism,

02:42.465 --> 02:46.285
and in particular, the National Organization for Women,

02:46.285 --> 02:50.645
or now that would get credited with feminism's successes.

02:51.905 --> 02:56.645
So I felt lost in this was what were the most, some

02:56.645 --> 02:59.765
of the most visionary parts of second wave feminism,

03:00.175 --> 03:04.725
which were put forward initially by radical feminists, such

03:04.725 --> 03:08.125
as the importance of women's bodily self-determination,

03:09.415 --> 03:13.005
which led them to attack restrictive abortion laws,

03:13.625 --> 03:17.525
biased rape laws, incest, domestic violence,

03:18.145 --> 03:20.205
and enforced heterosexuality.

03:21.545 --> 03:24.845
All of that really derived from feminism

03:25.155 --> 03:27.965
that was calling itself radical feminism.

03:28.785 --> 03:31.205
It was audacious, it was daring,

03:31.235 --> 03:32.565
thus, the title of the book.

03:33.145 --> 03:35.845
And it pushed liberal feminist groups

03:36.185 --> 03:39.885
and indeed other feminist groups across that pol

03:39.955 --> 03:44.485
that the political spectrum of feminism to change,

03:45.105 --> 03:47.365
to take more far reaching positions.

03:47.385 --> 03:51.005
So that was the other thing. The third thing was reaganism.

03:51.385 --> 03:55.085
As I was conceiving this book, and as I was researching it

03:55.085 --> 03:57.365
and writing it, it was during the Reagan years,

03:58.105 --> 04:02.085
and Central to Reaganism was a pushback against the sixties.

04:02.905 --> 04:05.285
It sometimes felt to me, as I've written

04:05.285 --> 04:08.085
before, as though the Reagan administration

04:08.225 --> 04:10.725
and the GOP was yanking the country

04:11.395 --> 04:14.365
into reverse gear back into the 1950s.

04:14.955 --> 04:19.685
This was the era in which the Equal Rights Amendment died,

04:19.895 --> 04:22.325
which it died finally in 1982.

04:23.745 --> 04:26.885
Um, it was the era in which abortion rights,

04:26.885 --> 04:28.045
school desegregation,

04:28.155 --> 04:30.765
affirmative action were all under attack.

04:31.625 --> 04:35.125
And finally, radical feminism was not lost on me.

04:35.125 --> 04:37.725
That radical feminism was as I was writing.

04:38.145 --> 04:39.765
And this had been true for a little while.

04:39.825 --> 04:42.845
It was evolving in ways that seemed to me

04:43.425 --> 04:46.565
to be fundamentally at odds with some of the founding ideas

04:47.345 --> 04:49.445
of radical feminism.

04:49.615 --> 04:52.405
First of all, you know, there wasn't a lot

04:52.745 --> 04:54.645
of secondary literature

04:54.645 --> 04:58.045
because, you know, the way I like to research is I like to

04:58.635 --> 05:00.205
read the secondary literature,

05:00.385 --> 05:03.485
or at least begin reading it, get a sense of

05:03.485 --> 05:06.325
what other people have have written about it.

05:06.775 --> 05:09.405
There was virtually nothing on feminism.

05:09.415 --> 05:11.765
There was, you know, Sarah Evans' book,

05:11.815 --> 05:13.125
which was very important.

05:13.945 --> 05:16.725
Um, and there was some material on the Black Freedom

05:17.045 --> 05:18.965
Movement, the Civil Rights Movement on the new left.

05:19.665 --> 05:22.045
Um, so I acquainted myself with all of

05:22.045 --> 05:23.725
that first wave of feminism.

05:24.505 --> 05:25.925
And then I was very lucky

05:25.925 --> 05:28.085
because I was a graduate student at the University

05:28.085 --> 05:29.605
of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

05:29.705 --> 05:32.885
And in Ann Arbor there was a collection called the Labate

05:32.885 --> 05:37.765
Collection, which is a collection of radical slash extremist

05:38.405 --> 05:41.045
literature, but it really tends to focus on the left,

05:41.305 --> 05:45.285
on left wing, progressive expressions of radicalism.

05:45.625 --> 05:49.285
And there I was able to systematically go

05:49.285 --> 05:53.685
through back issues of, all kinds of magazines

05:53.705 --> 05:56.205
and periodicals of both

05:57.025 --> 06:00.285
The new left SDS students for a Democratic society,

06:00.345 --> 06:03.645
in particular, the publications that were associated

06:03.835 --> 06:07.645
with SNC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,

06:08.585 --> 06:12.445
and all of the newspapers that grew up

06:13.185 --> 06:14.365
in the late sixties

06:14.505 --> 06:16.885
and early seventies that were related to

06:17.625 --> 06:19.725
the Woman's Liberation movement.

06:20.625 --> 06:22.365
But still, you know,

06:22.605 --> 06:26.165
I couldn't have written this book had I not created my own

06:26.195 --> 06:31.165
archive, which involved doing oral histories with 41 women.

06:31.865 --> 06:35.165
Um, and these were quite extensive undertakings,

06:35.865 --> 06:39.445
and it meant getting, having a, a kind of entree into

06:40.345 --> 06:44.005
the world of these, founders

06:44.305 --> 06:45.485
of radical feminism.

06:46.005 --> 06:48.685
I focused on New York City, which was where it kind

06:48.685 --> 06:50.285
of first really developed.

06:50.585 --> 06:53.445
Um, and it's, you know, I would say now

06:53.445 --> 06:55.885
that it is a weakest, a sort of weakness of the book,

06:55.885 --> 06:57.325
that it's so New York centric.

06:57.825 --> 07:00.365
Um, there were some in New York, I mean,

07:00.365 --> 07:02.645
there were some in Washington, there were some in Chicago

07:03.025 --> 07:05.245
and in various other places, Boston.

07:05.385 --> 07:08.365
But for the most part, I was focused on New York City,

07:09.025 --> 07:12.245
and it was those long interviews, sometimes two to three,

07:12.245 --> 07:15.085
to four to five, six hours long, you know, that

07:15.905 --> 07:19.605
really gave me the material that made it possible for me

07:19.605 --> 07:21.045
to write daring to be bad.

07:21.455 --> 07:23.125
First of all, I wanna say,

07:23.125 --> 07:26.245
because people, especially young people today,

07:26.355 --> 07:29.165
when they hear the word rad, the term radical feminism,

07:29.165 --> 07:31.285
they think, my God, it's transphobic.

07:31.825 --> 07:35.445
And it's true that there are people who have

07:36.195 --> 07:39.245
long identified as radical feminists whose views

07:39.815 --> 07:41.485
would be considered transphobic.

07:41.635 --> 07:44.485
That is true, but it's not the case that

07:45.035 --> 07:48.485
radical feminism was across the board in any way, shape,

07:48.485 --> 07:51.285
or form transphobic 50 years ago.

07:51.945 --> 07:54.725
Um, so I just wanted to make that clear.

07:55.145 --> 07:58.245
I'm talking about what it looked like in the book,

07:58.315 --> 08:02.925
what it looked like from really about 1967 through

08:02.925 --> 08:03.965
to the beginning of the eighties.

08:04.185 --> 08:07.165
So radical feminism occupied

08:08.365 --> 08:12.885
a very dynamic and heterodox corner of second wave feminism.

08:13.705 --> 08:17.805
It grew out of the New Left and the Black Freedom Movement.

08:18.225 --> 08:21.125
And it was in those movements that women,

08:21.335 --> 08:25.845
young women both learned a lot about political organizing,

08:25.945 --> 08:29.525
but also, and this was particularly true of white women

08:29.945 --> 08:31.645
for a complicated set of reasons,

08:33.195 --> 08:35.525
felt themselves stymied, felt

08:35.545 --> 08:37.645
as though they were second class citizens.

08:37.905 --> 08:40.165
Um, and we can talk about this later,

08:40.165 --> 08:41.405
because I think the experience

08:41.405 --> 08:43.685
of black women in the Civil rights movement

08:43.905 --> 08:45.085
was distinctly different.

08:46.305 --> 08:51.045
But for white, young white women who saw themselves

08:51.065 --> 08:53.365
as radicals and were involved in these

08:53.645 --> 08:54.805
movements, they experienced them

08:54.825 --> 08:58.445
As male dominated ones in which they learned a lot.

08:58.545 --> 09:02.885
But nonetheless, male dominated movements, radical feminism,

09:03.065 --> 09:04.925
and another kind of feminism,

09:04.975 --> 09:07.485
which called itself socialist feminism

09:08.115 --> 09:09.805
emerged from the new left

09:10.185 --> 09:14.565
and the Civil Rights Movement, the differences between them,

09:14.755 --> 09:15.885
however, are,

09:15.885 --> 09:17.565
and this is a way of answering your question,

09:17.755 --> 09:19.325
what is radical feminism?

09:19.355 --> 09:23.925
What was it was that radical feminism insisted

09:24.675 --> 09:29.165
that the oppression of women was fundamental, maybe even

09:30.625 --> 09:35.005
the primary oppression from which all else followed.

09:35.745 --> 09:39.525
And they also felt that it required the formation

09:39.625 --> 09:41.325
of an independent movement

09:41.355 --> 09:44.485
that would be autonomous from other sixties movements.

09:45.265 --> 09:47.365
And it has to be said, really, you know,

09:47.365 --> 09:50.925
that these other sixties movements, which were male dominant

09:51.755 --> 09:54.125
were fairly hostile to feminism.

09:54.965 --> 09:57.005
I mean, not fairly. They were hostile to fem.

09:57.275 --> 09:59.645
Many of them were, many of the men involved were hostile

09:59.745 --> 10:01.445
to feminism and some of the women too.

10:02.385 --> 10:06.045
Um, there was another big difference, I would say

10:06.045 --> 10:07.605
between radical feminists

10:07.665 --> 10:10.005
and socialist feminists, which was

10:10.515 --> 10:14.405
that radical feminists really wanted to start from scratch.

10:14.835 --> 10:19.365
Theoretically, they rejected all received orthodoxies.

10:20.145 --> 10:22.445
So while they were anti-capitalist,

10:22.445 --> 10:26.645
and quite explicitly so they also believed that Karl Marx

10:26.905 --> 10:30.885
and any, any other important left wing thinkers

10:30.885 --> 10:34.565
that you could think of, didn't know anything about women.

10:34.865 --> 10:39.445
And what they had, like engles, what they had advanced,

10:39.785 --> 10:41.645
was not of much use to them.

10:42.385 --> 10:45.325
So they wanted to start from scratch, and they wanted,

10:45.465 --> 10:48.165
and their idea of how best to do that was

10:48.165 --> 10:51.405
to practice something that was called consciousness raising,

10:52.135 --> 10:56.205
where women would talk amongst themselves in small groups

10:56.735 --> 10:57.885
about their experiences,

10:58.025 --> 11:00.925
and from those experiences would try to build theory.

11:02.945 --> 11:07.325
Now, this was something that

11:08.105 --> 11:11.205
in many ways, I wouldn't say

11:11.205 --> 11:14.045
that socialist feminists didn't practice C cr,

11:14.345 --> 11:16.885
but this was forged by radical feminists.

11:17.465 --> 11:19.725
Um, the other important difference is that

11:20.475 --> 11:22.925
they really did believe,

11:23.865 --> 11:26.285
and socialist feminists were more equivocal here,

11:26.485 --> 11:30.445
I would say they believed that people needed to organize

11:30.445 --> 11:32.765
around their own oppression, not the oppression

11:32.765 --> 11:34.725
of other people, as many

11:34.725 --> 11:37.965
of them had done in the Civil Rights Movement when they had

11:37.965 --> 11:40.125
been sort of the support troops

11:40.225 --> 11:41.365
for the Civil Rights Movement.

11:41.715 --> 11:44.965
Another key thing about radical feminism,

11:45.195 --> 11:46.765
more than socialist feminism,

11:46.765 --> 11:49.885
certainly more than liberal feminism, radical feminism,

11:49.995 --> 11:52.405
took very seriously the sixties idea

11:53.275 --> 11:54.765
that the personal is political.

11:55.865 --> 11:58.245
It showed more than any of the other movements

11:58.675 --> 12:02.445
that personal life really truly is embedded in larger

12:03.195 --> 12:04.405
circuitries of power.

12:04.985 --> 12:08.165
Who cooks the meals, who changes the baby's diapers,

12:08.345 --> 12:11.685
who makes the bed, who foregoes the orgasms

12:11.805 --> 12:14.885
and the interest of their boyfriends or husbands?

12:15.515 --> 12:16.645
That was political.

12:16.825 --> 12:19.365
It wasn't simply the way things are

12:19.385 --> 12:21.085
and the way that things have to be.

12:21.625 --> 12:22.685
It was political.

12:23.385 --> 12:27.285
So what others saw as kind of inevitable, timeless,

12:27.585 --> 12:30.005
you know, women get married, they don't work outside

12:30.245 --> 12:32.965
of the home, or if they do, they work only for pin money,

12:33.595 --> 12:36.125
that women are heterosexual, of course,

12:36.305 --> 12:39.765
unless they're deviant, that they must conform to kind

12:39.765 --> 12:42.685
of prevailing conventions of femininity.

12:43.655 --> 12:46.485
Those were things that radical feminists took on.

12:46.905 --> 12:51.245
Uh, Stein, at full throttle,

12:51.675 --> 12:55.245
they created rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters,

12:55.355 --> 12:59.605
women's bookstores, music festivals as for liberal feminism,

12:59.985 --> 13:03.445
the challenge that they pose to liberal

13:04.845 --> 13:07.445
feminists was that you see,

13:07.445 --> 13:10.885
liberal feminists were very much about trying to increase

13:11.435 --> 13:15.005
women's participation in the public arena on equal

13:15.015 --> 13:16.525
terms to those of men.

13:17.035 --> 13:21.285
That was now's remit national organization from that was,

13:21.285 --> 13:25.205
you know, it was about getting women in the public arena on

13:25.215 --> 13:27.645
equal, on an equal footing with men.

13:28.785 --> 13:32.165
And radical feminists said, Hey, the only way that

13:32.165 --> 13:34.285
that is gonna work if you is,

13:34.285 --> 13:37.805
if you do also address the iniquities

13:38.585 --> 13:41.125
in personal life, including in families.

13:42.025 --> 13:45.365
So you had the leading liberal feminist, Betty Friedan,

13:45.425 --> 13:47.045
the author of The Feminine Mystique,

13:47.045 --> 13:48.565
which had been very influential

13:48.985 --> 13:51.245
by the mid seventies, even earlier.

13:51.625 --> 13:54.525
She is attacking radical feminism

13:55.065 --> 13:56.725
for focusing on the personal.

13:57.025 --> 13:59.285
She talks about it as naval gazing,

14:00.025 --> 14:01.285
and she's very critical of it.

14:02.225 --> 14:03.365
But it's interesting

14:03.395 --> 14:06.565
because at the same time that Free Dan is doing that,

14:08.265 --> 14:10.285
the constituency within

14:11.375 --> 14:14.965
these now chapters is moving to the left

14:15.385 --> 14:19.005
and moving to some extent into the arms of radical feminism.

14:19.825 --> 14:24.085
And so there's, it's, it can be difficult by the time we get

14:24.085 --> 14:28.725
to the late seventies to really make meaningful distinctions

14:28.915 --> 14:31.685
between liberal, some liberal feminists

14:31.685 --> 14:33.005
and some radical feminists.

14:33.005 --> 14:35.925
Because very often by that point, there are some of them

14:36.235 --> 14:38.045
that are working together.

14:38.465 --> 14:42.645
And, you know, even now begins, now chapters begin

14:42.645 --> 14:44.805
to run their own consciousness raising groups,

14:45.175 --> 14:46.965
which is an interesting development.

14:47.345 --> 14:50.805
So they're really borrowing, I mean, see, radical feminism

14:51.065 --> 14:53.205
Is like the radical engine, you know,

14:53.315 --> 14:54.685
that gets everything going.

14:55.545 --> 14:57.085
Now it does cut out.

14:57.585 --> 14:59.645
But the beneficiary of all of that,

15:00.045 --> 15:03.485
I would say more than any other group, is liberal feminism.

15:04.045 --> 15:06.405
I spend a lot of time in the book,

15:06.835 --> 15:10.365
writing about the evolution of radical feminism.

15:11.065 --> 15:14.125
And I think one of the important things just to, to sort

15:14.125 --> 15:17.565
of create some context here is that of course, you know,

15:17.565 --> 15:19.485
social movements are always changing.

15:19.555 --> 15:21.805
They're dynamic. You know, if you were

15:21.805 --> 15:23.605
to look at the sixties movements, if you were

15:23.605 --> 15:26.085
to look at the new left, the, you know, the new left

15:27.345 --> 15:30.485
as it began to take shape in let's say 62

15:30.505 --> 15:34.525
and 63, it was a very different animal from

15:34.525 --> 15:37.325
what it would become just three to four years later.

15:38.105 --> 15:42.365
You know, initially a movement that sort of thought, well,

15:42.745 --> 15:45.805
you know, the working class is not the

15:46.005 --> 15:47.525
revolutionary agent of change.

15:47.825 --> 15:49.965
You know, we have to look to students and,

15:50.625 --> 15:51.925
and also black people

15:52.265 --> 15:56.405
and intellectuals, you know, we can't go back to Marx

15:56.405 --> 15:57.565
and Lennon and all of that.

15:57.715 --> 16:02.165
Well, by the time we get to 67, 68, 69, it's like,

16:02.505 --> 16:06.245
my god, you know, just one resurrection, a

16:06.265 --> 16:08.805
of another, of some left wing thinker, right?

16:09.905 --> 16:12.805
And so, you know, they completely change

16:13.465 --> 16:17.765
people in the, the radical wing of the civil rights movement

16:17.985 --> 16:20.725
who had understood non-violence

16:21.025 --> 16:24.885
and inter racialism as radical, you know,

16:25.185 --> 16:29.285
by 19 65, 66, they're questioning it.

16:29.285 --> 16:31.325
They've become increasingly skeptical

16:31.425 --> 16:32.605
and they move away from it.

16:33.345 --> 16:36.565
So these, so these movements are, movements are dynamic.

16:37.105 --> 16:39.285
And within feminism,

16:39.345 --> 16:43.725
and within radical feminism in particular, I think one

16:43.725 --> 16:45.885
of the things that's really important to understand,

16:46.225 --> 16:50.685
and, another scholar, who is no longer with us,

16:50.985 --> 16:54.725
an sau pointed to this, a number of years ago,

16:54.745 --> 16:58.445
she wrote a, a terrific article called a Gender Diary,

16:59.025 --> 17:01.645
in which, which she begins by saying, you know,

17:01.645 --> 17:04.405
she's talking about, the friendships

17:04.435 --> 17:07.725
that she had in an early consciousness racing group,

17:07.785 --> 17:09.325
and she was one of the founders

17:09.665 --> 17:11.765
of radical feminism in New York.

17:12.625 --> 17:15.885
And what she says is, you know, she, she began to,

17:16.265 --> 17:18.325
to discover several years

17:18.455 --> 17:22.965
after they were meeting that what for her had always been

17:23.545 --> 17:24.845
the sort of great joy

17:25.065 --> 17:27.565
and revelation of radical feminism was

17:27.565 --> 17:29.525
that you didn't have to be a woman.

17:29.985 --> 17:32.605
You know, you could break gender conventions,

17:33.265 --> 17:36.005
but for some of her very best friends,

17:36.385 --> 17:38.125
it was not that at all.

17:38.445 --> 17:42.205
Feminism enabled them to feel good about being a woman.

17:43.425 --> 17:45.925
So there were those from the very beginning.

17:45.925 --> 17:48.165
Within radical feminism, there were those

17:48.745 --> 17:51.845
Who wanted to celebrate women and femaleness,

17:52.345 --> 17:54.965
and those who wanted to rebel against the feminine.

17:55.185 --> 17:56.925
So there was always a tension,

17:57.505 --> 17:59.885
and it wasn't one that, you know, even some

17:59.885 --> 18:02.405
of the smartest people in the movement were even aware

18:02.425 --> 18:04.685
of at first, which is, which is interesting.

18:05.915 --> 18:10.485
Gradually, some radical feminists begin to argue

18:12.265 --> 18:14.475
that what feminism really needed

18:14.475 --> 18:17.035
to be focused on was creating a kind

18:17.035 --> 18:19.795
of female counterculture in which,

18:20.185 --> 18:22.715
what they called woman identified values,

18:23.255 --> 18:24.755
not male identified values,

18:24.775 --> 18:27.995
but women identified values would holds way.

18:28.425 --> 18:31.075
This is not unlike what happened a few years earlier

18:31.815 --> 18:33.955
in the Black Freedom Movement with the move

18:33.955 --> 18:35.075
to black consciousness

18:35.335 --> 18:39.355
and this need to try to felt, need to try

18:39.355 --> 18:42.475
to develop a uniquely black set of cultural

18:42.995 --> 18:44.035
practices and values.

18:45.055 --> 18:49.515
Um, in any case, the other piece of this,

18:49.665 --> 18:52.755
it's important to know in order to make sense of

18:52.755 --> 18:56.635
what happens in this, in this shift, is

18:56.635 --> 19:00.435
that second wave feminists had already been doing battle

19:01.205 --> 19:02.475
about they, you know,

19:03.055 --> 19:06.315
they'd been having these incredibly acrimonious battles

19:06.315 --> 19:07.355
around sex

19:08.135 --> 19:11.475
and in particular around lesbianism.

19:11.575 --> 19:16.235
And those began to take shape around 71, 72, 73, 74.

19:16.855 --> 19:21.405
Um, was lesbianism really the

19:21.405 --> 19:23.045
correct feminist position?

19:23.745 --> 19:28.205
Um, one famous feminist said, feminism is the theory

19:28.265 --> 19:29.885
and lesbianism is the practice.

19:30.065 --> 19:31.805
And some women thought that was right,

19:31.825 --> 19:34.525
and others thought that was complete, you know, BS

19:35.305 --> 19:37.445
And there were also a lot of fights about class

19:37.625 --> 19:38.725
and class privilege.

19:38.725 --> 19:40.565
There were a lot of fights about race

19:40.665 --> 19:42.485
and racial privilege,

19:42.715 --> 19:44.525
what was then called white skin privilege.

19:45.465 --> 19:49.365
And so this shift towards a kind of embrace

19:49.905 --> 19:51.125
of sisterhood

19:51.345 --> 19:55.305
and female, a set of female counter values,

19:56.125 --> 19:59.785
seemed to me an effort to put those kinds

20:00.025 --> 20:03.905
of acrimonious differences aside in order

20:04.005 --> 20:07.025
to proclaim a kind of great sisterhood of women

20:08.325 --> 20:10.185
and to build specifically women's

20:10.185 --> 20:12.065
institutions and communities.

20:12.925 --> 20:15.945
And so I think it was in some ways a kind

20:15.945 --> 20:18.345
of reaction against the turmoil

20:18.535 --> 20:21.465
that had engulfed feminism in conflict

20:22.525 --> 20:25.745
and in practice, though, as they tried to create this,

20:25.845 --> 20:30.105
you know, this sort of, these communities rooted in,

20:30.845 --> 20:32.105
female identified

20:32.105 --> 20:36.985
or woman identified values, it, it, it actually,

20:37.445 --> 20:38.825
had the opposite effect.

20:39.205 --> 20:42.425
Um, it meant drawing lines between women.

20:42.715 --> 20:46.825
There were women who assumed to, as part of this shift

20:46.885 --> 20:49.005
To what I call cultural feminism

20:49.005 --> 20:52.645
and other people had called it as well, there were women

20:52.745 --> 20:55.925
who were aligned with that shift who were saying that,

20:55.945 --> 20:58.165
you know, men and women are fundamentally different.

20:58.585 --> 21:00.285
And women, you know,

21:00.435 --> 21:02.605
when they would write about women in their sexuality,

21:02.755 --> 21:06.605
they would write about it in terms of their sensuality

21:06.825 --> 21:08.085
or their eroticism,

21:08.745 --> 21:12.565
and they would write about men as being highly

21:13.375 --> 21:16.005
sexualized, if not oversexualized.

21:16.905 --> 21:21.385
And so that kind of them

21:21.385 --> 21:24.275
and us, right men

21:24.355 --> 21:29.235
and women made some other radical feminists say,

21:29.935 --> 21:32.475
aren't we just reproducing the old

21:32.475 --> 21:34.155
assumptions about men and women?

21:35.155 --> 21:37.175
You know, is that what's happening here?

21:37.835 --> 21:42.615
And this would break out into a much bigger fight that

21:43.605 --> 21:47.935
many people have characterized as the sex wars that sort

21:47.935 --> 21:51.815
of debilitated feminism for a period of time,

21:51.815 --> 21:53.455
beginning in the late seventies

21:53.635 --> 21:57.175
and reaching through really until the early 1990s.

21:57.635 --> 21:59.895
And it was a fight about pornography

22:00.275 --> 22:03.815
and what to do about pornography, if anything,

22:04.075 --> 22:06.855
and about certain sexual styles and practices.

22:07.195 --> 22:11.255
And it, it ended up sort of getting resolved, I would say,

22:11.275 --> 22:12.375
by the early nineties.

22:12.395 --> 22:14.535
But I think it's still a kind of active issue.

22:14.635 --> 22:19.055
You know, how women, how we should think about,

22:19.385 --> 22:23.135
about sex and sexuality if there are particularly

22:23.655 --> 22:27.015
feminist man, you know, expressions or manifestations.

22:27.915 --> 22:31.695
Um, but it, it was a very, very rancorous period.

22:32.475 --> 22:35.255
And so I think it's, it's an irony and,

22:36.475 --> 22:38.375
and I don't think it's unique to feminism.

22:38.615 --> 22:42.655
I think when people try to, when activists try to

22:43.525 --> 22:47.015
sort of set down the law, you know, draw

22:47.695 --> 22:48.975
a line in the sand and,

22:49.155 --> 22:51.935
and say, well, this is what we're about

22:52.195 --> 22:54.615
and we're about, in this case women identified values,

22:55.765 --> 22:59.895
it's almost bound to cause a backlash

23:00.565 --> 23:03.135
from people who, who don't feel seen

23:03.555 --> 23:06.095
and don't feel, validated.

23:06.875 --> 23:10.135
And that is what happened in, in that period.

00:00 - I began to research that book in the early 1980s, and I was a graduate student and PhD students have to do something, which is write a dissertation. So I was looking around and I had always wanted to write about the 1960s,

00:24 - which I had been very peripherally involved in. I graduated high school in 1969 in Washington DC which, you know, there was a fair amount of activism at that point, it's fair to say. But there was this prohibition against writing about the recent past. I, I think that that's lessened somewhat, but certainly when I was a graduate student, it, it wasn't considered kosher as, you know, you might say, to be writing about the recent past.

00:57 - But then these books about the sixties began to be published, and I'm thinking here of Claiborne Carson's in Struggle about the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which was the most sort of militant, group of the Civil Rights movement. And then Sarah Evans wrote a book about the woman's liberation movement of the 1960s. And I began to think, wow, gosh, you know, if these people, they're professional historians, if they're doing it and they're young.

01:28 - And the other thing was Sarah Evans's personal politics effectively ended in 1968, which was just as radical feminism, which I'll get to in a minute, was beginning to grow. And I looked at the situation and I thought, aha, there is a lacuna here, there is an opportunity, there's a whole right history of graphical hole. So there was that. As a graduate student, I was also aware as somebody who had been, as I said, sort

01:59 - of tangentially involved in activism, that there was this sort of culture wide in America, this sort of forgetting of radical feminism. and to the extent that it wasn't remembered that it was ever remembered, it was usually rem what was remembered was a pretty distorted version of it. Radical feminists were man haters. That's about as far as it went. And so, and I could also see in the, the sort

02:28 - of little thumbnail sketches that you would get in textbooks, college textbooks, that when feminism was mentioned, the only part of feminism that would get mentioned would be liberal feminism. And it was usually liberal feminism, and in particular, the National Organization for Women, or now that would get credited with feminism's successes. So I felt lost in this was what were the most, some of the most visionary parts of second wave feminism, which were put forward initially by radical feminists, such

03:04 - as the importance of women's bodily self-determination, which led them to attack restrictive abortion laws, biased rape laws, incest, domestic violence, and enforced heterosexuality. All of that really derived from feminism that was calling itself radical feminism. It was audacious, it was daring, thus, the title of the book. And it pushed liberal feminist groups and indeed other feminist groups across that pol

03:39 - that the political spectrum of feminism to change, to take more far reaching positions. So that was the other thing. The third thing was reaganism. As I was conceiving this book, and as I was researching it and writing it, it was during the Reagan years, and Central to Reaganism was a pushback against the sixties. It sometimes felt to me, as I've written before, as though the Reagan administration and the GOP was yanking the country into reverse gear back into the 1950s.

04:14 - This was the era in which the Equal Rights Amendment died, which it died finally in 1982. it was the era in which abortion rights, school desegregation, affirmative action were all under attack. And finally, radical feminism was not lost on me. That radical feminism was as I was writing. And this had been true for a little while. It was evolving in ways that seemed to me to be fundamentally at odds with some of the founding ideas

04:47 - of radical feminism. First of all, you know, there wasn't a lot of secondary literature because, you know, the way I like to research is I like to read the secondary literature, or at least begin reading it, get a sense of what other people have have written about it. There was virtually nothing on feminism. There was, you know, Sarah Evans' book, which was very important.

05:13 - and there was some material on the Black Freedom Movement, the Civil Rights Movement on the new left. so I acquainted myself with all of that first wave of feminism. And then I was very lucky because I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. And in Ann Arbor there was a collection called the Labate Collection, which is a collection of radical slash extremist literature, but it really tends to focus on the left,

05:41 - on left wing, progressive expressions of radicalism. And there I was able to systematically go through back issues of, all kinds of magazines and periodicals of both The new left SDS students for a Democratic society, in particular, the publications that were associated with SNC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and all of the newspapers that grew up in the late sixties and early seventies that were related to

06:17 - the Woman's Liberation movement. But still, you know, I couldn't have written this book had I not created my own archive, which involved doing oral histories with 41 women. and these were quite extensive undertakings, and it meant getting, having a, a kind of entree into the world of these, founders of radical feminism. I focused on New York City, which was where it kind of first really developed.

06:50 - and it's, you know, I would say now that it is a weakest, a sort of weakness of the book, that it's so New York centric. there were some in New York, I mean, there were some in Washington, there were some in Chicago and in various other places, Boston. But for the most part, I was focused on New York City, and it was those long interviews, sometimes two to three, to four to five, six hours long, you know, that really gave me the material that made it possible for me

07:19 - to write daring to be bad. First of all, I wanna say, because people, especially young people today, when they hear the word rad, the term radical feminism, they think, my God, it's transphobic. And it's true that there are people who have long identified as radical feminists whose views would be considered transphobic. That is true, but it's not the case that radical feminism was across the board in any way, shape,

07:48 - or form transphobic 50 years ago. so I just wanted to make that clear. I'm talking about what it looked like in the book, what it looked like from really about 1967 through to the beginning of the eighties. So radical feminism occupied a very dynamic and heterodox corner of second wave feminism. It grew out of the New Left and the Black Freedom Movement. And it was in those movements that women, young women both learned a lot about political organizing,

08:25 - but also, and this was particularly true of white women for a complicated set of reasons, felt themselves stymied, felt as though they were second class citizens. and we can talk about this later, because I think the experience of black women in the Civil rights movement was distinctly different. But for white, young white women who saw themselves as radicals and were involved in these

08:53 - movements, they experienced them As male dominated ones in which they learned a lot. But nonetheless, male dominated movements, radical feminism, and another kind of feminism, which called itself socialist feminism emerged from the new left and the Civil Rights Movement, the differences between them, however, are, and this is a way of answering your question, what is radical feminism?

09:19 - What was it was that radical feminism insisted that the oppression of women was fundamental, maybe even the primary oppression from which all else followed. And they also felt that it required the formation of an independent movement that would be autonomous from other sixties movements. And it has to be said, really, you know, that these other sixties movements, which were male dominant were fairly hostile to feminism. I mean, not fairly. They were hostile to fem.

09:57 - Many of them were, many of the men involved were hostile to feminism and some of the women too. there was another big difference, I would say between radical feminists and socialist feminists, which was that radical feminists really wanted to start from scratch. Theoretically, they rejected all received orthodoxies. So while they were anti-capitalist, and quite explicitly so they also believed that Karl Marx and any, any other important left wing thinkers

10:30 - that you could think of, didn't know anything about women. And what they had, like engles, what they had advanced, was not of much use to them. So they wanted to start from scratch, and they wanted, and their idea of how best to do that was to practice something that was called consciousness raising, where women would talk amongst themselves in small groups about their experiences, and from those experiences would try to build theory. Now, this was something that

11:08 - in many ways, I wouldn't say that socialist feminists didn't practice C cr, but this was forged by radical feminists. the other important difference is that they really did believe, and socialist feminists were more equivocal here, I would say they believed that people needed to organize around their own oppression, not the oppression of other people, as many of them had done in the Civil Rights Movement when they had

11:37 - been sort of the support troops for the Civil Rights Movement. Another key thing about radical feminism, more than socialist feminism, certainly more than liberal feminism, radical feminism, took very seriously the sixties idea that the personal is political. It showed more than any of the other movements that personal life really truly is embedded in larger circuitries of power.

12:04 - Who cooks the meals, who changes the baby's diapers, who makes the bed, who foregoes the orgasms and the interest of their boyfriends or husbands? That was political. It wasn't simply the way things are and the way that things have to be. It was political. So what others saw as kind of inevitable, timeless, you know, women get married, they don't work outside of the home, or if they do, they work only for pin money,

12:33 - that women are heterosexual, of course, unless they're deviant, that they must conform to kind of prevailing conventions of femininity. Those were things that radical feminists took on. Stein, at full throttle, they created rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters, women's bookstores, music festivals as for liberal feminism, the challenge that they pose to liberal feminists was that you see, liberal feminists were very much about trying to increase

13:11 - women's participation in the public arena on equal terms to those of men. That was now's remit national organization from that was, you know, it was about getting women in the public arena on equal, on an equal footing with men. And radical feminists said, Hey, the only way that that is gonna work if you is, if you do also address the iniquities in personal life, including in families. So you had the leading liberal feminist, Betty Friedan,

13:45 - the author of The Feminine Mystique, which had been very influential by the mid seventies, even earlier. She is attacking radical feminism for focusing on the personal. She talks about it as naval gazing, and she's very critical of it. But it's interesting because at the same time that Free Dan is doing that, the constituency within

14:11 - these now chapters is moving to the left and moving to some extent into the arms of radical feminism. And so there's, it's, it can be difficult by the time we get to the late seventies to really make meaningful distinctions between liberal, some liberal feminists and some radical feminists. Because very often by that point, there are some of them that are working together. And, you know, even now begins, now chapters begin to run their own consciousness raising groups,

14:45 - which is an interesting development. So they're really borrowing, I mean, see, radical feminism Is like the radical engine, you know, that gets everything going. Now it does cut out. But the beneficiary of all of that, I would say more than any other group, is liberal feminism. I spend a lot of time in the book, writing about the evolution of radical feminism. And I think one of the important things just to, to sort

15:14 - of create some context here is that of course, you know, social movements are always changing. They're dynamic. You know, if you were to look at the sixties movements, if you were to look at the new left, the, you know, the new left as it began to take shape in let's say 62 and 63, it was a very different animal from what it would become just three to four years later. You know, initially a movement that sort of thought, well, you know, the working class is not the

15:46 - revolutionary agent of change. You know, we have to look to students and, and also black people and intellectuals, you know, we can't go back to Marx and Lennon and all of that. Well, by the time we get to 67, 68, 69, it's like, my god, you know, just one resurrection, a of another, of some left wing thinker, right? And so, you know, they completely change people in the, the radical wing of the civil rights movement

16:17 - who had understood non-violence and inter racialism as radical, you know, by 19 65, 66, they're questioning it. They've become increasingly skeptical and they move away from it. So these, so these movements are, movements are dynamic. And within feminism, and within radical feminism in particular, I think one of the things that's really important to understand, and, another scholar, who is no longer with us,

16:50 - an sau pointed to this, a number of years ago, she wrote a, a terrific article called a Gender Diary, in which, which she begins by saying, you know, she's talking about, the friendships that she had in an early consciousness racing group, and she was one of the founders of radical feminism in New York. And what she says is, you know, she, she began to, to discover several years after they were meeting that what for her had always been

17:23 - the sort of great joy and revelation of radical feminism was that you didn't have to be a woman. You know, you could break gender conventions, but for some of her very best friends, it was not that at all. Feminism enabled them to feel good about being a woman. So there were those from the very beginning. Within radical feminism, there were those Who wanted to celebrate women and femaleness,

17:52 - and those who wanted to rebel against the feminine. So there was always a tension, and it wasn't one that, you know, even some of the smartest people in the movement were even aware of at first, which is, which is interesting. Gradually, some radical feminists begin to argue that what feminism really needed to be focused on was creating a kind of female counterculture in which, what they called woman identified values,

18:23 - not male identified values, but women identified values would holds way. This is not unlike what happened a few years earlier in the Black Freedom Movement with the move to black consciousness and this need to try to felt, need to try to develop a uniquely black set of cultural practices and values. in any case, the other piece of this, it's important to know in order to make sense of

18:52 - what happens in this, in this shift, is that second wave feminists had already been doing battle about they, you know, they'd been having these incredibly acrimonious battles around sex and in particular around lesbianism. And those began to take shape around 71, 72, 73, 74. was lesbianism really the correct feminist position? one famous feminist said, feminism is the theory

19:28 - and lesbianism is the practice. And some women thought that was right, and others thought that was complete, you know, BS And there were also a lot of fights about class and class privilege. There were a lot of fights about race and racial privilege, what was then called white skin privilege. And so this shift towards a kind of embrace of sisterhood

19:51 - and female, a set of female counter values, seemed to me an effort to put those kinds of acrimonious differences aside in order to proclaim a kind of great sisterhood of women and to build specifically women's institutions and communities. And so I think it was in some ways a kind of reaction against the turmoil that had engulfed feminism in conflict and in practice, though, as they tried to create this,

20:25 - you know, this sort of, these communities rooted in, female identified or woman identified values, it, it, it actually, had the opposite effect. it meant drawing lines between women. There were women who assumed to, as part of this shift To what I call cultural feminism and other people had called it as well, there were women who were aligned with that shift who were saying that, you know, men and women are fundamentally different.

20:58 - And women, you know, when they would write about women in their sexuality, they would write about it in terms of their sensuality or their eroticism, and they would write about men as being highly sexualized, if not oversexualized. And so that kind of them and us, right men and women made some other radical feminists say, aren't we just reproducing the old

21:32 - assumptions about men and women? You know, is that what's happening here? And this would break out into a much bigger fight that many people have characterized as the sex wars that sort of debilitated feminism for a period of time, beginning in the late seventies and reaching through really until the early 1990s. And it was a fight about pornography and what to do about pornography, if anything, and about certain sexual styles and practices.

22:07 - And it, it ended up sort of getting resolved, I would say, by the early nineties. But I think it's still a kind of active issue. You know, how women, how we should think about, about sex and sexuality if there are particularly feminist man, you know, expressions or manifestations. but it, it was a very, very rancorous period. And so I think it's, it's an irony and, and I don't think it's unique to feminism. I think when people try to, when activists try to

22:43 - sort of set down the law, you know, draw a line in the sand and, and say, well, this is what we're about and we're about, in this case women identified values, it's almost bound to cause a backlash from people who, who don't feel seen and don't feel, validated. And that is what happened in, in that period.

Faculti AI can make mistakes