> Oppression of women is objective
> reality by any reasonable definition of "objective"
> and "reality."  To steal from Richard Dawkins, my
> advice to those still in doubt is simply, "go away and
> read a book."

Two people can agree on the empirical realities of a problem but disagree
on the language that should be used to frame the debate. I can agree that
there is misogyny in the world and that this misogyny is a problem without
adopting such a strident tone. One reason that many people don't want to
label themselves as "feminists" is that they feel uncomfortable with what
they perceive the "feminist vernacular" to be. It's true that some of this
perception is based on ignorance of the literature, but I think that a
non-trivial amount of feminist literature has a lusty love affair with the
hyperbolic. In popular culture, we hear things like Gloria Steinem's quote
that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." But things can get
even more outlandish in actual papers, e.g., when Marilyn Frye claims that
"the parasitism of males on females" is objectively obvious, such that
"males tend in shockingly significant and alarming numbers and in alarming
degree to fall into mental illness, petty crimes, alcoholism, physical
infirmity, chronic unemployment, drug addiction, and neurosis when
deprived of the care and companionship of a female." The notion of "male
as parasite" is a provocative one. Ignoring the accuracy or inaccuracy of
this metaphor, it's fairly obvious that language like this is very
dramatic and will make many people uncomfortable, even those who agree
with the general premise that misogyny exists and is a problem. The use of
such flowery prose and extended metaphor results in legitimate feminist
critiques being misunderstood or discounted out of hand. For example,
consider Michelle's comment about body images: "the female ideal of
fragile stick-thin bodies is yet another means of encouraging women to
take up less space in the world." When I originally read this, I was just
as confused as Andrew Reeves. Was this meant to be a metaphor, a literal
statement relating female size to empowerment, or a combination of the
two? I don't think that I'm railing against a "straw feminist" when I
claim that such ornamented language obscures the discourse. I'm also not
railing against a "straw feminist" when I object to notions of
hyper-plastic gender aesthetics. Michelle says that we must address "the
intimate connection between feminine and beauty and the conflating of
self-worth with an unhealthy aesthetic." I agree with the latter
(conflating self-worth with an unhealthy aesthetic is the crux of the
body-image problem), but we need to be realistic about the former (there
will always be connections between femininity and beauty). I'm sure that
Michelle didn't mean to imply that such connections can be totally
abolished, but this isn't plain from the language, particularly when one
dubs oneself a "radical feminist." Both of these examples show the need
for simple, plain language when addressing important issues such as
women's rights.

Some say that to pull the center to the left, the progressive lexicon
needs a certain boldness, a dramatic flair that paints the urgency of the
liberal cause in broad, existential strokes. Fair enough. There is a time
and a place for soaring oratory. There is a time and a place for the
majestic words of a Martin Luther King. But remember that his lyricism was
an inclusive one. In our attempts to move the center towards the left, we
must not forget that the center has a language of its own. We cannot
forget that the center has its entrenched interests, and that when
presented with radical language, it will move in reactionary ways. The
center is not an abstract political zone defined by the edges of the
spectrum. It is a living, breathing collective comprised of people who we
can recruit to our cause if we use the right arguments and the right
words. I'd bet that the inclusive words of Martin Luther King touched the
souls of more people than the separatist, divisive rhetoric of Huey Newton
and the Black Panthers. You might say that radical feminism isn't
separatist, but it is by the very fact that when one *chooses* to be
called "radical," one chooses to define oneself in *opposition* to the
majority, not in *partnership* with the majority to improve the prospects
of everyone. The latter is what results in change, the former is what
convinces people who are already on your side. I don't think that sexism
or racism are so subtly entrenched yet so devastatingly pernicious that we
have to launch some sort of intellectual Bolshevik revolution, closed and
unknowable to a general population which is too backwards to understand
its importance.

Yes, sexism is real. Yes, the existence of racism is an objective reality.
To argue otherwise is lunacy. But here's another objective reality:
America has been moving to the right for the past thirty years. Democrats
have watched key constituencies like unions bleed away into the darkness.
Hispanics, the fastest growing minority group, are not axiomatically
Democratic like African Americans have been for decades. For a progressive
who cares about bringing social justice beyond the theoretical confines of
the middle class ivory walls of academia, these are disturbing trends. The
Democrats don't control any of the three branches of government. The
political fortunes of hardcore progressives are even more dire. Can we
continue to rely on a center-left lower-level judiciary as the protector
of cherished civil rights, particularly when judges steeped in the
struggles of the Civil Rights movement are rapidly aging and being
replaced by conservatives?

Assume that the views of radical feminism are correct. Assume that, as
Michelle said so eloquently, "the very institutions in which we live
currently foster discrimination/oppression; a fundamental reexamination
of hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from these institutions is
necessary to get to a new place." Assume that this is our best hope to
achieve gender equality.

Does this even matter if we can't get politicians elected who are willing
to enact this agenda?

If people are alienatated by the language of a righteous movement, that
movement is impotent. And if that movement is truly righteous, if that
movement truly has the potential to change people's lives, then to insist
on couching its goals in a language without mass appeal is a tragic
mistake. In fact, it is a *moral* mistake, because the result is
unnecessary suffering for people who could have been helped earlier and
more effectively.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to use the phrase "radical feminism" when,
at its essence, its goal is (or should be) the thoroughly *unradical*
notion of equality and freedom for women. The use of the word "radical"
implies "extreme," but there is nothing extreme in wanting people to be
treated in a fair manner. Furthermore, the use of elaborate and exhaustive
deconstructionalist techniques to reveal insidious hidden biases obscures
the real message of feminism: women should and must be equal partners in a
just society. Erica's suggestions about how to address misogyny were
excellent, but by no means were they radical, and by no means do they
require a "a fundamental reexamination of hidden assumptions and social
norms."

My critique of so-called radical feminism is not predicated on my
underexposure to the literature. Furthermore, my critique is agnostic as
to the correctness of radical feminist analysis. Instead, my critique is a
pragmatic one. It is grounded in my desire to create effective social
change instead of reams of academic papers that overflow with trenchant
cultural observations. My question is this: if progressives continue to
cling to divisive, obtuse language that cannot create sustained,
large-scale political change, then who are we being progressive for? Are
we really helping the oppressed, or just satisfying our predilections for
theory? Are progressives afraid of that other "p" word: pragmatism?

Having good intentions simply
			isn't
			 good
			  enough.

~j