So many would-be feminists or bona fide feminists today, and since really the early 1990s, do not know the distinction between the two. Nearly any board discussing feminism includes not one but continuous threads where a poster asks, What is a radical feminist? Or, what is the difference between a liberal feminist and a radical feminist? And frankly even feminist leaders in the past 15 years have contributed directly to confusing what is a political fundamental: understanding the tactics of your political wing. Liberal, radical, revolutionary — in the early 1970s feminist leaders deliberately decided the Second Wave would not be revolutionary but would take liberal and radical tactics instead to implement their politics, which, they understood then, would mean the movement would take much much longer to make its gains. But I digress. To me it’s not beating a dead horse at all when so many actual feminists cannot spell out such a funamental part of their politics.

First of all, I don’t think your description of liberal feminism is entirely fair.

Second, it should be pointed out that Heart and her associates have started their own very good blog, Women’s Space/The Margins.

Thirdly, I think that criticizing Heart over this post is beating a dead horse, to a significant extent. Heart already decided - long, long ago - that radfem-only threads on “Alas” was not a workable idea. I think discussing the general philosophical questions raised by Heart’s post still makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense to ask Heart to answer for positions that she no longer holds.

You’re judgemental, egotistical and self righteous…

And? I wasn’t aware that this was an issue of my personal flaws. You could always ignore me. But please do remember, you invoked my name in vain. And I hate that. It hurts my over-inflated ego.

If patriarchy permeates every aspect of society, how can one carve a space out that does not end up in relation to it?

That’s the only question I see from you. The only one. The obvious answer to which is that you don’t.

Women-only space, however, would allow us to spend time on each other rather than on obtuse and blathering twits who only wish to tell us we have it wrong.

Eh, but to answer. Women-only space serves us precisely because men insist that we live in the gendered binary. It allows us to think of only ourselves. Hence, no binary.

You’re insisting that we have to constantly think of men and men’s needs. Nice going there bub.

You’re blowing steam here, really. I’ve seen it before, I’ll see it again. You didn’t have an “original question”, you just wanted to throw down the gauntlet and call me a strident feminist, but not in so many words.

Really, it’s been done before. At this date, it’s a rather transparent ploy. For you to suggest that “its an ongoing dialogue throughout history” lets me know exactly how little you have read of women’s history, women’s politics, and feminism in particular.

Nice try though.

Point taken although it could have been delivered with less hostility. You are firstly suggesting that I know less than you about feminist theory when we have never met nor had a meaningful discussion. Secondly you are being incredibly arrogant in thinking that YOU know what is sufficient to disentangle such a complex issue as this. This is an ongoing dialogue and has been throughout history, why do you think the post is soooo long? Because the discussion never ends. ANd if Heart identified everything necessary in the first post alsis…why did you bother posting a response? Both of you are making an unwarranted attack on someone who simply wishes to learn more. Maybe I have read all of the authors you have suggested QGrrl, and many more for that matter and feel that the involvement in a dialogue between PEOPLE is more important and educational. Please try to get past yourself and I beg of you, post a response…engage me in critical dialogue with regard to my original question, I beg you.

When have I ever suggested that QGrrl ‘doesn’t understand the issues’? I never said anything of the sort. I asked a question, that’s all I did? You’re suggesting simply that because I’ve asked a question, whether it be previously addressed or not, that I somehow am insulting people. And don’t dare cast aspertions and judgements upon my gender, politics and intelligence when you have no evidence even to say what they are. You are again insulting me for no reason. Answer the question with civility or do not post a response at all.

If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

or

If you dont’ want to swim with sharks, stay outta the water.

or

Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Pick you cliche. I’m hostile to you because your laziness is seen to need more pampering than I’m willing to give. You specifically called me out in your first post; but you obviously haven’t read the content of this thread. I’m neither naive nor gullible. Do your homework, read a little, then come back.

If you have something more intellectual than “ewww, the icky feminists are upholding the gender binary”, I *might* give it a read.

I would suggest as good reading materials, anything by: Catherine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Susan Griffin, Susan Brownmiller…. eh, the list is long.

Feminst theory has been around for oh, forty years plus. What’s kept you from expanding your own horizons?

Heart explained virtually from the outset why she felt that woman-only spaces could be productive. I don’t know what that has to do with your talk of “epistemological” or “binary” this and that. I would add that as a member of the class/gender who is the norm and the dominant force in most discussions, it’s all very well for you to prate loftily about how a woman like Qgrrl doesn’t understand the issues– but she does understand and she lives them as the subordinate gender/class, which you do not aparently. Yet you march in here arrogantly asserting that the issues have not been examined to your satisfaction. I’ve got news for you, Cryo, that is pretty damn insulting.

I have work to do, so you can play your reindeer games with somebody else now. I think actually reading the thread in depth would serve you better, but it’s your choice.

I have read the posts and while people have discussed various topics surrounding binaries, they have not addressed the epistemological question of binary itself. And let’s just say that the topic has been sufficiently covered,which I do not believe, that is no reason to insult me in a such a way. If someone needs further clarification on a subject and you are not willing to give it to them, don’t post…but for goodness sake don’t insult that person.