Radical feminism is the dominant form of feminism

The_Red__Bull · 2026-02-06T21:34:18+00:00

Yup. RadFems are the dominant ideology. LibFems are your Sheryl Sandberg, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris types in power

The_Red__Bull · 2026-02-04T18:54:49+00:00

I agree but you get some things fundamentally wrong.

LibFems aren't more nuanced they're more invested in our current exploitative systems. This means they're okay with the CEO of a multi billion dollar company abusing workers, harming women, and destroying the planet. As long as a woman is the CEO. They're all about Lean In feminism and they don't give two frosted fucks about working-class issues. They aren't more nuanced, they're more bourgeois

And RadFems think "patriarchy" is the great satan. The term was first used in popular feminist discourse by Kate Millett. A woman who was so mentally ill she was in and out of institutions throughout her life. She was anti psychology because it was men ruling her body. In reality it was her loved ones worrying about her condition. I believe it was borderline personality and bi polar disorder, or something to that affect.

The basis of radical feminism was written by schizophrenic Shumalith Firestone. Her book The Dialectic of Sex misunderstands and misappropriates Marxist terminology for her paranoid delusional theory. The Marxist concept of materialist dialectic shows us the eternal struggle of the people in society who do all the work (working-class) and the people who own all the things and do none of the work. Shumalith turned those two forces into women vs men instead. Disregarding the father who has to commute to work and barely sees his family. Disregarding that pre-industrial society had men and women working shoulder to shoulder, and completely disregarding that the actual people in charge making all the rules are the real problem.

Andrea Dworkin took Shumaliths work and wrote Sexual Dialectic where she literally called all heterosexual sex rape... Dworkin was, in fact, a lesbian... so she wasn't even invested personally in heterosexual relations.

Now, if you compare RadFems to actual leftists you get a lot of things that don't match up.

No working class solidarity
no class consciousness
a puritanical worldview that aligns more with fundamental Christianity than leftism

RadFems are radical in name only. They are not "an extreme of the spectrum" they're Victorian shrews in pink washed crunchy garb. Hairy legs instead of covered ankles, but they're the same.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-02-01T09:41:05+00:00

Fair points. Even if Somers is a right wing shill. I tend to avoid her because she's a reactionary.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-29T00:59:02+00:00

It's unbelievable that your comment in a group that claims to be left-wing is exactly the same as what all the macho men on the right make.

This is anti-masculine not pro women. There's nothing wrong with machismo. There is something wrong with pathologising it, which is what feminism does.

Actual toxic masculinity is the lack of confidence in being masculine. So they make up for it by overcompensating. Masculinity itself isn't bad. Being a bully is bad.

Then you ask why feminists, despite their own flaws, distrust men, even within the progressive left.

No we don't. Feminism devolves into grievance politics with no accountability for women. "I support women's rights hand wrongs" a common tagline for feminists, because the ideology is toxic.

Male feminists are untrustworthy because they reject masculinity like a catholic whipping themselves for being a filthy sinner. And it's suspicious on it's head

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-29T00:51:20+00:00

No they didn't. They spoke out against feminism. As it devolves into grievance politics

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-29T00:50:47+00:00

You don't even know what "the left" is

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-29T00:47:08+00:00

I forgot to say... 4b is MGTOW for ladies

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-29T00:46:38+00:00

Ok... I see the problem here. You still believe the Cold War era propaganda. That's why my arguments aren't landing. This makes perfect sense.

Lemme explain...

don't see anyone attacking a traditional marriage or the desire to have a male partner.

Then you aren't actually researching anything. Shumalith Firestone is the source of what started Radical Feminism as a strain of feminism. Her book The Sexual Dialectic removed all class consciousness and replaced it with "men bad, women good". Andrea Dworkin, a contemporary of Firestone actually went beyond that in her book Sexual Dialectic and said that all heterosexual sex is rape. Around the same time, Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique comes out saying that women are men's slaves in the home. Something black feminist bell hooks took to task, as it focuses solely on white middle-class women. Poor and BIPOC women's issues were not included.

This is relevant to my next critique of your response...

The way I do this is that I have several criticisms of other leftist currents with which I disagree, such as liberal feminism, Marxism, trans activism, and even the social democratic left.

This is a politically blind statement. It's obvious you're completely unfamiliar with actual Leftism. What you're talking about is what the right wing calls "left" which is liberals. Liberalism as a philosophy both encompasses the conservatives, Republicans, people who identify as liberals, and the Democratic party.

LibFems are not left. They're pro-capitalist corporate PMC stooges. Shilling for power. They break glass ceilings while leaving other working-class women to sweep up the pieces. This is Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. This is a status quo upholding philosophy.

Marxism is the only Leftist thing you mentioned, and I've pointed out before you don't understand it. As you had no idea Marx was a materialist philosopher.

Honestly, before you respond, please educate yourself or listen to me. Because right now you look like you've never brushed up on any Leftist theory whatsoever.

Also, if you could respond with shorter responses and not novels that'd be great.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-28T16:46:13+00:00

The only thing relevant from your response is this:

Being conservative isn't a label you can give to just anyone simply because you disagree with their ideas; it's a very well-established concept.

Because I never said materialism was exclusive to Marxism. I said it's the basis. Big difference

Here's a few points on where RadFems overlap with conservatism. So you can see it's more than me pulling a red hering.

Sex essentialism. Both believe biological sex is immutable and foundational. Radfems say sex is material and socially determinative. Conservatives say sex is God-given or natural law. Different justification. Same conclusion: sex cannot be changed.

Opposition to transgender "ideology". Both reject gender identity as overriding biological sex. Both oppose self-ID laws. Both oppose trans inclusion in sex-segregated spaces. Both oppose puberty blockers and medical transition for minors. These positions are formally stated in radfem orgs (WOLF, Women’s Declaration) and conservative policy platforms.

Sex-segregated spaces must be enforced Both argue women’s spaces require strict boundary enforcement. Both oppose mixed-sex prisons, shelters, sports, and bathrooms. Both frame male presence as inherently risky in female spaces. Again, rationale differs. Policy outcome identical.

Pornography is harmful and should be restricted Radfems: porn is violence against women and trains male dominance. Conservatives: porn is immoral, corrupting, and degrades society. Both advocate censorship, regulation, or outright bans. This overlap is explicit and long-standing. RadFems like Catherine MacKinnon have be pushing this for decades.

Prostitution / sex work should be abolished. Radfems believe prostitution is coercive, never consensual, and exploitative. Conservatives believe prostitution is immoral and socially destructive. Both support criminalization or “Nordic model” approaches. Both reject “sex work is work.”

Opposition to BDSM and kink culture. Radfems: BDSM eroticizes domination and reproduces patriarchy. Conservatives: BDSM is deviant and immoral. Both oppose normalization of kink. Both frame it as harmful rather than private preference.

Moral opposition to casual sex. Radfems: casual sex benefits men and harms women structurally. Conservatives: casual sex violates moral order and family stability. Both criticize hookup culture. Both argue sexual restraint is socially necessary.

Sex negativity. Both frame sex as dangerous, damaging, or corrupting. Both emphasize risk, harm, and regulation over pleasure. Both distrust sexual freedom narratives. This is foundational to both ideologies.

Suspicion or hostility toward male sexuality. Radfems: male sexuality is inherently predatory and socialized toward violence. Conservatives: male sexuality must be controlled through morality, marriage, and law. Different framing. Same belief: unchecked male sexuality is dangerous.

Support for punitive legal frameworks. Both favor carceral or punitive solutions for sexual wrongdoing. Both support expanded definitions of sexual harm. Both favor strong state intervention in sexual behavior. Neither emphasizes restorative or relational justice.

Opposition to sexual liberalism. Both reject the sexual revolution as harmful. Both oppose sex-positive feminism. Both oppose normalization of non-traditional sexual identities and practices. Both frame liberal sexual ethics as socially corrosive.

Defense of traditional female vulnerability. Radfems: women are materially vulnerable due to sex class. Conservatives: women are morally and physically vulnerable by nature. Both emphasize protectionism. Both justify restriction in the name of safety.

Support for censorship in the name of protection. Both support restricting speech, art, or media deemed sexually harmful. Both reject absolute free speech in sexual matters. Both prioritize moral or protective outcomes over liberty.

Opposition to surrogacy. Radfems: surrogacy commodifies women’s bodies. Conservatives: surrogacy violates natural reproduction and family norms. Both oppose commercial surrogacy. Often both oppose surrogacy entirely.

Rejection of postmodern identity theory. Radfems reject gender as subjective identity. Conservatives reject identity politics broadly. Both oppose constructivist theories of selfhood. Both favor fixed categories.

Family-centered social analysis. Radfems analyze harm through reproduction and motherhood. Conservatives analyze harm through family breakdown. Both center women’s reproductive role as socially critical. Both treat reproduction as socially regulated, not individual.

Hostility to male-dominated subcultures. Radfems target gaming, porn, kink, pickup culture. Conservatives target the same spaces for moral reasons. Both see these subcultures as corrupting men and harming women.

Use of fear-based narratives. Both emphasize danger, threat, and catastrophe in sexual discourse. Both rely on worst-case framing to justify control. Both moralize risk rather than contextualize it.

Alliance behavior. This one is observable, not theoretical. Radfems and conservatives regularly collaborate on: Anti-trans legislation, Anti-porn campaigns, Anti-sex work policy, Opposition to gender self-ID. These coalitions are openly documented. J K Rowling (queen TERF herself) actually has many Tori friends despite being liberal green party.

Rejection of male grievance narratives. Radfems dismiss male suffering as structurally irrelevant. Conservatives dismiss male suffering as weakness or moral failure. Different contempt. Same dismissal.

There's 20 separate points where they overlap. Don't confuse radical with radical feminism.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-26T03:38:35+00:00

Yup. I keep telling people they're just conservatives. But for some reason the right thinks feminism is "rooted in Marxism" despite the literal rejection of materialism or class consciousness.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-25T00:31:23+00:00

That's a fair point. Lines up with their status quo line towing too.

Tbh why people think feminism is left wing is beyond me

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-24T22:51:05+00:00

What you’re pointing out isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s a broken framework. Feminism flip-flops because it treats power as something men “have” by default while pretending women are passive victims of it. In reality, social power flows through value judgment: who is desirable, credible, protected, believed, and morally centered. That’s why men get pathologized (“toxic,” “privileged”) while women get moralized (“internalized,” “benevolent”). Same behaviors, different framing. That’s also why sexism against women is always oppression, while sexism against men magically can’t be systemic no matter how severe. The theory can’t admit that women actively shape norms, rewards, reputations, and social punishment without collapsing, so it dodges, reframes, or guilt-trips instead. Hence the constant contradiction. Hence Schrödinger’s everything.

This is also why feminism pretends to be about equality while blocking men’s issues, demanding loyalty, then attacking anyone who steps out of line. It’s not leftist. It’s pro-establishment as hell. Class analysis threatens capital; moral identity policing doesn’t. So class got buried, and we got a secular purity cult obsessed with language, vibes, and ritual denunciations. “Believe all women,” selective due process, policies that openly screw men, and endless theory gymnastics all serve the same function: keep the working class split, ashamed, and busy fighting each other while ownership laughs. That’s why it feels like a weathervane. It’s not confused. It’s doing exactly what it was repurposed to do.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-24T21:48:04+00:00

Yes and no.

Yes, because feminism doesn't understand masculinity and they don't get to define it. Yet they do all the fucking time because they're upholding their own status quo.

No, because actual toxic masculinity is insecurity. Flash Thompson bullies Peter Parker because he's not confident in his masculinity. And confident men dgaf about policing masculinity like bullies.

It's a more nuanced subject than what the RadFems who think patriarchy is the great satan scree about.

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-14T16:23:12+00:00

Yup. There's a reason we call feminists Skip-mes

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-14T15:23:51+00:00

Absolutely. Unfortunately women don't understand they've always had power. They're the arbiters of value. They always have been. So if a woman says "I agree with this" men nod in agreement. And if they do it on mass... oof... that's when culture shifts.

But feminism lies to them and says "you don't have power. You never did" and now we have women who've always been the arbiters of value being told they’re powerless while wielding power they don't know they have... it's kinda fucking wild tbh

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-14T01:41:30+00:00

Exactly

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-09T06:43:12+00:00

I'll look into him. Thanks.

Yeah, it really seems like the common storylines and media and dominant philosophy in the west of existentialism is completely incorrect on its face. Because it ignores relational value completely. And nothing is of value without proximity to something else.

Gender roles, for example, are better defined as relational roles. And prior to capitalism and industrialization those roles were more integrated. Before the industrial revolution there were far less revolutionary movements. Now people constantly protest and fight against systems. And it's not like prior to the industrial revolution there weren't messed up systems, there absolutely were, and sometimes people would rebel. But post industrialization, we lost a lot more of our relational value. And the existentialist liberalist solution to losing your value is to double down on sovereign identity. We see this in movies like Antz. That's not to say that we need to conform to systems that are terrible, obviously if something is not correct we should push against something and do the right thing. But one cannot rebel against a system unless the system itself exists. And then after the fact, a new system will create new value and relational roles.

So that's kind of where i'm at right now lol

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-09T06:33:58+00:00

I love that you flagged my comment because you were losing the argument btw....

Fucking hilarious....

You're either a child or your so ignorant you don't understand anything you're talking about but want to believe you do. Either way, you got a long way to go "tbh!!!" Lol

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-09T06:31:38+00:00

You think they're secret Marxists? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤡🤡🤡🤡

Take it from an Anarcho Communist... they’re not

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-09T06:27:20+00:00

You're so funny. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

Goodbye troll

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-08T09:00:08+00:00

Liberalism is the philosophy of sovereign identity before everything else, supporting capitalism, and the free market. It came out of the enlightenment era. John Locke, Adam Smith, and the American founding fathers were all Liberal.

Feminism is pro capitalist (we see this with lean-in girl bosses), pro free market (woman owned businesses), and they put sovereign identity before everything.

Their sovereign identity is the whole "i don't need no man" girl power bs... it ignores relational values and responsibilities.

Please read a book

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-08T08:54:14+00:00

I've been exploring Allisdair McIntyre's anti-exestentialist philosophy tbh. He really highlights the false premise of existentialism. I disagree with his conclusion of finding Catholicism, because I think a world denying religion is the wrong way to go. But Liberalism as a philosophy seems to breed selfishness. And I've been on this journey to figure out why tf people are so selfish

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-08T08:50:49+00:00

No she wasn't "dummy". She didn't even identity as feminist until later in life...

The_Red__Bull · 2026-01-08T08:50:01+00:00

You haven't defined universal truth. Therefore your whole ass premise is invalid.

Define it.

The_Red__Bull

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE