5. The Feminism as reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women
This article continues the previous one
In the first three chapters of this text, I have shown why feminism in general is needed to counter up the crimes and the emotional abuses against women. Since them I have called “moderate feminism” this set of social measures to counteract these crimes and abuses. In the previous chapter I described the overlap area between this justifiable feminism with the exaggerated, extremist and inapplicable one. I have analyzed in detail the first two examples of such exaggerated measures from a legal, political, anthropological and psycho-affective point of view. They are the theory of consent for greeting and that of the exclusively female courtship initiation. These are either unjustified to what most women want, as I have shown here , or inapplicable, as I have shown here . They are supported by a part of feminism, which I have called "radical feminism" (in the sense of improper, extremist).
In this chapter I will describe other characteristics of radical feminism and I will emphasize the criteria for a more precise definition of it, from a psychological and sociological point of view. I will continue the analysis of these political and ideological projects coming from the radical part of feminism, but from the relationship perspective with the psychopathology dynamics of the different social groups engaged in this type of political militancy. I will thus show each group specific interests (called the primary and secondary benefit by the psychoanalysis) and I will further show why the measures proposed by the radical feminism are impossible to implement in society.
I will first describe the persecutions of our still highly eugenic society against the marginalized, in which the women are the biggest part, that led to the radical feminism subsequent emergence. Then I will make a slight group psychoanalytic incision by describing the psychic mechanisms that determine some to support these radical ideas (in order to continue this at the individual level with a professional psychoanalyst, or maybe self-analytical). At the end of this chapter I will show in detail that this radical feminism has the important merit of being able to draw attention to the real problems that women face, and that the social system rulers tries to hide from public opinion.
5.1. The need to differentiate between the politically-justifiable and the psychopathological side of the feminist militancy
The women need bigger social protection than is offered to them today by most civilized states against the 21-th century intra-institutional sexual harassment . They also need bigger social protection against domestic violence, simple or sadistic rapes (some even murderous) caused by antisocial and sadistic psychopaths . They also need bigger social protection against emotional abuses . They still need favors for the typical motherhood and other disadvantages. The feminism is that set of solutions proposed from different social areas for these problems, whether they are realistic or utopian in the current society.
If we lived in a fair society, in which every human being would been guaranteed the right to a decent life or to effective psychotherapy for transgenerationally configured mental disorders, then we would not need feminism at all. Unfortunately, the society still uses repressive means to prevent crime; those who have already committed them are isolated in order to be prevented from committing them again, and the potential criminals are threatened with isolation or loss of certain rights in order to be persuaded by repression not to commit them. This leads to social repression, with tensions occurring in less guarded social areas, after they were repressed by the police forces in the secured ones. This is the typical individual repression model, which can also be extended to the general social level. The social crime brutal repression has the same result as the individual criminal impulses repression, namely their psychopathological exacerbation and their explosion elsewhere. Like the individual psychotherapy, the society must take measures of social protection and psychotherapy from an early age with its members who are at risk of antisocial behavior. However, the current penitentiary system is a spearhead of the paradoxical, obsessive-compulsive crime reinforcement. The general repressive system artificially creates criminals rather than reducing crime.
Women can fall victim to this vicious retroactive psychopathology circle, without having the effective defenses. It is everyone's duty to think of solutions. Karen Straughan claims in one of her videos that men are more exposed to dangers than women, as they are more likely to become victims. Indeed, men's work is more accidents risky. And the solutions must be found for them in such a way as to make their work safer. But those who work in the military or in the prone to accidents areas are consciously taking these risks. Then no one premeditates them. On the contrary, the crimes against women are premeditated. I mean, they could be avoided. In this case the statistics are no longer relevant. To justify crimes against women on the grounds that more men die than women is like deciding that a certain percentage of each social category and profession be sacrificed, because the same is true of risky professions. Yes, these professions need increased automation, so that those who practice them would be protected from these risks. In the same way, the women need increased protection against the above risks.
The moderate and radical feminism criteria
I have largely differentiated the moderate and radical feminism in this text so far. I resume it as a summary for a better understanding. The fact that women should receive more rights over men should not be unacceptable. In certain situations they received these rights from the traditional society and the Etiquette and good manners code proves to this fact. Most of people accept the idea that the women should be overprivileged, according with the very protective education towards received in the family. However, differences of opinion appear in drawing the limits of these advantages.
Women have harmony and peace in their nature, so they are not suitable for the sex offenders’ answers. But the risks of exaggeration slipping are high, given the constant threats to which they are exposed. And, even if their response is smaller, without reaching the crime stage, there is still a disproportionate, exaggerated response from the victims, or those who are afraid of becoming victims. This is the case with some certain feminism excesses that I and a few others consider as radical feminism.
From my perspective any tendency to exaggerate these advantages outside of correcting those traditional discriminations or gender disadvantages, as well as the concrete solutions to prevent sexual crimes and emotional abuse, as the too harsh punishments against criminals (the death penalty , for example), are signs of radical feminism. I also consider as radical any tendency to diminish the rights and nature of those who do not commit sexual crimes and emotional abuses, especially since such a thing is ineffective against the core of the problem. Conceiving the punishments for discreet gestures done by the innocent men is a sign of such radical feminism. Any distorted presentation of facts and unfounded accusations against male individuals, or larger groups of emotional abuse or sexual crimes, without objective arguments and criteria for such a thing, is a manifestation of radical feminism. This can be seen in the video posted several times in this text.
Below I will show other such examples. So I have a pejorative view on the "radical feminism" formula, as opposed to the today widespread view about it. I will return a little later to this terminology meaning difference.
However, these ideas are necessary but not sufficient signs for radical feminism. There are some moderate feminists who can come to support them under the influence of the radicals. In fact, most end up supporting radical feminism ideas under the honest belief that it would lead to decreasing the sexual crimes and emotional abuses against women. But since these people do not affirm it aggressively in language and behavior is the most important criterion for not being considered radical feminists. In addition, they respond to counter-arguments and debates and change their ideas accordingly. On the contrary, the radical feminists do not, are ironic about any kind of ideological opposition, use ad hominem arguments in debate, and become aggressive in language and behavior for those who do not conform to their ideas.
If the opposition to these innocent social categories comes also with violence in behavior and language, then the signs of radical feminism are even clearer. The aggression, sometimes vehemently expressed by both women and some men to stop the abuses and the crimes against women, without being victims or having close relationships with them, is the main criterion for differentiating between the two types of feminism.
The existence of such ideas does not necessarily make them radical feminists, but only merely occasional or temporary supporters for the radical ideas. Each of us can have moments of radical reactions, irascibility, depression, etc. But, that doesn't make us explosive psychopaths or depressive disordered directly.
Other women adhere to the radical ideas described above because they find certain advantages in this proposal, as I have shown here or here .
Terminological clarifications to the "radical feminism" formula used by others
I did not randomly decide these criteria, but they arose from the confrontation with linguistic semantics. Etymologically speaking, the term “radical” refers to the root and has retained its original meaning in linguistics or mathematics. The term is also used in chemistry, botany and music theory, but somehow with different meanings from the basic one. As far as I am concerned, I do not use this term "radical" meaning, but the one of "extreme", which became naturalized naturally and with this meaning in language. In English, it means according to oxford dictionaries where it means far from tradition, innovative, unorthodox, fundamental.
The "radical feminism" formula came for the first time also with a pejorative meaning, from groups of misogynists or conservatives who did not like the anti-discrimination movements promoted by women in the late nineteenth century. Because of this past, I might give it up this term in the future in favor of another, such as "exaggerated feminism" or "psychopathological feminism." I have not used them so far because it could be understood that the whole of feminism in general would be exaggerated or a psychopathological symptom. On the contrary, the term "radical" with the above meaning automatically correlates in the reader's mind and with a gentler, moderate, beneficial feminism form, from which it descended. This is the case with nationalists or believers. The nationalism and the faith in moderate forms are a side of human spirituality, bringing benefit to the society. But they cause social unrest when become radical. I can't think of any formula in which the adjective "radical" is present in which there is no moderate, beneficial side of the noun to which it is attached. So, despite the misogynistic past, I think this formula is the best option for this kind of exaggerated feminism that automatically sends the reader to the justifiable feminism form.
Some feminists have declared themselves radical, probably trying to give a positive look to this initially pejorative side formula. But they use the other meanings of the term "radical." Such a feminist speaks in the video below about radical feminism as root feminism, at min 01.45.
This woman thinks of herself as being radical because she would denounce the "patriarchal root" of society. I consider that there are no clues to give the term "radical" from this formula another meaning such as those included in the disciplines invoked above. I will return in a later article to this anti-patriarchal rhetoric of feminism.
The same logic led me to describe the radical feminism as extreme. Much of it is very vehement in public, but even moderate feminists can become very vehement once in a while. I believe that the vehement actions can also be part of the moderate feminism if they draw attention to the risks to which women are exposed or to the disadvantages arising from gender inequalities and social discrimination. So a person who vehemently militates, through street protests can be considered radical in terms of civic activism to which she/he adheres, but not necessarily after the ideas she/he has. If such a person vehemently demands rights for the marginalized that does not mean that that person is radical. On the contrary, she/he is a humanist.
On the other hand, the radical feminism can manifest only at the level of ideas, without civic activism. In the video below there is another example of a feminist who considers herself radical. She argues for a different in attitude and ideology between the liberal and radical feminism, only on the basis that the latter declares that men are principally oppressive towards women.
For me, the "liberal feminism" term is irrelevant and I don’t support her vision about the "radical feminism ". I do not consider her radical in what she says here, as she considers herself, but moderate. We note that she accepts the idea that not all men are oppressors, but she further argues, non-oppressors are in fact insignificant exceptions. That means that she is willing not to unfoundedly accuse all men of emotional abuse and sexual crimes. So she can support radical ideas not out of a psychopathological predisposition for these radical theories, but out of lack of knowledge or misinformation. As far as I am concerned, the only difference between me her, in terms of the distinction she makes, is this criterion of the majority. I think the number of oppressive men is much lower than she suggested. From my point of view, the criterion she invokes is insignificant. But she probably also supports the theory of consent for greeting or the exclusive female courtship initiation, which brings her it somewhat closer to the radical feminism, according to the criteria I have stated.
For the moderate / radical distinction I did not use the metapolitical background over which the feminist ideology adopted by the feminism landmarks overlaps, through the forms already affirmed in the academic environment. The feminism association with a radical metapolitical ideology such as the communism or the violent anarchism is not a sign of radical feminism. Although the communism is at its core an ideology that instigates social hatred, its association with feminism cannot lead to such a thing. The idea that the oppressed class would take revenge on the oppressive class (the dictatorship of the proletariat) cannot be transferred to feminism. The women basically have peace and love in their blood, so only a few radical exceptions actually support the dictatorship of femininity. Most radical feminists do not support ultra-radical ideas. To accuse all the feminists of being ultra-radical is a misogynistic exaggeration, just as accusing all men of being rapists is a sign of radical feminism.
Despite the anti-communitarian excesses, the communism had, at the declarative level, a very humanistic side at the theoretical level, respectively the social integration of the marginalized. As the Communists themselves later acknowledged, putting it into practice was the main problem. The idea of communism seduced many through the egalitarianism of social retribution, even if such a thing did not really happen when it was concretely applied. Well, such an idea applied to the feminism makes it moderate * and not as radical, as the very doctrine of social revenge promoted by the communism. The same argument can be applied to the association of feminism with the violent anarchism.
On the other hand, there are many isolated and non-communicative misanthropes, reluctant to any action of civic militancy, but who support radical political experiments such as Nazism or Communism. Here that, although they are still radical in visions, they are still docile concerning the civic activism. So a feminist person might have certain radical ideas, but she/he may not act them radically. In the following article I will describe the psychogenic causes that determined these women to support the radical feminism, as well as a more detailed psychopathological description of it.
* I will show in the last chapter of this text why a fair society, based on social intrusion leads to decreasing the criminality, including the crimes and abuses against women.