OK, so who SHOULD take responsibility for shunning radicals?

Question

There seemed to be people in other thread that involved taking responsibility for something as simple as outing sexist bigots... that thought feminists shouldn't take ANY responsibility for distancing themselves from radicals.

So this begs the question:

If feminists aren't responsible to ensure radicals have no place in the mainstream, WHO IS responsible?

Anyone?

If the NAACP had many anti-white members that were very vocal about it & even wrote books about it, would the leaders of the NAACP have a responsibility to make sure they were outed as racists & sent packing?

Or would it be someone else's responsibility? Would the NAACP be able to say: "well, not everyone here is like" that & expect that to stick?

The responsibility falls somewhere. If not on the feminists, then on who?

EDIT:

Hey Baba:

Here is how NOW memorialized Dworkin:

http://www.now.org/history/dworkin.html

NOW feminists do exist. If they are inspired through the words of an anti-male sexist bigot, they are no better.

If they feel the need to memorialize a hate-filled militant, they are sending a clear message.

If you wish to look the other way & pretend they're not there you're more than welcome.

...Just don't expect people like me to let you off the hook for it.

The point many of you are missing is that by NOT addressing radicals & actively trying to distance yourself, you are at fault.

...So it IS your responsibility.

Pretending they're not there & trying to explain away their actions isn't good enough.

They must be ACTIVELY fought by those inside the movement.

ESPECIALLY leaders in the movement.

They have to feel as though the term "feminist" doesn't fit them.

If not, people will think they are supported. (especially when there is clear evidence of support.)

Answer 1

Those involved in any way with feminism who do not oppose radical feminism, support it. Therein lies your answer.

Many of the answers are pretty much saying "the ends justifies the means", which is reminiscent of Hitler's opinion about non-Aryans.

Answer 2

Because of (in part) contemporary terrorism, terms like "radical" have become incredibly tainted with overtones of extremism and violence. In much of social theory, radical has a different meaning. It concerns roots, foundations of problems/events/etc. In the case of radical feminism, I think making sure everyone understands what it is and what it isn't is a good idea. Much of radical feminism is concerned with querying the foundational causes for gender inequality. Often this takes a Marxist form in the sense of questioning economic institutions such as marriage and their complicity in gender subordination.

If we're talking about sincerely radical feminism (as described above), I don't know why anyone would need to involve himself/herself in "shunning" it.

The image your question conjures is that of an incredibly active feminist social movement with a radical fringe involving itself in destructive acts. If this were the case, I would agree that there is a problem; however, it is not. Feminists today are rarely involved in organized social protest. The main site of radical critique in feminism is scholarship and I tend to think it's a pretty good idea to let intellectuals go about their business as they will.

Answer 3

we are all individuals, so why should we take responsiblity for others? this is more like the idea asians have than westerners [i realize i'm generalizing here] (group mentality; conformity vs. individualism). this also perpetrates the idea of stereotypes - one member is representative of all.

if this is the case, does hitler represent all leaders?

does marc lepine - who killed female students in an engineering dept. on a canadian campus shouting 'i hate feminists' represent all anti-feminists?

Answer 4

The radicals you are so frightened of exist, if they exist at all, either in the past or in their own little exclusive academic enclave. They are not representative of mainstream feminism, which has evolved into a more humanistic ideology. You are tilting at windmills. I see no reason to denounce the monsters under the bed; it's much more important to work towards something than against it.

ETA: That was a nice tribute to Andrea. I stand by what I say. If you were truly interested in shunning radicals, why not start with Warren Farrell? Your rant holds nothing sensible.

Answer 5

Everyone has the responsibility to ignore radicals. What we're saying is that we shouldn't have to take ALL of it, as you seemed to suggest.

Answer 6

I haven't noticed you reprimanding any of the notorious misogynist pig types who post on here.