Proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activist

I had completely forgotten I wrote this response to a dreadful piece in the Huffington Post on the "Modern Face of Feminism". I wrote the rant in my joural whilst on the train to the best feminist weekend I've ever had [soon to be published as RadFem Couch Surfing]! It's a month late but I'm still so cranky at it so I'm publishing it anyways: 

This is the delightful conclusion to a rather dire attempt to start a debate on what it means to be a feminist in the newly emerging 4th wave [if you actually believe this is a thing]:

Modern-day feminism has multiple facets – from populism and pop culture to new-media and new activism – but it would seem the common denominator is inclusivity. No longer the preserve of extreme activists and intellectual theorists, feminism is shedding its stigma and going mainstream.

Feminism's apparently going Mainstream and dumping the extreme activists and intellectual theorists.

I just have a few, shall we say, quibbles here. What, precisely, is an "extremist activist"? Is it a feminist who campaigned to make rape in marriage illegal? Or, the feminists who campaigned for refuges for women fleeing violent male partners? Or, the feminists campaigning for rape crisis centres? Equal Pay? Affordable childcare? Maternity pay? 

Were suffragettes extremists for fighting for the right to vote? They were certainly labelled as such a 100 years ago. Feminists fighting for the Equal Pay act were considered as extremists by many, as were the feminists campaigning to raise the age of consent to protect children from adult male sexual predators. Hell, Caroline Criado-Perez has been described as an extremist for forcing the Bank of England to recognise already existing legislation. I can't quite work out what 'extreme' means when campaigning to force the government to recognise its own legislation.

What makes an activist an "extremist"? Is it their methods of activism or their goals? Who gets to decide what feminist activism counts as extremism? The men who denied women suffrage? The men who created a legal system which didn't recognise rape in marriage since women's number one duty as a possession was to fulfil their husband's every 'need'.  If feminists are extremists for fighting for the legal rights of women within the law, what does that say about our culture? Why are still perpetuating damaging myths labelling feminists as "extreme" when feminists have never campaigned for anything more than the legal recognition that women are human too and deserve to live a life without being subjected to male violence.

As for the brief snide attack on feminist academics and theorists, well, that was clearly written by someone who hadn't bothered to read much of their own university required reading. A lot of academic writing is drivel: see almost every book on history written by white men and pretty much the entire genre of post-modernism which seems to be predicated on an inability to use words with less than 7 syllables. Feminist academics are researching domestic violence, rape, women's history, genocide, maternal mortality. They aren't exactly The New Adventures of the Famous Five and I'm not sure the Dr Seuss' Tales of Women's Experience in Genocide is, shall we say, the kindest way to write about women's lived experiences. 

I honestly get so bored of these articles on feminism which are either shrieking about how we live in a post-feminist world [because 2 women a week in the UK who are murdered by their male partners don't count at all] or are yowling about a New Wave of Feminism. It would be nice if the media stopped publishing this drivel as "news" and started publishing factually-correct articles on feminism. It's not like the Huffington Post would have to look hard for great feminist writers. They've already got Soraya Chemaly.


So, I'm proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activists since I believe that universal suffrage and whiny men no longer being allowed to treat their wives and children as chattel are, you know, positive improvements in humanity. 

Read More

Silent Sunday Round-Up

If we checked and apologised for every privilege the world would be a dull monolith but ... at Flying on the Rainbow

It's Not All About You by Karen Ingala Smith

Extremism: Race, Religion, Gender and Power by Karen Ingala Smith

The Debate: Check Your Privilege, Louise Mensch at Black Feminists

On the EDL, Facebook and White Privilege at Deeva's Corner

Here's Some Reality For Ya at It's Not a Zero Sum Game

Ladies First at You are a splendid butterfly

It's heresy I know. But not all men are actually rapists at Left Eye, Right Eye

If it looks like a duck and it quacks at HerbsandHags

Myths about Single Mothers and What pundits are Getting Wrong About Them at Feimineach

This is what happens when you ban male press from a female rockfest in Afghanistan at Gender Report

Straight Allies, White Racists, Male Feminists (and Other Labels That Mean Nothing to Me) at Spectra Speaks

Marilyn Frye and the Politics of Reality: Oppression at Feminist Theory Reading Group

Womanism/ Black Feminism and Race in Feminist Discourse at Gradient Lair

Radical Beyond Pronouns: On Gender Zombies, DGR and Feminism at Abolish Masculinity

A Preemptive Strike at One Woman's Thoughts

Read More

Louise Mensch is a Nincompoop: where I ignore my rules about Feminism

Technically, this blogpost will violate all of my personal rules on feminism and not participating in attacking women for being women. I don't want to do this but I'm not entirely sure how to write about Louise Mensch without declaring her a nincompoop. Twice this week, Mensch has come out with statements which demonstrate both an incredible lack of awareness of reality and a complete refusal to even attempt to understand privilege or intersectionality.

The first statement this week basically implied that most people who are depressed just need to exercise more. Now, there is some correlation between exercise and dealing with depression but to suggest that most depressed people just need to exercise more is just offensive. It ignores the realities of depression and mental illness. I could honestly rant about this for hours but, fundamentally, Mensch's comment is further demonstration of her complete disconnect from the lives of most women. 

Mensch's second foray into nincompoopery this week was another blogpost on intersectionality which, unfortunately, was cross-posted in the Guardian. It is yet another whiny piece about how intersectionality is a big scary word that is too difficult to understand. I am so bored of these blogposts. Intersectionality isn't difficult. Most small children understand multiple oppressions. They may not have the language skills to articulate it but your average primary aged child can figure it out for themselves. Why middle class white feminists seem to be stuck on this "it's too difficult" record is beyond me. Yes some feminists may not have come across it before but 2 minutes on google would make it fairly clear what it was.

Intersectionality and "check your privilege" have both been used as silencing tactics but that doesn't make them irrelevant. It just means that a group of aggressive whiners have deliberately misunderstood the terms in order to find more things to tantrum about. Personally, I've taken to ignoring them. Why waste your time on women trying to silence other women? I wasn't going to reply to Mensch's article because I do think she's an attention-seeking troll and we should be ignoring her rather indulging her self-important dramatics had she not referenced Laurie Penny's tweet about Ron Liddle's racism. 

Laurie Penny tweeted out the phrase "don't feed the trolls" in reference to Ron Liddle's deeply offensive Spectator piece this week. I retweeted it because I agreed with her. Comedian Ava Vidal tweeted Penny to point out that a white woman telling WOC to ignore racism was a silencing tactic. Like Penny, this had not occurred to me. I do believe that feeding trolls is wrong but to not call out racism is equally wrong. We need to work harder at not feeding trolls whilst simultaneously calling out racism, misogyny, disablism, classism etc. There is a balance. I've not figured it out yet but I'm trying. 

I disagree with Penny on lots of issues but one thing Penny does is apologise.  For that, she's one of my favourite feminists. There seems to be this theory that women apologising is a sign of weakness to be avoided at all costs. Being wrong isn't a bad thing. Being wrong doesn't make you a bad feminist. It means you made a mistake or simply didn't see your privilege. Apologising is a feminist action. We need more feminists like Penny who are willing to step up publicly and admit they were wrong. 

According to Mensch, Penny's apology was a sign of weakness; a desperate attempt to be one of the 'cool kids'.  When did we get to a point where apologising was wrong? Surely, a fundamental tenant of feminism is that we are all learning from one another and will, inevitably, make mistakes? Mistakes are a part of the learning process; as is apologising. 

According to Mensch, feminists are spending too much time discussion oppression and, as such, are making male feminists sad. :( Here's a handy tip about "male feminists": if they stop listening to women because they are bored, they aren't actually feminists. I know that sounds difficult, like intersectionality, but the whole point of feminism is that we listen and learn from one another. If men don't like it, well, that's just male privilege for you; just as white, wealthy women ignoring the opinions of WOC is white privilege. 

I could spend more time explaining privilege and intersectionality but Mensch isn't going to listen. She's far too busy being smug and rich and white and arrogant. 

These are some of the excellent responses to Mensch's Guardian article:

The Debate: Check Your Privilege, Louise Mensch at Black Feminists

Intersectionality - Round V at Black Feminists

Intersectionality for Dummies at Black Feminists

Here's Some Reality For Ya at It's Not a Zero Sum Game

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants by Renie D Lodge

Louise Mensch - Take A Lesson on Privilege from the Internet by Laurie Penny

Being a Mentalist at Put Up with rain

If we checked and apologised for every privilege the world would be a dull monolith but ... at Flying on the Rainbow

Straight Allies, White Anti-Racists, Male Feminists (and Other Labels That Mean Nothing to me) at Spectra Speaks

Read More

Kathleen Barry's The Prostitution of Sexuality: The Global Exploitation of Women

Kathleen Barry's The Prostitution of Sexuality was first published in 1995 and grew out of her work and activism following the publication of Female Sexual Slavery in 1979. The first half of the book, which is just theory, is brilliant. The second half felt outdated as it is based almost entirely on the research undertaken for Female Sexual Slavery. I would argue that the situation is actually worse now than it was even 10 years ago, particularly in relation to rape as an accepted tactic of war. I'd be interested to read an epilogue to the book which examines the reality of women's experiences of sexual exploitation now and whether Barry thinks it is worse for women or if its just that I've become more aware of sexual exploitation.

I cannot recommend this book enough though. Barry's theory on the global exploitation of women is incredibly important. She destroys the idea that prostitution can be consented to within a capitalist-patriarchy. She clearly proves that the sexualisation of human bodies renders women passive objects and men active participants. Barry challenges the heteronormative construction of pornography and prostitution and the hegemonic nature of capitalism which is built on the bodies of women.

I am adding this book to my list of Top Ten Feminist Theory Texts (in no particular order):

1. Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse

2. Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences. 

3. Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women

4. Kat Banyard's The Equality Illusion: The Truth about Women and Men Today

5. Susan Maushart's Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women

6. Sheila Jeffreys' Beauty and Misogyny

7. Susie Orbach's Fat is a Feminist Issue

8. Kate Millett's Sexual Politics

9. Melinda Tankard Reist's Big Porn Inc

10. Kathleen Barry's The Prostitution of Sexuality: The Global Exploitation of Women

Read More

#ReadingOnlyBooksWrittenByWomen: Radical Feminist Theory

My reading theme for May is radical feminist theory. I haven't actually read many classic texts of radical feminism; a lot of my radical feminist theory has been learned reading blogs and discussing it with other women on FB and at conferences. Since I am attending my first formal RadFem conference this June, I thought it might be worth covering more texts than Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse and Kate Millett's Sexual Politics [both of which are must-reads].

These are the texts I've lined up for this month:

Valerie Solanas' Scum Manifesto
Marilyn French's The War Against Women
Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy
Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Womens Liberation Movement
Lynne Harne & Elaine Miller's All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism
Janice Raymond's A Passion for Friends
Diane Bell & Renate Klein's Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed

Three of the texts, Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful, Lynne Harne & Elaine Miller's All the Rage and Diane Bell & Renate Klein's Radically Speaking, are anthologies. They are also huge. I'm not sure I'll make it through them all but I wanted to get as big a variety of radical feminist voices as possible.

Read More

Helen Lewis, Online Misogyny, and An Inability to Understand The Practise of Feminism

I don't know Helen Lewis. I can count on one hand the number of times I've tweeted. Yet, for the second time in as many weeks, I find myself once again defending Helen online. I don't agree with everything Helen says, but frankly,  I don't agree with myself 100% of the time. It would be utterly bizarre to agree with a complete stranger that well.

For all I know Helen could be a secret fan of Justin Beiber: worthy of ridicule most definitely. Nothing any woman does, including being Margaret Thatcher, is worth the misogynistic bullying which Helen receives online. I've said this before, but if you think its okay to call another woman "fucking scum", you aren't a feminist. 

If you call another woman "a vicious rancid bitch", you need to revue the basic tenets of feminism.

It is not feminism to use misogynistic language against other women.

It is not feminism to use threats of violence against other women.

It is not feminism to use abusive and bullying tactics against other women.

We may never all agree on what a real feminist looks like but they aren't ever going to be women who treat other women the same way abusive and violent men treat women.

It is not feminist activism to stalk, harass, bully or intimidate other women online. If you can not speak to other women without resorting to abusive language, then you need to do a little bit of self-reflection. Or, take up yoga. Or, eat some donuts. Just something to deal with your anger issues because this isn't normal behaviour for adults; never mind feminists.

The tweets below are from Helen Lewis' tumbler account

2 HOURS AGO

Read More

Taking Back Feminism: A Manifesto. for Women's Liberation

Written by No Anodyne (via Elaine Charkowski)

For all kinds of reasons, the concept of “feminism” has been stretched beyond all useful meaning by people with counter-agendas, as well as know-nothings. It’s tempting to abandon the word now that it has lost so much of its power, but rather than giving into that despair, it’s time for those of us who really care about the concepts of feminism, misogyny, and the patriarchy to dig deep for our righteous indignation and save the concepts many people hope women will abandon.

It’s way past time to shift the frame for “feminism” back to something with real meaning and with that shift, stand firm about what “radical feminism” means as well.

Seeing the grotesque harm of rape and sexual abuse and demanding justice for women who are raped and sexually abused doesn’t make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of the threats, fear, and reality of rape and sexual abuse is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.

Believing that women who are prostituted by men are human and therefore deserve human rights does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of being prostituted, bought and sold, trafficked, and enslaved is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.

Noticing and calling attention to the fact that some men treat some women badly does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of every type of abuse is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.

Understanding that the continuum from sex discrimination all the way through sexual harassment harms women’s access to economic equality does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for bring considered a decent human being. Economic fairness and justice are human rights and all humans should have them and support those rights.

Noticing instances of sexism, even calling them out, doesn’t make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Being free of being singled out for maltreatment, debasement, or dismissal because of a recognizable trait is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.

The frame of “human rights” should be very clear and easy to understand. But understanding these simple principles does not make you a feminist.

Feminism is the word that was coined to advance the idea that females are inherently at risk because of a specific system, the patriarchy, they live within. And it is the movement, based on that idea, that seeks to dismantle that system.

A feminist understands that pornography is a tool of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, used to depict women as the sex class and is therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.

A feminist understands that prostitution is a tool of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, used to position women as the sex class and therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.

A feminist understands that the right to bodily autonomy is central to women’s liberation and further understands that all efforts by men and patriarchal institutions to control women’s reproduction is systemized oppression of women as the sex class.

A feminist understands that gender is a social construct used by men and the patriarchy to keep females locked into the sex class and that any reinforcement of gender serves only to solidify women’s position in that class.

A feminist understands that heteronormativity and mandatory PIV sex are tools of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, and are used to position women as the sex class and therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.

Recognizing and understanding the concept of a systemized and institutionalized misogyny (i.e., the patriarchy) is what makes one a true feminist. Further, a feminist understands that prostitution, sex trafficking, pornography, sexual abuse and violence, rape, sexual harassment, gender-essentialism, heteronormativity, mandatory PIV sex, and control of reproduction are specialized subsystems of the patriarchy that serve as its functioning units to control women’s lives.

Every feminist also understands that all human institutions (religious, educational, military, medical, industrial, science, cultural, entertainment, technological, legal, corporate, social, governmental, financial) have significant aspects of male dominance that, when combined in society overall, not only enable the patriarchy, but make it impervious to permanent reform.

Radical feminists understand that it will only by completely dismantling all of that, and rebuilding, that women will be completely free to be simply human.

Radical feminists also understand that each and every man has a fundamental stake in the patriarchy’s existence; that men as a class create and maintain, and men as individuals rely on and benefit from, the patriarchy’s subsystems and institutions. There is no way in hell that men could contribute to that complete overhaul — given that it’s the patriarchy that protects, defends, enables, and feeds men every day of their lives from their moment of birth to their moment of death (and ridiculously, beyond death and previous to life). There is no way that men are going to knock the very foundation of their status out from under their own feet and efforts to include them in the feminist movement is a waste of women’s precious time and energy.

Recognizing all of this, radical feminists do not get confused between what the overhaul looks like and what it looks like for women to survive in the meantime. Finding ways of mitigating the damages of the patriarchy’s subsystems and institutions is what we all must do just as a fact of living under the patriarchy. But we must also be the ones who keep a very clear vision beyond our current conditions to what it could be like if the patriarchy were completely destroyed.

Language — our language — is one of our most precious and powerful tools in this fight. In these times of backlash against feminism, many people are using our tools, including our most precious words, in ways that destroy the core concepts or make them meaningless and thus, useless.

Women must fight to keep our tools our own. Our tools help us maintain our vision and help guide us in the hard work toward our own liberation. We must be determined to not allow others to misuse them, or worse, use them against our movement for women’s liberation.

Read More

Having Equal Rights is Not The Same As Being Equal

(Image from here)

Written by Elaine Charkowski

Webster’s dictionary defines “feminism” as, “The theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.” In other words equal rights.

For women, having equal rights means being able to get loans and credit without the creditor requiring a husband’s signature. It also means access to the same education and job opportunities men enjoy. If a modern society existed that granted equal rights to both sexes, women would be elected as often as men and have equal political and economic power in every nation on earth.

Col. Kim Olson, an Air Force pilot said, "I am proud to have been part of the generation who made it normal for women to serve in the military. " The behavior of women who fly jets and bomb civilians (including other women and their children) is equal to the behavior of dysfunctional men. According to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed due to the March 2003 U.S. led invasion (Sentinel 10/29/04). However, having equal rights should not mean trying to be equal to dysfunctional men. Adding to the confusion is the false belief that men are naturally violent. 

In her book “The Chalice and the Blade” Riane Eisler describes partnership and dominator societies. In a partnership society, both sexes interact on equal terms and share power. In a dominator society, one sex is subordinate. In today's global dominator societies, women are subordinate to men. The shift from partnership societies to dominator societies began approximately 5,000 years ago. The island of Crete enjoyed a 1,500 year long era of peace when art and culture flourished. Crete’s culture of equal rights for both sexes was based upon the worship of the Goddess who represented life and renewal.
However, over thousands of years, waves of invaders, (Kurgans, Hebrews, and other tribes that worshipped violent male gods) destroyed the Goddess worshipping partnership societies and deleted powerful women from scripture, including the bible. Over millennia, they gradually took control, replacing the Goddess with their jealous, vengeful Jehovah.

Patriarchy is the current model of global society we inherited from male-supremacist barbarians. The domination of women by men is enforced by physical brute force and spiritual blackmail (scripture written by men). Since women and men are born into patriarchy, our thoughts can be distorted and constricted due to a lifetime of immersion in a dysfunctional culture. The media is full of violent warrior types we're supposed to admire. The patriarchal model of society requires winners and losers. From the boardroom to the battlefield it’s the same old story. This can blunt our critical thinking and confuse the issue of equal rights.

 

However, men are NOT innate warriors and killers, prone to uncontrollable violence. Assuming they are is using the sexist theory of biological destiny which also casts women as naturally helpless and submissive. This theory is used to keep women “in their place.” It also holds men to lower standards than women. The influence of testosterone is used as an excuse for men to be violent and cruel. This is actually anti-male sexism because it implies men are slaves to their hormones and out of control. This sounds like a description of mental illness.

If all men are natural born killers, should they be trusted with power? A critical point is that men aren’t the whole problem. The problem is the artificial, human-created social structure of patriarchy and its ethic of “might makes right” that most men have internalized. Patriarchy demands that men become aggressive and also emotionally dysfunctional— a very dangerous combination.

This is a false and warped definition of "being a man."

In today's violent world, male dysfunction is accepted while mentally healthy men of peace are mocked and regarded as weak. Patriarchy justifies war and expects men to obediently throw their lives away by surrendering their bodies and minds to the military. It also sanctions the microcosm of war— domestic violence, in which dysfunctional men control their families by brutality and force.

A few years ago, women began to demand the “right” to enter combat and fly fighter jets. However, unlike women who struggle for equal rights in the workplace, the equal rights that military women fight for is the “right” to murder people.  This is where clear, critical thinking is required. Just because men get to legally murder people in war, should women fight for this “right?” 

This is a step in the wrong direction!

When working to achieve equal rights, women must not seek to attain the rights of dysfunctional men. Equal rights must be humane-the right to improve one’s life and society by helping, not inflicting pain, and certainlly not murder. Rather than following the dictates of patriarchy, women must reject it just as many men of peace are doing. Fortunately, increasing numbers of men are rejecting the false theory of biological destiny and the narrow roles cast for them.

Women and men must work together to create a modern partnership society by refusing to support patriarchy and rejecting its narrow dysfunctional roles. Meek obedient doormats and bloodthirsty warriors are obscene parodies of what it means to be a woman or a man.

If enough people raise their consciousness, “critical mass” can be reached when rapid change sweeps away the old world order of “might makes right.” Patriarchy is outdated and dying; the earth as well as humanity can’t sustain it much longer.

A global partnership society may be closer than we think! Who will be the last person needed to tip the balance which will bring the dark ages of the last 5,000 years to an end? Will it be you? Will the pro-peace flyer or email message you hand to that one person be the grain of sand that changes the world?

Read More

I am going to RadFem 20123.

I've been worrying all week about writing this post. It feels dishonest not to write it but, at the same time, I find the anger that labelling oneself a Radical Feminst induces frightening. I have a half-finished blog post on my thoughts on radical feminism, socialism, and intersectionality that I actually don't want to finish writing because I would feel obligated to publish it and I'm not sure I'm ready for that. At the same time, it does feel like lying not to state that I label myself an anti-capitalist pro-radical feminist [anti-capitalist because I refuse to use the label socialist considering the endemic misogyny within the socialist movement that we're all supposed to pretend doesn't exist and pro-radical because I don't feel radical enough to call myself a radical feminism but that is mostly because of my anxiety than not being a radical feminist]. Just writing this is making me nauseous. 

But this is me trying to be honest.

I am going to RadFem 2013. 

I want to go to RadFem 2013. It is important to me for all the reasons outlined here on Sisterhood is Powerful. This is something I need to do for me. I understand that this means that some women whose opinions I respect will block me on twitter or unfriend me on Facebook and that makes me really very sad. I just don't want to lie about who I really am and I am an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist. 



My comments policy is here. Please read before posting comments.

Read More

My Christmas Books for #readingonlybookswrittenbywomen

These are the lovely books I got for Christmas:

Rose Tremain's The Colour

Rose Tremain's The Way I Found Her

Maggie O'Farrell's The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox

Jennifer Donnelly's A Gathering Light

Carol J. Adams' The Pornography of Meat

Jewly Hight's Right By Her Roots: American Women and Their Songs

Camilla Lackberg's The Hidden Child

Jennifer Worth's Call the Midwife

Cecilia Ahern's Thanks for the Memories

Liza Dalby's The Tale of Murasaki

bell hooks' belonging: a culture of place

Kim Edwards's The Memory Keeper's Daughter

Angela Carter's Book of Fairy Tales

Hannah Richell's Secret of the Tides

Jane Mendelsohn's I was Amelia Earhart

Jean Kilbourne's Deadly Persuasion: Why Women and Girls Must Fight the Addictive Power of Advertising

(The benefits of living near 3 brilliant second-hand bookstores)

Read More

My Birthday Books for #ReadingOnlyBooksWrittenByWomen

These are all the lovely books I got for my birthday:

Vandana Shiva' Soil Not Oil: Climate Change, Peak Oil and Food Insecurity

Carol Adams' The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory

Elaine Showalter' The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture 1830-1980

Marina Warner's From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers

Karen Boyle's Everyday Pornography

Phyllis Chesler' Women and Madness

Susan Sontag' Regarding the Pain of Others

Carole Pateman' The Sexual Contract

The Radical Women Manifesto: Socialist-Feminist Theory, Program and Organisational Structure

Read More