Whether their voices are loudest or not they're still Radical Feminists rather than mainstream Feminists. The definition of the word doesn't change and the political position remains extreme.
It would take a massive geopolitical shift for feminism to become obsolete and then for the next wave of "feminists in name only" to push for a fully matriarchal society (with all attendant systemic oppression of men). Until such a time comes Radical Feminists will remain fringe, even if they're in power in a given location.
Does that make sense?
Actually, I can't agree with that.
I feel that in your representation of feminism you're doing a lot of labelling: you create a definition of feminism according to which it's a sensible movement with balanced views - and, based on that definition, you label the more aggressive forms of feminism as radical, fringe and, basically, not quite right. And you insist on sticking to these labels with no regard to real power these various forms of feminism have.
I prefer to look at feminism not through labels, but through reality. And the fact is that, according to what I've heard, the man-hating version of feminism has some serious power in Sweden. So, sorry, I don't agree with you just shrugging at them and dismissing them as feminist fringe. How can you call them a fringe variant of feminism, if they have so much clout in Sweden?
I'm definitely not trying to say that what you call TERFs constitute the majority of feminists. But they are a significant group, an existing facet of the movement. You cannot just dismiss them as "not real feminists" and say that the "real feminism" is being misrepresented, when accusations of feminists hating men arise. Because the truth is that some feminists *do* hate men and that a part of the movement actually is kind of crazy...
And speaking of labelling, I really, really don't appreciate what you're doing with the women who don't agree with feminism. It's oh-so-conventient to label them as "Black Sashes" and treat them all as ignorant, privileged, naive or brainwashed by patriarchy. But it's not fair to them. Is it so hard to admit that, maybe, these women have some opinions worth considering?
These are good questions but I'm not sure exactly. I did try to find out. A lot of the sources are in Swedish which makes it a bit difficult for me to research this very thoroughly. Also the newspaper articles I was trying to look at for this have been taken down, they don't seem to be still archiving them from back in 2004. That's why I had to try to guess from some rough statistics that I could find.
I'd really like to know what the response to this idea was. Because if no-one aside from a few radical feminists treated it seriously, then okay - no problem. But if it really was something considered worth debating, then it'd show that this brand of feminism really does have influence in Sweden. And that it shouldn't be dismissed as something fringe and unrepresentative of the movement...
Well I can name one feminist that I've met in person who has this belief, so I know it does still exist. However I can also name people who believe the Earth is flat as well (albeit none personally). Name a political belief and I can point out some extreme radicals who propose ridiculous things.
Actually, I've been told that this is considered a serious idea in Sweden nowadays. It's not some ridiculous thing only a few radicals promote, it's a notion that's getting some traction there.
Despite Sroda being reasonably older, reviewing some of her work that I've been able to see doesn't paint her as being a second wave feminist or ignoring intersectionality.
Well, she can't ignore intersectionality - she's a lesbian herself
At least according to my feminist sister who met her...
She actually seems reasonably progressive from some of the things I can find. This is made difficult of course because I don't speak Polish either, but that's the impression I get from English translated summaries that I can find. Nor does she appear to be a fringe figure or radical. Everything I can find seems to suggest that she is taken rather seriously as a mainstream voice of feminism in Poland.
Because she *is* treated seriously. At the same time, she does say some outrageous things. Aside from "men are selfish, women are selfless" thing, she also proposed that all and any parties that are in favour of death penalty should be banned across Europe. Because, according to her, death penalty is so uncivilized that it shouldn't be allowed to be a part of political discourse. You know, I am an ardent opponent of death penalty and even I find such an idea outrageous...
And again - despite of all she's saying, she's respected and considered one of the main faces of feminism here. So, with things being this way... how can I buy into Steam's claim that "mainstream" feminism is nice and friendly - and all claims of it being sexist and aggresive are just chauvinistic propaganda?