The types of radical feminism you are mentioning in your first three bullet points are not types that I or the people or organisations I am mentioning would associate with. These groups are often labelled as Trans- or Sex worker- exclusionary radical feminists. It is a shame that they use this label too. They are generally funded by far right groups and instrumentalised to make it seem that they represent the feminist movement as a whole, or womenâs interests more broadly.
I think youâre whitewashing the history of radical feminism a bit here. I think the radical feminist movement has to own these mistakes in order to move on from them. To say something like âthatâs not real radical feminismâ or âthatâs a false flag operationâ is not to acknowledge the reality of what happened and the harm that was done. For example, the pornography ban I mentioned was supported by key figures in radical feminism.
The fourth bullet point I hadnât heard about, and that Contrapoints video has been on my watch list for a long time now- I should really watch it!
If youâre a fan of ContraPoints too, then thatâs one thing we can agree on! Her videos are wise, perspicacious, funny, and visually beautiful. I think they should win awards. Iâm a huge fan.
Could you give a little more context on what you donât understand? Iâm not sure I can see the same issues, at least at the moment
I tried to read Pleasure Activism in part because the idea of âpleasure activismâ sounded interesting to me. I wondered, is the idea to make activism more fun? More guided toward things that are emotionally rewarding, rather than all about pain and discomfort and altruistic self-sacrifice? Or, alternatively, is it about fighting for things that bring us pleasure and joy?
The book does not really explain this. It does not really explain what pleasure activism is, at least not in a way I could make any sense of. Iâm not alone in this, since I asked my friend who recommended the book to me if he understood what adrienne maree brown was trying to say, and he basically said no.
When I tried to read Pleasure Activism, I wanted to see if anyone could make more sense of it than me. One of the reviews I found, from a sympathetic reviewer,[1] was generally positive, but also called out how confusing the book is. (It also mentions adrienne maree brownâs claim that she was bitten by a vampire.)
To me, if you write a book about a new idea and you donât explain what that idea is in a way thatâs easy to understand, your book has failed as a piece of scholarship. If I canât understand what youâre trying to say, and especially if you donât even try particularly hard to explain it, then thereâs nothing I can do with your work. It canât affect me. It canât cause me to think or act differently. I canât engage with it. I canât even disagree with it, because I donât know what I would be disagreeing with.
One thing Iâll say for now is that there are certainly parts of the feminist movements that you will strongly disagree with, and that disagreement is welcome.
I am a feminist and I have a good grasp on feminist theory, partly because I took courses on feminist theory when I was in university. I already articulated four key points I disagree with many radical feminists about â trying to harm trans people, banning pornography, opposing decriminalization or legalization of sex work, and narrow views on what kinds of sex are ethical. Especially nowadays, I would guess there are some people who call themselves radical feminists who have different views on these topics (and this seems to be what youâre saying). But I also probably disagree with those people as well, for example on economic issues.
Some parts of the radical feministsâ critiques were correct. They were correct to focus on many of the social and cultural phenomena that contribute to womenâs oppression (although they made some serious mistakes here, too, as I mentioned), going beyond a focus just on formal, legal equality (which is important, of course, but too limited). For example, the radical feminist critique of rape culture was hugely important.
It seems to me a lot of radical feministsâ critiques have been absorbed into the mainstream in a way that didnât feel true (or nearly as true) 15 years ago.
This is a good thing for the mainstream, since the critiques that were absorbed are correct, but it also makes self-identified âradical feministsâ today less relevant, since their good ideas are now a part of mainstream feminism â and feminism, in general, is more a part of mainstream culture â and what radical feminists have to offer is now less differentiated from mainstream feminism.
I agree that authoritarian communism is bad, but I have a lot more belief in degrowth. Could you give some more specifics on what your issues are with it?
Economic degrowth is the idea that we should make the world significantly poorer (i.e. significantly decrease the worldâs total income) for environmental reasons. I think this would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale thatâs hard to fathom and I donât think it would even be particularly helpful for achieving environmental goals, and might even do harm, ultimately.
For example, if we could snap our fingers and cut the worldâs consumption of fossil fuels in half, probably millions of people would starve or die other kinds of preventable deaths. And our progress on climate change might end up getting set back since the worldâs economy would be so crippled, it would be hard to do things like fund R&D into wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, energy storage, and other sustainable energy technologies or to make long-term capital investments into deploying these technologies.
If you want to read a more in-depth critique of the idea of economic degrowth, Kelsey Piper at Vox wrote one that clearâs and accessible.
One of the most succinct and eloquent critiques of degrowth I have read comes from a review of Naomi Kleinâs book This Changes Everything:
The second, incredibly risky response to the climate crisis that she [Naomi Klein] recommends is a policy of âdegrowthâ (88). This is sort of a euphemism for reducing the size of GDP, which in practice means creating a policy-induced, long-term recession, followed (presumably) by measures designed to restrict the economy to a zero-growth equilibrium. Now because she plans to shift millions of workers into low-productivity sectors of the economy (126-7), and perhaps reduce work hours (93), she imagines that this degrowth can happen without creating any unemployment. So the picture presumably is one in which individuals experience a slow, steady decline in real income, of perhaps 2% per year over a period of 10 years (none of the people recommending this seem to give specific numbers, so Iâm just guessing what they have in mind), followed by permanent income stagnation. (There would, presumably, still be technological change, so a degrowth policy would have to be accompanied by some mechanism to ensure that work hours were cut back in response to any increase in productive efficiency, in order to ensure that production as a whole did not increase.)
At the same time that incomes are either shrinking or remaining stagnant, Klein also proposes an enormous shift from private-sector to public-sector consumption, presumably financed by significant increases in personal income tax. Again, she doesnât give any specific numbers, but from the way she talks it sounds like she wants to shift around a quarter of the remaining GDP. Plus she wants to see a huge amount of redistribution to the poor. So again, just ballparking, but it sounds as though she wants the average person to accept a pay cut of around 20%, followed by the promise of no pay increase ever again, combined with an increase in average income tax rates of around 25% (so in Canada, from around 30% to 55%). And donât forget, this is all supposed to be achieved democratically. As in, people are going to vote for this, not just once, but repeatedly.
What I find astonishing about proponents of âdegrowthâ â not just Klein, but Peter Victor as well â is that they donât see the tension between this desire to reduce average income and the desire to reduce economic inequality. They expect people to support increased redistribution at the same time that their own incomes are declining. This leaves me at something of a loss â I struggle to find words to express the depth of my incredulity at this proposition. In what world has this, or could this, ever occur?
In the real world, economic recessions are rather strongly associated with a significant increase in the nastiness of politics. Economic growth, on the other hand, makes redistribution much easier, simply because the transfers do not show up as absolute losses to individuals who are financing them, but rather as foregone gains, which are much more abstract. Itâs not an accident that the welfare state was created in the context of a growing economy. (See Benjamin Friedman, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, for a general discussion of the effect of growth on politics.) It seems to me obvious that a degrowth strategy â by making the economy negative-sum â would massively increase resistance to both taxation and redistribution. At the limit, it could generate dangerous blow-back, in the form of increased support for radical right-wing parties.
As a result, I just donât see any moral difference between what Klein is doing in this book and what the geoengineering enthusiasts are doing. The latter are techno-utopians, while Klein is a socialist-utopian. But both are trying to pin our hopes for resolving the climate crisis on a risky, untested, and potentially dangerous policy. Furthermore, the idea that Kleinâs agenda could be achieved democratically strikes me as being otherworldly, in a country where the left canât even figure out how to get the Conservative party out of power.
The âshadowâ of degrowth is environmental authoritarianism, in which âthe hardest choices require the strongest willsâ (to quote a villain), and so, the ability of people to resist unpopular policies that make them poorer needs to be quashed with force.
Some people go in the opposite direction and, rather than âbiting the bulletâ and endorsing an ugly conclusion, lean into cognitive dissonance and try to say that degrowth is not really about negative GDP growth, after all, but about⌠something they either have a hard time making clear, or that just doesnât make sense, or ends up amounting to green growth (the opposite of degrowth), or ends up undermining their claim that degrowth is not about negative GDP growth.
Your concluding comments seem like rage-bait and might be an unnecessary addition to your otherwise very thoughtful reply.
Itâs not rage bait, itâs just rage. I have deep exposure to radical leftist ideas, spanning about 15 years, and Iâm just fed up with so much of it. I think so much of radical leftist discourse is incoherent (like Pleasure Activism), insane (like degrowth), or evil (like the level of praise or apologetics for authoritarian communism you see in radical leftist communities). And the way that radical leftists try to advance their ideas is often cruel and sadistic, for example, by harassing or bullying people who express disagreement (and sometimes by endorsing physical violence).[2] I am angry at the radical left for being this way.
I have been as much of an insider to radical leftism as itâs possible to be. I know the ins and outs. My perspective does not come from a shallow gloss of radical leftism, but from a deep familiarity.
I think probably one of the most effective ways to limit the harm caused by the radical left as it currently exists is to try to fill the vacuum of liberal, progressive, centre-left, or leftist ideas for structural reform.
One of the most encouraging examples Iâve seen is the economist Thomas Pikettyâs short political manifesto at the end of his book Capital and Ideology. The manifesto is the final chapter of the book, titled âElements for a Participatory Socialism for the Twenty-First Centuryâ. This is the most coherent, most sane, and most constructive version of radical leftist economic thought (if it is accurate to call it radical leftist) I have ever seen. More of this, please!
I am also reading (almost finished) Ezra Klein and Derek Thompsonâs book Abundance, which just came out this year. Itâs awesome. I am sold on the idea of âabundance liberalismâ, which started out being called âsupply-side progressivismâ, but now has a much better name and has probably also expanded a bit in terms of the ideas it encompasses.
As much as Iâm fed up with so much about the radical left as it exists today, just complaining about the radical left probably isnât a good strategy for changing things for the better. We should come up with good, constructive ideas to draw people away from bad, destructive ideas and to take the energy away from bad, destructive political discourse.
The importance of any of my criticisms (of radical feminism, of radical leftism, of degrowth) pales in comparison to the importance of coming up with and advocating for good ideas that can offer an alternative. This is hard work and itâs where I want to put more of my focus going forward.
I donât know how much energy I have to continue this thread of conversation, so if you decide to reply, please do so with the warning that I may not read your reply or respond to it. I can get really into writing stuff on the EA Forum, but it takes up a lot of my time and energy, and I have to prioritize.
Iâm not clear on this, but I think the person who wrote the review even works at the radical leftist publishing company, AK Press, that published the book.
The phrase âthe cruelty is the pointâ has been used as a criticism of Donald Trump and the Republican Party under his leadership, but it would also apply aptly to a lot of radical leftistsâ behaviour.
I think youâre whitewashing the history of radical feminism a bit here. I think the radical feminist movement has to own these mistakes in order to move on from them. To say something like âthatâs not real radical feminismâ or âthatâs a false flag operationâ is not to acknowledge the reality of what happened and the harm that was done. For example, the pornography ban I mentioned was supported by key figures in radical feminism.
If youâre a fan of ContraPoints too, then thatâs one thing we can agree on! Her videos are wise, perspicacious, funny, and visually beautiful. I think they should win awards. Iâm a huge fan.
I tried to read Pleasure Activism in part because the idea of âpleasure activismâ sounded interesting to me. I wondered, is the idea to make activism more fun? More guided toward things that are emotionally rewarding, rather than all about pain and discomfort and altruistic self-sacrifice? Or, alternatively, is it about fighting for things that bring us pleasure and joy?
The book does not really explain this. It does not really explain what pleasure activism is, at least not in a way I could make any sense of. Iâm not alone in this, since I asked my friend who recommended the book to me if he understood what adrienne maree brown was trying to say, and he basically said no.
When I tried to read Pleasure Activism, I wanted to see if anyone could make more sense of it than me. One of the reviews I found, from a sympathetic reviewer,[1] was generally positive, but also called out how confusing the book is. (It also mentions adrienne maree brownâs claim that she was bitten by a vampire.)
To me, if you write a book about a new idea and you donât explain what that idea is in a way thatâs easy to understand, your book has failed as a piece of scholarship. If I canât understand what youâre trying to say, and especially if you donât even try particularly hard to explain it, then thereâs nothing I can do with your work. It canât affect me. It canât cause me to think or act differently. I canât engage with it. I canât even disagree with it, because I donât know what I would be disagreeing with.
I am a feminist and I have a good grasp on feminist theory, partly because I took courses on feminist theory when I was in university. I already articulated four key points I disagree with many radical feminists about â trying to harm trans people, banning pornography, opposing decriminalization or legalization of sex work, and narrow views on what kinds of sex are ethical. Especially nowadays, I would guess there are some people who call themselves radical feminists who have different views on these topics (and this seems to be what youâre saying). But I also probably disagree with those people as well, for example on economic issues.
Some parts of the radical feministsâ critiques were correct. They were correct to focus on many of the social and cultural phenomena that contribute to womenâs oppression (although they made some serious mistakes here, too, as I mentioned), going beyond a focus just on formal, legal equality (which is important, of course, but too limited). For example, the radical feminist critique of rape culture was hugely important.
It seems to me a lot of radical feministsâ critiques have been absorbed into the mainstream in a way that didnât feel true (or nearly as true) 15 years ago.
This is a good thing for the mainstream, since the critiques that were absorbed are correct, but it also makes self-identified âradical feministsâ today less relevant, since their good ideas are now a part of mainstream feminism â and feminism, in general, is more a part of mainstream culture â and what radical feminists have to offer is now less differentiated from mainstream feminism.
Economic degrowth is the idea that we should make the world significantly poorer (i.e. significantly decrease the worldâs total income) for environmental reasons. I think this would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale thatâs hard to fathom and I donât think it would even be particularly helpful for achieving environmental goals, and might even do harm, ultimately.
For example, if we could snap our fingers and cut the worldâs consumption of fossil fuels in half, probably millions of people would starve or die other kinds of preventable deaths. And our progress on climate change might end up getting set back since the worldâs economy would be so crippled, it would be hard to do things like fund R&D into wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, energy storage, and other sustainable energy technologies or to make long-term capital investments into deploying these technologies.
If you want to read a more in-depth critique of the idea of economic degrowth, Kelsey Piper at Vox wrote one that clearâs and accessible.
One of the most succinct and eloquent critiques of degrowth I have read comes from a review of Naomi Kleinâs book This Changes Everything:
The âshadowâ of degrowth is environmental authoritarianism, in which âthe hardest choices require the strongest willsâ (to quote a villain), and so, the ability of people to resist unpopular policies that make them poorer needs to be quashed with force.
Some people go in the opposite direction and, rather than âbiting the bulletâ and endorsing an ugly conclusion, lean into cognitive dissonance and try to say that degrowth is not really about negative GDP growth, after all, but about⌠something they either have a hard time making clear, or that just doesnât make sense, or ends up amounting to green growth (the opposite of degrowth), or ends up undermining their claim that degrowth is not about negative GDP growth.
Itâs not rage bait, itâs just rage. I have deep exposure to radical leftist ideas, spanning about 15 years, and Iâm just fed up with so much of it. I think so much of radical leftist discourse is incoherent (like Pleasure Activism), insane (like degrowth), or evil (like the level of praise or apologetics for authoritarian communism you see in radical leftist communities). And the way that radical leftists try to advance their ideas is often cruel and sadistic, for example, by harassing or bullying people who express disagreement (and sometimes by endorsing physical violence).[2] I am angry at the radical left for being this way.
I have been as much of an insider to radical leftism as itâs possible to be. I know the ins and outs. My perspective does not come from a shallow gloss of radical leftism, but from a deep familiarity.
I think probably one of the most effective ways to limit the harm caused by the radical left as it currently exists is to try to fill the vacuum of liberal, progressive, centre-left, or leftist ideas for structural reform.
One of the most encouraging examples Iâve seen is the economist Thomas Pikettyâs short political manifesto at the end of his book Capital and Ideology. The manifesto is the final chapter of the book, titled âElements for a Participatory Socialism for the Twenty-First Centuryâ. This is the most coherent, most sane, and most constructive version of radical leftist economic thought (if it is accurate to call it radical leftist) I have ever seen. More of this, please!
I am also reading (almost finished) Ezra Klein and Derek Thompsonâs book Abundance, which just came out this year. Itâs awesome. I am sold on the idea of âabundance liberalismâ, which started out being called âsupply-side progressivismâ, but now has a much better name and has probably also expanded a bit in terms of the ideas it encompasses.
As much as Iâm fed up with so much about the radical left as it exists today, just complaining about the radical left probably isnât a good strategy for changing things for the better. We should come up with good, constructive ideas to draw people away from bad, destructive ideas and to take the energy away from bad, destructive political discourse.
The importance of any of my criticisms (of radical feminism, of radical leftism, of degrowth) pales in comparison to the importance of coming up with and advocating for good ideas that can offer an alternative. This is hard work and itâs where I want to put more of my focus going forward.
I donât know how much energy I have to continue this thread of conversation, so if you decide to reply, please do so with the warning that I may not read your reply or respond to it. I can get really into writing stuff on the EA Forum, but it takes up a lot of my time and energy, and I have to prioritize.
Iâm not clear on this, but I think the person who wrote the review even works at the radical leftist publishing company, AK Press, that published the book.
The phrase âthe cruelty is the pointâ has been used as a criticism of Donald Trump and the Republican Party under his leadership, but it would also apply aptly to a lot of radical leftistsâ behaviour.