Radical Feminism – Socially Destructive

Radical feminism – socially destructive – goes by other names: Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism (therefore the nickname redfem), and more.  It permeates and guides all of feminism there is and is most definitely very much alive.

See Women and Marxism, at http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/index.htm.

For more information on definitions of feminist terms, refer to

Feminism?  You want feminism?  Which brand would you like?

Addendum 2018 07 09

The few words and three links in the introduction of ten years ago don’t do the subject of radical feminism justice.  Here are a few more opinions, with links to the context in which they were expressed.

If the term “radical feminism” (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

It should by now be abundantly obvious to anyone that the feminist social engineering of more than 60 years that resulted in the systematic and endemic marginalization of fathers and families produced nothing but social decay. If you cannot accept that, read ‘Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family‘, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. Rebecca O’Neill states that,

It’s official: The experiment has failed

For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

Erin Pizzey, the founder of the modern battered women shelter movement, stated similarly:

 I greatly hoped, when the women’s movement first began to form in England in the late sixties and early seventies,  that married woman like myself, at home bringing up our children, would no longer be isolated.   I strongly believed that the family was the cornerstone of any civilisation…..

In 1971, I flocked with my friends to the first feminist collectives held in London and other major cities of the country to listen to the prophets of the new revolution.  Most of us were appalled at what we heard and intimidated by the rage and fury of  the visionaries who claimed that they were speaking on behalf of ‘all women.’  I did not want to join a movement that preached hatred of family life and of  men.  Many of the women in those early days of the women’s liberation movement, defected back to their homes and to their husbands….

….I refused, I said, to see the family as a ‘place of oppression’ and to define my husband as ‘my jailer.’
Finally, those of us who opposed the Marxist Feminist leadership, were driven out of the movement.  We objected to the violence taking place in England at that time.  We did not see the invasion of the Miss World contest in 1970, by the women’s movement, as a blow for women’s liberation, nor did we applaud the bombing of the BBC van outside the contest  later that night (various anarchist groups were implicated).  When in 1972 the Kensington boutique ‘Biba’ was also bombed, I realised that there was no place for me any longer amongst these violent and disastrous movements.   What I did feel, listening and working in the women’s liberation offices in Little Newport Street, in London, was that many of the leading lights in this movement, while chanting their slogan, ‘the personal is political’, were in denial of their own violent and abused childhoods.   I saw them as ‘wounded warriors’, unable to take responsibility for themselves and their damage, they projected their rage and their discontent,  onto ‘all men.’ ….

….As a result of working on this film,  I no longer feel so alone in this battle to save the traditional family.    The people who have come to take part in the film are only a tip of the iceberg of concerned people  in the rest of  this country.  Many others working in the field of domestic violence assured me that, if they took part in the film, they would be personally threatened and intimidated.  A few said, they feared that their research grants would be withdrawn.  Others were afraid of loosing their jobs.   I know these people are not paranoid,  I have personal experience of the brooding evil of the gender feminists who are in positions of power in our society.    When I am asked if I am afraid to continue to fight, I can only reply, ‘tis a mighty God I serve, of whom shall I be afraid?’  ….More

—Erin Pizzey, The Scotsman, 30.3.99
in her announcement of her documentary,

Jordan Peterson, decades later, could not fail to come to comparable conclusions.  He became quite emotional, rightly so, when he expressed his thoughts about radical feminism and the role it had played in radicalizing our society, in ‘Radical feminism is alienating young men‘.

Robert H. Bork devoted a whole chapter to the subject of radical feminism, in his book, ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline’ (1996).  He stated in that,

Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica is a “rape manual” because  “science is a male rape of female nature”; Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony expresses the “throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.” (1) These and other ludicrous pronouncements may incline sensible people to dismiss today’s feminism as a mildly amusing but utterly inconsequential fit of hysterics. That would be a mistake.
Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature.  Radical feminism is today’s female counterpart of Sixties radicalism.  The feminist program is in its main features the same as that of the disastrous Port Huron Statement, (2) modified to accommodate the belief that the oppressors, the source of all evil, are men, the “patriarchy” rather than the “Establishment.”  All else remains the same.  “Feminism rode into our cultural life on the coattails of the New Left but by now it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual barbarisms.” (3) ….



The gender perspective of radical feminism is easy to ridicule but it must be taken seriously.  It attacks not only men but the institution of the family, it is hostile to traditional religion, it demands quotas in every field for women, and it engages in serious misrepresentations of facts. Worst of all, it inflicts great damage on persons and essential institutions in a reckless attempt to remake human beings and create a world that can never exist.  As we will see, among the institutions being severely damaged by radical feminism are the American education system and the American military.


Perhaps the first thing to point out, however, is that radical feminism in its largest aspirations is doomed to failure.  That makes the harms it inflicts on people and institutions in pursuit of its unattainable ends all the more inexcusable.  Radical feminism shares the most destructive idea in the original draft of the Port Huron Statement: human nature is infinitely malleable and hence infinitely perfectible.  This idea, encrypted in the substitution of “gender” for “sex,” is essential to the feminist enterprise of removing all differences between men and women in the roles they play in society.  If certain talents are predominantly male and others predominantly female by nature, that enterprise is defeated.  Hence, feminists insist that the differing roles of the sexes have nothing to do with biology. What a society’s culture can construct, it can deconstruct.  Culture is everything and Culture can be changed so that all male-female differences, other than in their reproductive organs, will disappear.  Women will then appear in every profession and occupation in proportion to their representation in the population at large.  The statistical imbalances we see today are merely the results of conditioning and discrimination.
Even if this feminist contention were correct, its totalitarian implications are obvious.  Culture is a stubborn opponent.  To defeat it requires the coercion of humans.  The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture. The feminists are having a similarly corrupting effect on our culture with only the weapon of moral intimidation.  The contention that underneath their cultural conditioning men and women are identical is absurd to anyone not blinded by ideological fantasy….



Before the patriarchy took over about 3,000 years ago, Hite contends in a burst of bogus history, mother-child societies existed. (Feminists find it useful to fictionalize the past; for example, that pre-historic Europe was a peaceful, egalitarian, matriarchal society that worshipped the goddess, but patriarchy was forced upon these societies by conquering horsemen from the east.)  She seems pleased that there are a large number of fatherless families today because, contradicting all the social science evidence, she thinks males raised without fathers will treat women better.  The family is not a religious institution and there is no need to “show respect and reverence for a ‘religious’ tradition which has as its basic principle, at its heart, the political will of men to dominate women[.] This is not religion, this is politics.” She continues with the basic feminist fallacy: “There is no such thing as fixed ‘human nature.’ Rather, it is a psychological structure that is carefully implanted in our minds as we learn the love and power equations of the family – for life.  Fortunately the family is a human institution: humans made it and humans can change it.” ….

—Robert H. Bork, in
Slouching Towards Gomorrah — Modern Liberalism and American Decline (1996)
Chapter 11
The Politics of Sex
Radical Feminism’s Assault on American Culture

#RadicalFeminism #MarxistFeminism #SocialistFeminism

See also:

(Visited 18 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Feminism, The New World Order. Bookmark the permalink.