think we have a very different understanding of history - as far as im aware the big "sex-positive" movement was most definitely pushed forward by those who described themselves as "third wave". it coincided with the eighties materialist yuppie movement, which is no real coincidence im sure. the third wave manifestas and essays i have seen have all been about 'reclaiming' feminism from the radicals (the whole point of the 'third' title was to differentiate these porn positive party girls from the 'repressed' and depressed old guard) and pushing "personal choice" and the right to 'be pretty'. in my head theres a great big question over third wave feminism - has it happened yet, is it happening now, what does it even mean? this is an interesting subject, but my point is that i don't understand what you are saying about this 'third wave' because it doesnt tie in with any of the other things i've read. perhaps an explanation of your own understanding of it would be a good way to start this discussion on another thread?
on this topic: i didnt see heart slander you. i saw you tell her to fuck off, i saw you slag off her own ideas sentence by sentence, and i saw you claim that she had put feminists off blogging any more. this whole debate has stopped me from blogging, ive felt completely and utterly alienated - but funnily enough not from the same direction.
ive seen a few women speak out, amy and nectarine for example, but mostly ive see the same silencing of women on this subject amongst feminists that ive see everywhere else. im hurt and disappointed by it.
this whole thread just reads like an excuse to lay into someone, you've personalised this argument into a huge attack on heart rather than in any way trying to understand or discuss the issues on the table.
This is what Wikipedia says, and I am almost happy with the definition:
Third-wave feminism is a feminist movement that began in the early 1990s. While second-wave feminism largely focused on the inclusion of women in traditionally male-dominated areas, third-wave feminism seeks to challenge and expand common definitions of gender and sexuality.
The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).
Mostly, I see third wave being perceived as a generation thing- second wave- baby boomers, third wave- gen X.
Yes, there are a hell of a lot of differences between the two, their aims and their remit. It was precisely because of these differences that I had chosen to respond to Heart, because I'm quite not the kind to sit and take at attack without a word.
Heart's post was a very politely worded attack. Under the guise of reclaiming the term "radical feminism", she disparaged and insulted our work,by framing it in a very self serving notion.
The problems with that are many.
To begin with, the term "white picket fence feminist" as opposed to "radical feminist" is a bit bizarre to be used by her, people who live in glass houses and all that.
She has accused us of being followers of a fad- as such questioned our commitment, of being mostly white middle class privileged women, which to my knowledge of the radfem blogosphere does not quite apply to most of us, and disparaged our work against sexual oppression, sexual violence, pornography, proxenetism and prostitution, as not being "radical enough" for her own taste.
Typically, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.
As such, Heart has taken it upon herself to redefine and deny us our identity. Needless to say, I am not taking that from anyone, and that is about it.
I am not aiming to silence her, because all voices are welcome. However, a retraction would be nice.
