I am not sure how the tension between radical and liberal feminists is working out these days, but in the 1980s, one way was activist/academic.
I'm not sure that in 2007 anybody working in an academic insitution really gets to consider themselves a radical (as I understand the word) just based on the theory/reading/writing--I could be wrong, and just reflecting my own situation, but I think that's something to consider in the critiques of the OTW as not "radical" enough. I'm quite open to the idea that it's a generational issue.
The question is what is one doing beyond that academic setting--what I see the OTW doing, even with the academic journal (which btw is going to be seen as extremely radical/possibly marginalized/discounted by a lot of the gatekeepers in academia), is working to make a structural difference in existing conditions by changing the nature of ownership.
That they're not also making feminist arguments (and the systemic nature of oppression as you note is not solely a feminist analysis) is not surprising to me: look at all the criticism and complaints about the academic/feminist/exclusionary/oppressive nature of the group even as they currently exist (and before they've done much of anything beyond set up some committees!)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-13 11:28 am (UTC)I am not sure how the tension between radical and liberal feminists is working out these days, but in the 1980s, one way was activist/academic.
I'm not sure that in 2007 anybody working in an academic insitution really gets to consider themselves a radical (as I understand the word) just based on the theory/reading/writing--I could be wrong, and just reflecting my own situation, but I think that's something to consider in the critiques of the OTW as not "radical" enough. I'm quite open to the idea that it's a generational issue.
The question is what is one doing beyond that academic setting--what I see the OTW doing, even with the academic journal (which btw is going to be seen as extremely radical/possibly marginalized/discounted by a lot of the gatekeepers in academia), is working to make a structural difference in existing conditions by changing the nature of ownership.
That they're not also making feminist arguments (and the systemic nature of oppression as you note is not solely a feminist analysis) is not surprising to me: look at all the criticism and complaints about the academic/feminist/exclusionary/oppressive nature of the group even as they currently exist (and before they've done much of anything beyond set up some committees!)