Exh radghyhh

I'm not certain one can take radical feminism as an organization like DGR said it was

The core project of radical feminism was to get the heart of patriarchal oppression. In this respect, radical feminism at first took at face value approach of the overall assumption that there is some fundamental, innate variance between "male" and "female" that can be thought of independently of social relations. 

But radical feminism challenged this conclusion, which is that men and women are natural categories and that the patriarchy must exist. In this way, radical feminism made a huge deal of headway and corrected a lot of the errors of liberal feminism (some corrected errors which I think many on the left has fallen back into, sadly which is why I continue to critique Liberal feminism).

The trouble with a lot of radical feminism in our current era, from my vantage point, has been mostly that when faced with new info which challenges a bit of the presuppositions of the older radical feminism, instead of radical feminists expanding and deepening their examination, self-proclaimed "radical feminists" have chosen for a heavy dogmatic reading of radical feminism and have shifted their attention to exact conclusions rather than the core project of what radical feminism was all about

There are those of us today who are currently trying to reclaim radical feminism from TERFs and similar dogmatists, who posit that what actually distinguishes radical feminism is its goal of gender abolition, and I believe this is in large part meshes with Marxism, which can only view gender as a material production relation that gives rise to patriarchal oppression. 

Another thing that I would say is radical feminism, but which doesn't adhere to the notion of "inherent" differences between "male" and "female" bodies is the book The Politics of Reproduction by Mary O'brien. 

This book is in and of itself quite problematic if we take into consideration its analysis of gender/sex which it says is based massively on the "Western Marxist" idea of alienation which is a incoherent concept in my view

Yet Mary O'brien makes an outstanding point early on in her book in a sympathetic critique of Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex.

Firestone wrote that we just need cybernetics in order to liberate women, because in her view, if we do not humans are trapped in an immutable biological division. 

What O'brien asks, however, is what is the whole point that Shulmith makes when she says "trapped" by biology? It is clearly a biological fact that humans need to have their basic needs met

At the same time we would never claim that it is an ultimate end that specific people have to sell their labor-power to others peoples so they can have their basic needs met (though under some Communist regimes like the USSR there were famines)

The advantage of Marxism is exactly in that it reveals how connections of production seize upon, things such as "biology." 

So Mary O'brien shows the primacy of the relations that happen with production, which is compatible with Marxism

Anyway I'm rambling now. Overall good stuff.

I am also this type of Radical feminist which means I am interested in whether we can take back the label of “sex-negative” by clearly setting out what it stands for.