Passive methods of action will only do so much as structural and societal constraints will prevail. Unless there is a more radical outreach, women will remain the “underdog” in society, especially because the focus is more on conceptual ideologies such as the abolishment of gender role expectations. These issues, much like in the second wave of feminism, will only become marginalized by other social outcries such as welfare that are apparent and seem to need greater attention. Radical Feminism has proven to be the more effective choice of action since it promotes a greater, positive dialogue and initiates a course of action in support of feminist ideals. Therefore, radical feminism may arguably be considered more appropriate for the third wave of feminism. The following paper will define the term radical in relation to feminism and identify boundaries due to its significant spectrum. Furthermore, to support the above-mentioned claims, cases in which radical feminist movements in the past have been more effective from relatively passive movements in the incidence of the Women’s Suffrage, will be identified.
Like much of feminism, radical feminism too is highly misunderstood. The textbook definition of the term is as follows, “Radical feminism is a “current” within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption of “male supremacy” used to oppress women”. Additionally, “Radical feminists tend to be more militant in their approach (radical as “getting to the root”) than other feminists are” (Lewis, 2014). The first part defines the term in a broad ideological sense whereas the second shares the thought response. In the technical sense this is fair considering being a militant refers to a broad group of people such as activists, revolutionaries, terrorists or even insurgents, and feminists can be both revolutionaries and activists.