Thursday, 27 November 2014

What Type of Feminist (or Pro-Feminist) Are You? - Part 2

My blog has been linked to by another blog called "feminist resources", but I cannot access it. If you are the creator of "feminist resources", please give my access to your blog, so I can see how people are responding to my posts. I am glad to see that my blog is getting more attention (even if some of it comes from people who hate it).

This second quiz determines whether somebody is a moderate feminist or a radical feminist. Some of you may be wondering why I did not include “black feminism”, “socialist feminism” and “anarchist feminism” in my feminism sorting system. I will explain why in the conclusion of this post. I assure you that by leaving them out, I am not attempting to suggest that these types of feminism are invalid.

I think most revolutionary leftists and anti-racism activists know what they are without needing to be told by a quiz, but if you really want a quiz to tell you such things, you will find plenty. I know of no quiz that adequately addresses the divisions in which exist within modern feminism. If you think you have encountered such a quiz, let me know. 

Quiz Instructions

Only take this quiz if you have already taken the first quiz and were not deemed to be a liberal feminist. This second quiz works the same way as the first one. Write down whether you agree or disagree with the statements below, then use the answer key to calculate your score. Once again, some of the statements are more extreme than others. Not all statements deemed to be “radical” represent all radical feminists, nor do all of them represent my views. An automated version of this quiz is available here.

Quiz Questions (Statements)

1. Violent masculinity is the problem, not masculinity itself. Thus the solution is to promote a new, healthier kind of masculinity to men. This approach to masculinity enables us to challenge male dominance without threatening men’s sense of identity. 

2. The use of high heels and restrictive clothing may not be as harmful as breast implants and other forms of cosmetic surgery, but they can still cause pain and damage to women’s bodies. Thus such practices are not consistent with feminist ideals and we should aim to abolish them. 

3. When promoting our political viewpoints to the public, it is acceptable to phrase our beliefs using language that our political opponents may be sympathetic to (e.g. by claiming that allowing gay couples to adopt children promotes “family values” or that opposing pornography is a form of “sex positivity”).

4. Not everyone is obligated to get married or be part of nuclear family, but equality between men and women can be achieved without challenging these institutions. 

5. Labelling toys as “boy toys” or “girl toys” promotes discrimination. This needs to end, but re-labelling alone will not stop the promotion of harmful traits such as aggression and violence (which are currently promoted through “boy toys”, such as toy guns) or shallowness and a need to please others (which are promoted through “girl toys”.) We need to create different kinds of toys altogether. 

6. The feminist movement should only change its positions when given good reason to believe that its positions are incorrect or inconsistent with feminist principles. Positions should not be changed in order to make the movement more popular, socially acceptable or appealing to men. 

7. Modern day western society is patriarchal (male dominated), as are most other societies around the world. A truly non-patriarchal society would need to have an economic and political system which is totally different to that which currently exists in the West. It would also need a vastly different culture.

8. Mild beauty practices (e.g. putting on make-up, wearing fancy clothing) are not necessarily oppressive or deserving of political/feminist critique. So long as the women performing them feel good about their natural bodies and do not feel pressured into performing them, such beauty practices are consistent with feminist ideals.

9. Men can support feminism, but since they are the dominant group within patriarchy they cannot be considered part of the feminist movement any more than capitalists can belong to union.

10. Our notions of what a “man” or “woman” is should not be based on genitalia or what society says. People have the power to decide for themselves whether they are men, women or something else.

11. Western medicine is a patriarchal establishment that causes more harm than good and cannot be reformed, but should be abolished in favour of more traditional, female-centred healthcare. 

12. The only problem with society’s current beauty standards is that they are too rigid. A broader definition of beauty (one which includes non-white women and women who are not super thin and busty) is the solution to female body image issues. 

13. Gender identity is an innate aspect of all human beings. Attempts at abolishing categories such as “man”, “woman”, “masculine” and “feminine” will either not work or will cause great harm (e.g. it will create a dull, grey world in which there is no individuality.) 

14. The general public should not be intimidated by feminism, for its ideals match the dominant ideals of western society. Negative feelings towards feminism are a result of misunderstandings and poor communication on the part of the movement (e.g. excessive anger, incorrect use of language, etc).

15. In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon traditional patriarchal religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and adopt either an outlook which is free of superstitious/supernatural beliefs or adhere to spiritual belief systems which are more pro-female.) 

16. Feminists should oppose any practice that promotes the belief that a woman’s physical appearance is more important than her inner qualities, including beauty pageants, fashion shows, the use of make-up and the promotion of dolls that stress the importance of looking pretty (e.g. Barbie dolls and Bratz dolls.) 

17. It is natural for there to be variations in human genitalia, but the sex roles which are imposed onto people, based on the kind of genitalia they have, are not natural. It is possible and desirable to create a world in which such roles, which are sometimes referred to as “gender roles”, do not exist. 

18. The abortion rights movement should acknowledge that most abortions are morally complex or potentially harmful. Failure to make this acknowledgement will result in women becoming alienated from pro-choice activism. 

19. Feminists are under no obligation to be respectful towards dominant institutions and ideas. All beliefs, traditions and art (no matter how revered they may be within a particular culture) should be open to political critique.

20. Criticising extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and face lifts) is okay, but women who reject beauty practices altogether (e.g. by going out in public without putting on makeup or shaving their legs) and encourage other women to do the same, are going too far. 

Answer Key

1. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5
2. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5
3. Agree: -6 ------- Disagree: +4
4. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5
5. Agree: +7 ------- Disagree: -4
6. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5
7. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5
8. Agree: -5 -------- Disagree: +5
9. Agree: +6 -------- Disagree: -4
10. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5
11. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5
12. Agree: -4 ------- Disagree: +5
13. Agree: -5 ------- Disagree: +5
14. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4
15. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4
16. Agree: +6 ------- Disagree: -4
17. Agree: +4 ------- Disagree: -6
18. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4
19. Agree: +5 ------- Disagree: -5
20. Agree: -6 -------- Disagree: +4

From -100 to -21: Moderate Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Anita Sarkeesian, Jackson Katz, Ariel Levy
Related Concepts: Social Democracy, Media Criticism, Opposition to Sexual Objectification.

You are a moderate feminist. I came up with the term "moderate feminist" myself, so you probably do not know of anyone who uses the label. I use the term to describe feminists who are neither liberal nor radical. Moderate feminists are not liberal feminists because they oppose pornography, prostitution, extreme beauty practices (such as breast implants and genital surgery) and the spread of soft core pornographic images throughout the culture. They cannot be considered radical feminists, because they promote "healthy" masculinity and femininity, instead of calling for gender to be abolished. While they are usually critical of capitalism, they believe that it should be reformed, rather than abolished and would prefer to avoid angering those with power.

Your moderate feminist ideas do pose a challenge to the status quo. Thus, I consider them to be a genuine form of feminism. In universities, liberal academics sometimes denounce moderate feminists as "sex-negative" and "prudish", but your ideas are not viciously despised in the way that radical feminist ideas are and students are at least allowed to consider them. If students are lucky, a moderate feminist text may even appear on their reading lists.

From -20 to +20: Borderline

This borderline category works the same way as the one in the first quiz. If you get this score, take some time to think about your views, then come back and do the quiz again. After you have done this, it may be clearer whether you are a moderate or a radical feminist or it may not be. It is okay to not be certain.
From +21 to +100: Radical (or Pro-Radical) Feminist

Notable Theorists / Representatives: Lierre Keith, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen
Related Concepts: Gender Abolition, Sex Criticism, Radical Anti-Capitalism, Radical Environmentalism.

You are a radical feminist (or a supporter of radical feminism). Like moderate feminists, radical feminists oppose pornography, prostitution, sadomasochism (often euphemistically referred to as "BDSM"), extreme beauty practices and highly sexualised depictions of women within the culture. Unlike moderate feminists, radical feminists are gender abolitionists. They recognise that the concepts of "masculinity' and "femininity" do not have to exist and that they encourage men to behave in a dominate manner, while encouraging women to submit to such dominance. They often oppose other systems which are considered foundational to modern society, such as capitalism and traditional religion.

Your beliefs pose a serious threat to those with power (especially those who run the sex industry and the beauty industry) and are likely to get you in trouble at university. Radical feminists are rarely mentioned by academics. When they are it is only so that they can be attacked as "sex-negative", man-hating lunatics. The good news is that I am on your side. I got a 70 on this quiz. Feel free to get in touch with me (via comments or messages.)


The reason I did not include “black feminism” or “socialist feminism” in my quizzes is because such labels do not actually reveal whether somebody is a liberal, radical or moderate feminist. For example, one can believe that a socialist revolution should be brought about partially so that women can be liberated through “feminist pornography” which is produced by “empowered sex workers” in a democratically managed sex industry (yeah, right), in which case that person would be a socialist who supports liberal feminism. One may also believe that a socialist revolution should put an end to the sex industry and create a world in which sexual acts are never motivated by a need for money or a sense that one has some of kind of duty to provide others with sexual pleasure. Such a person would be a socialist who promoted moderate or radical feminism. In a previous post, I argued that liberalism is not truly compatible with opposition to racism and capitalism. Nevertheless, I recognise that some non-white women and socialists do in fact embrace liberal feminism.

I am a socialist myself. I also support anti-racism activism, both for its own sake and because I recognise that, in most of the world, the participation of non-whites is needed to carry out a popular socialist revolution. According to this second quiz, I am more radical than moderate. I believe that gender has to be abolished in order for women to be liberated and I think a socialist revolution could enable this. My score was not 100%, so my ideas are not completely in line with radical feminism, but they are more radical than moderate. I guess you could call me a revolutionary socialist who supports radical feminism or you can call a totalitarian, prudish, hateful monster. It is up to you.
I hope you enjoyed my quizzes. Let me know what result you get and whether it was what you expected. Feel free to try and guess which “radical” statements I disagreed with. As always, constructive criticism is welcome.


  1. Again I was unable to get the automated version to work, so I did it by hand. I scored 70. However, I do have to point out that two question in particular seem scored the opposite way as they should be: questions 8 and 10.

    "8. If a woman who performs mild beauty practices (e.g. putting on make-up, wearing fancy clothing) feels good about her natural body and does not feel pressured into performing beauty practices, then her decision to perform the practice is not deserving of political/feminist critique."
    The radfem answer in this case would be "agree," since radfem is a systemic criticism, not a criticism of any individual woman's actions. The way any woman deals with patriarchy is beyond critique (although the ideas coming from it, if any, are not).

    "10. Our notions of what a “man” or “woman” is should not be based on genitalia, nor can society decide whether a person is a man, a woman or part of some other category."
    The radfem answer would definitely be "agree." Unless you meant male and female.

    The only other question I got wrong (non-radical) was question 11. I don't think our health care system should be entirely abolished, and I don't see how that would be beneficial in the short or medium term. I think alternatives to hospitals, pill and surgery-centered medicine, and futile medical care should be developed in parallel, provided first to those who really need it (esp. in the US, people without insurance), and then expanded to the rest of society. The rich can always go to Cuba... :)

    1. The automated version works for me and has worked for other people, though it does not provide numerical results. I have a record of somebody taking the quiz using the name "guest", was that you? If so, it seems to have worked. If not, the problem is probably with your computer.

      I have rephrased Question 8 to make it less individual centered. Let me know what you think of it now. I do not think either moderate or radical feminists wish to attack women for their choices. The question is whether the choice itself is empowering or beneficial to women. I understand that women may need to practice mild beauty practices in order to avoid being treated badly in a patriarchal society, but I do not think such behaviours should be celebrated as "feminist" (or even consistent with feminism).

      I think Question 10 is fine (I have rephrased it slightly.) It expresses the moderate/liberal feminist view that the definition of "man" and "woman" should be "masculine person" and "feminine person" respectively and their opposition to the notion that "woman = person with vagina". I understand that radical feminists want to abolish the concepts of "man" and "woman" altogether, but the question suggests that the concepts of "man" and "woman" should/will remain in existence and simply need to be redefined.

      My definition of a woman is "a person who is confined to subordinate role within society as a result of being born with female genitalia". The category "woman" is imposed onto females by society and I think this fact needs to be acknowledged. Society does in fact have the power to decide whether a person is a "man" or a "woman". An individual's feelings do not undo years of socialisation, nor do they change how society views that person. I think it is morally wrong for society to impose these categories onto people, so I would say that society "can" impose them, but it should not.

      Question 11 expresses the traditional radical feminist opposition to Western medicine. Having listened to speeches by members of Deep Green Resistance, it seems as though they and other radical feminists are completely opposed to modern day medicine and favour older ("traditional") forms of medicine. If I am misrepresenting them then I invite them to correct.

      This is actually a radical feminist view that I disagree with. I think modern medicine has lead to a general increase in life expectancy and overall health, particularly in countries where self-proclaimed socialist leaders made these things available to the impoverished masses (though I will admit that these leaders were highly authoritarian and I would prefer the creation of more democratic socialist states.) Modern medicine can of course be improved and a clear distinction needs to drawn between extreme beauty practices (e.g. breast implants) and actual medicine, but I do not think there is anything inherently harmful about science-based healthcare.

      I find that "traditional medicine", as it is often called, tends to blame people for their illnesses by implying that all health problems are the result of bad diet, lack of vitamins, lack of sleep, stress, negative thinking or other lifestyle factors. Such factors can play a role in making people ill and I think the social forces that cause such problems (e.g. advertisements promoting junk food) should be addressed, but sometimes even the fittest and healthiest of people can get cancer or become infected with deadly pathogens, which is why we sometimes need pills and surgeries.

      We should of course do our best to ensure that pills and surgeries are proscribed to people who actually need them and try to minimise any negative side effects associated with them, but I am not going to insist that people rely on "natural" herbs and healthy lifestyles to solve all their problems.

    2. Did you get my follow-up posts? They aren't showing up...

    3. You mean your follow up comments? No, I have not received them. Try again.

    4. Too bad... I don't remember what I said initially. Well, let me look at your rephrasings again... Question 8 is still ambiguous but as formulated now I would answer "disagree," insofar as anything having to do with gender is "worthy of feminist critique." Question 10 is also ambiguous: since gender is a social construct, it seems to me fairly obviously true that "society have the power to decide whether a person is a man, a woman or part of some other category." But you already agreed on that anyway. No changes on question 11 so my answer stays the same.

    5. If you think society does have the power to decide whether someone is a man or a woman, then you disagree with the statement (which states that society does not have the power to decide whether somebody is a man or a woman.) Non-radicals would agree with that statement because they think that gender is innate and that society cannot truly suppress your "true self" (whatever that means), only prevent you from expressing it. Disagreeing with statement 10 is deemed "radical" by the quiz, so as far as I can, the question is fine. I have rephrased it a little to be more in line with the mantras of people who believe gender is innate.

    6. Maybe I just don't understand your approach then, but the question still seems incorrect to me. But like I said, I think we agree on the principles, it's just an issue of formulation.

  2. The statement is sort of supposed to be incorrect. It is a non-radical statement that radicals are meant to disagree with (disagreeing with statement ten gets you five extra points.) But you are right, we probably do agree in principle.

  3. I got a 35, but I do not consider myself a true radical feminist.

    I consider myself a gender critical feminist. I believe the entire idea of "gender", what society calls "masculinity" and "femininity" as being innate and necessary to being a "real" man or woman to be the root of sexism. I don't support transgenderism, because I believe it reinforces sexism, by putting the obfuscating ideas of "gender identity" over the biological facts of sex into determining what defines maleness and femaleness. I am in my 50s, thus was involved in second wave feminism. It used to be mainstream to see transgenderism as a symptom of sexism and not a cure for it The non-sexist child raising movement of the late 70s and early 80s was critical of transgenderism and had the eradication of sex roles and the idea of inherent "gender" as one of its goals. See Letty Cottin Pogrebin's "Growing Up Free" (1980) for criticism of the trans phenomenon. I didn't leave mainstream feminism - it left me!

    I see the trans movement as essentially a conservative one in that they agree with traditional conservatives that one's sex must "match" their so-called "gender identity". The difference between them is that traditional conservatives believe that if one's personality doesn't match the sex role associated with their sex, then they must change their personality to fit their body, where the trans community believes that if one doesn't "match", then they must change their bodies to "match" the desired sex role stereotyped personality. Neither gets the idea that personality is an individual thing that is not biologically linked to one's sex and that there's no need for change at all.

    While I'm usually a tolerant person, I can't accept anything that goes counter to reason and common sense. I see the trans phenomenon as one of the biggest examples of "The Emperor Has No Clothes" type of gaslighting. The media seems to have totally bought it. They accept that men who identify as trans are really women because they "feel" they are. But feelings aren't facts and I don't buy it. It's led to the interchangeable use of gender and sex in the media; that is, "gender" is often used when sex is meant, thus creating confusion among the general public as to the different meanings of the two words, thus training people to accept the idea of trans.

    I am especially disturbed by the idea of "trans children" and parents making irrevocable decisions for children based on simple non-conformity to sex roles and the child's "feelings" for even toddlers, never minding the fact that children are prone to magical thinking and that full cognitive development doesn't happen until the late teens.. Back when I was growing up, a girl who wasn't stereotypically "feminine", was labeled a "tomboy" and usually allowed to be one, but nowadays a similar girl is likely to be labeled "trans" and given dangerous puberty delaying hormones, and other "treatments" that are likely to be irrevocable, robbing her (and similar boys) permanently of her reproductive capacity. I see this as a modern form of eugenics and just as harmful as the eugenic movements of the past.

    I'm also concerned about men in women's public bathrooms and locker rooms and being put into women's prisons. If those adults who consider themselves trans want to permanently role play being the other sex, that's their business, but leave kids alone and don't expect the rest of us to play along and believe they really *are* the other sex.

    1. "I didn't leave mainstream feminism - it left me!"

      That's a good way of putting it, LOL. Feminism has historically been opposed to existance of gender norms. In my view, there is no reason for the concepts of masculinity and femininity to exist. There are some behaviours that should be promoted to children (e.g. compassion, assertiveness, critical thought) and others that should not be (e.g. mindless aggression, blind obedience), but the behaviours that we promote to children should not be dependent on what kind of genitals they have.

      "Neither gets the idea that personality is an individual thing that is not biologically linked to one's sex and that there's no need for change at all."

      I think there is sometimes a need for personalities to changes. People who are overly aggressive and dominating should stop being aggressive and dominating and people who have a subordinate role should resist those who dominate them (though resisting domination is often difficult and causes one to be punished by those who dominate them, so I try not to have negative feelings towards those who do submit.)

      However, I reject the concept of "body-mind" matches. There is no such thing as a body that is "wrong" for a certain personality and there is no such thing as a personality that is "wrong" for a certain body, so no personality ever needs to be changed because of the kind of body a person has.

      "Back when I was growing up, a girl who wasn't stereotypically "feminine", was labeled a "tomboy" and usually allowed to be one..."

      That is how it was during my childhood (which occurred more recently than your childhood.) People would say "she is a girl, but she is not a girly girl" and that statement was seen as one that made sense. A "girly girl" was a girl who conformed to femininity and people understood that not all girls were like that, nowadays people seem to have lost sight of the fact that not all girls are girly. However, most people still adhere to the biological definition of female, so I think it will be some time before the majority of gender non-conforming children are labelled trans and told that their bodies are wrong and encouraged to go through the medical transition process, which of course causes a great deal of physical harm to children (not to mention the huge economic cost associated with it.)

      I agree that people have the right to "identify" however they want, just like they have the right to believe in whatever political or philosophical viewpoint they want to, but they do not have the right to demand that other people agree with or "respect" their viewpoint (i.e. that they view it as being beyond criticism).

      I think that the decision about whether or not to allow male-bodied people into a particular women's space should be made by the women who use that space. Some groups of women will allow male-bodied people into their spaces, but other women feel uncomfortable allowing men into their spaces (and they have good reasons to feel uncomfortable) and those women's feelings should be respected.

    2. "I think there is sometimes a need for personalities to changes. People who are overly aggressive and dominating should stop being aggressive and dominating and people who have a subordinate role should resist those who dominate them (though resisting domination is often difficult and causes one to be punished by those who dominate them, so I try not to have negative feelings towards those who do submit.) "

      Well, yes, of course. I simply meant that no one need change their personality (or body) just because it doesn't match the stereotypes associated with their sex. I have an adult son and my goal was to raise him to be a decent human being and it would have been exactly the same for a daughter. Virtuous qualities are the same for both sexes, as are character flaws. My goal wasn't to raise a "good man", as the male part was a given. There's no "how" about being male or female. Rather, I sought to raise a good person.

      It's like the difference between chivalry, manners that differ according to sex, and common courtesy, manners that are the same for everyone. I went for common courtesy.

      Sex should be a fact taken for granted, with no need to always call attention to it, as is the purpose of gender, "masculinity" and "femininity". It should be taken for granted like we do with being human. We don't constantly emphasize that we're human and not dogs, for example.

      Most parents still go with the tomboy model for kids who don't fit stereotypes, but I'm seeing more articles about trans kids in the media. People who consider themselves tolerant are being trained to accept this idea. I know a woman who has a 6 year old son whom she has labeled trans and is about to change his name, have the school go along with it, etc. There's nothing I can do to change her mind because she won't listen. She doesn't understand that he can wear a dress and still be a boy.

      But it's mostly not there yet, as you said, but this notion needs to be countered, often and publicly. And it needs to be from the Left, not by conservatives, before it reaches critical mass. It's like the old propaganda model: if a lie is repeated often enough, people will begin to believe it. The non-sexist childraising movement needs to be revived with the emphasis that there's more than one way to be a man or woman and that you don't have to change your body to be yourself.

      But it seems as if the trans agenda has become a sacred cow in less than 20 years, beyond question or criticism. I've read of censorship efforts being directed toward Sheila Jeffreys, which is beyond appalling. Since when are liberals for censorship?

  4. A problem with this test is that in some points, several statements are conflated. Some people will agree with some statements inside a point, and disagree with others. In such a case, we don't know if we should choose "agree" or "disagree."
    For example, statement 2 can be broken down to:
    a) The use of high heels and restrictive clothing are not as harmful as breast implants and other forms of cosmetic surgery
    b) The use of high heels and restrictive clothing can still cause pain and damage to women’s bodies.
    c) Thus such practices are not consistent with feminist ideals
    d) we should aim to abolish them.
    I found it hard to completely agree with all points. If a certain piece of restrictive clothing, say a bra, causes mostly discomfort for Anne I have to agree with point b). But if Betty say her large breasts shake around uncomfortably without it, I should not aim to abolish it. I should leave Anne free to go without and Betty free to go with. Just because something "can cause pain and damage" for some, don't mean I should aim to abolish it and take it even from those for whom it does more good than harm.
    Point 15 can be broken down to:
    a) In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon Christianity,
    b) In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon Judaism
    c) In order for women to be fully liberated they should abandon Islam
    d) In order for women to be fully liberated they should adopt either an outlook which is free of superstitious/supernatural beliefs or adhere to spiritual belief systems which are more pro-female (than these 3 religions).
    I have defended the view elsewhere (not this blog's topic, so I'll just mention it) that Christianity, as actually taught by Jesus and written down in the new Testament, is not into man-over-women leadership at all. It have been mistaught, the context twisted, and some verses mistranslated by patriarchal men. These men corrupted Christianity and made it something that isn't Christianity. So, this too is a conflating of ideas of which some people only agree with some.
    Still, with getting zeros for the questions I partially agreed and partially disagreed on, your test puts me into the radfem camp (it is closer to 21 than to 100, though).

    1. I understand that within psychology there are rules against having questions which consist of multiple statements. I did not know that at the time when I wrote this and if I wrote another one, I might include only simpler statements. The quiz was never really intended to be all that scientific. It is just here for fun and to express my understanding of what it means to be a radical feminist.

      Ultimately I cannot dictate which label you choose to use, but I would prefer it if you did not assign zero values to yourself. That might bias the results. If your result is closer to 21 than to 100, you are still within the radical feminist category. The statements are not intended to represent all radical feminists (I disagree with some of them myself.)
      The whole point of the 21 value is to ensure that I do not assign labels to people who are too close to the borderline and if your score is above 21 you are not.

      If you want, I can interrogate your views on Question 2 and Question 15 a bit more to tell you what stance I think you should take. In general I would advise you to consider the general argument being made in the questions and whether you agree with that argument rather than with the specific details. The statements are supposed to replicate things moderate and radical feminists say, which is why they may contain language you disagree with (e.g. refering to religion as "patriarchal".) Picture someone saying the statements and ask yourself how you would react to that person. That said, here are some more specific questions to think about.

      Question 2: I was not thinking of bras when I referred to "restrictive clothing". If a clothing item does not restrict someone, it is not restrictive (for that person.), thus the question does not apply to it. I would argue that bra-wearing carried out by women for whom it is physically uncomfortable is a harmful practice which ought to be abolish. Women who do gain physical comfort from wearing a bra should do for that reason, but no one should wear something physically uncomfortable for the purpose of looking pretty/sexy (which is the main purpose of bras in our culture.) So my question is as follows.

      - How do you feel about clothing that is clearly physically restrictive, such as skirts which are tight around the bottom (and therefore limit leg movement) or pants and dresses which squeeze women's abdomenal regions in order to make them look thinner?

      I cannot think of a possible use for such clothing. Generally the question is about whether women should value physical comfortable and freedom (the ability to walk, run and move around) over prettiness/sexiness. So you can think about where you stand on that general issue if you like.

      Question 15: I do not really want to debate the nature or history of Christianity here, so I will just get straight to the point.

      - Does your religious viewpoint claim that there exists a male god and that people, including women, should obey him? If so, I would call it a patriarchal religion, because it preaches the dominance of a male being (even if it does not preach that women should submit to human males.)

      - Do you make a special exception for Christianity or do you think that other traditional religions (including Judaism and Islam) are feminist (in their "true form", whatever that means)?

      I will leave these question here and you can answer them in a comment or send me a private message. Thanks for your feedback!

  5. 100! My girlfriend has taught me well!

    11, though. Western medicine is a patriarchal establishment [agree] that causes more harm than good [agree] and cannot be reformed [perhaps?], but should be abolished in favour of more traditional [disagree], female-centred [agree] healthcare. :/ But I understand that it is hard to frame questions of this nature.

    Great quiz! And top blog! :)