essentially, yes. it's also disparagingly referred to as "kindergarten feminism", as it's the most comfortable, accessible form of feminism that doesn't force you to challenge the system or your identity. here's a good cursory post about it:
Originally Posted by lungs
Radfem is both hardest and easiest to define—it's original usage was to describe a certain brand of radical feminism during (primarily) the second wave of feminism. 2nd wave radfems were the ones who promoted ideas like political lesbianism—having sex & relationships exclusively with other women, regardless of primary sexual preference—and the idea that all heterosexual sex is rape. Most second-wave Radfems will also be somewhat biologically deterministic—men and women are different, because biology, and men can never be women and women can never be men, and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.* (Honestly, to me, it sounds a lot like "separate but equal" rhetoric from the civil rights era.) Modern day Radfems are often either secondwavers who're just still doing the same thing, or young thirdwavers who're having a really strong reaction to the rhetoric presented by the media and society and thus choose to go against it in every single way. Radfem is often used as a pejorative by more moderate feminists, although it is claimed as a title by some feminists.
Libfem is (essentially) the opposite of Radfem. Libfems often work "within" the system to do their feminism—there's a crossover between libfem and what’s often called 'funfem' (meaning people who don't really care about the hard work and the fight, and just want to have/do the fun parts of feminism.) Libfems also arose during second-wave, although I couldn't say whether that’s as a response to Radfems or the other way around, or what. Libfem ideology is generally the 'soft' stuff—it's about choice and agency; a woman can choose to do a thing, and that makes it okay for her. Libfems are often accused of ignoring the systematic oppression which can cause women to 'choose' one path or another (sex work, stay at home mom), when they haven't actually got the choice at all. Libfems also tend to be criticized for being primarily middle class and white (which is often a criticism leveled against Radfems, come to think of it), which means that their focus on choice and agency ignores (like I said) the systematic oppression which force many women of colour into 'choosing' a path which they might not have otherwise done.
The best path, in my opinion, lies somewhere in the middle. This is where intersectionality comes in. Intersectionality is the acknowledgement and practice of consciously listing (bad word choice, trying to find a different one) the different ways in which our experiences of oppression interact. Libfems and Radfems alike are accused of not being intersectional enough; both groups focus on womens' experiences as women, before anything else, while actual women may have much different ways of thinking about themselves. Intersectionality is the academic way of talking about privilege and oppression and the intersections of our various places in society. As an idea, it started in the late second wave, as a reaction to these white, straight, middle class women trying to tell other women how to be feminist. An intersectional approach to feminism will acknowledge that not all women have the same opportunities, that women of colour face extra oppression and stigma for being of colour as well as women. Queer women experience homophobia and/or transphobia, as well as misogyny. Poor women… &c.
*disagree. while i understand 3rd wave radfems and identify with their anger, i can't stomach their biological determinism stance. they're not pro-women at all if they exclude trans women—they don't even consider them women to begin with. Andrea Dworkin was a radical feminist. i don't know if her work goes into TERF territory, but her gender studies are practically the radfem manifesto.
libfems usually acknowledge trans women, but the problem with their ideology is that they're not interested in taking a critical eye to the system. they'd rather focus on superficial individual empowerment than liberation for all, which would necessitate radical thought and the potential of being thought of as a "man-hater", which is obviously uncomfortable (some libfems tout that they are not like those "man-hating" radfems). hence it attracts privileged folks who can comfortably ignore the problems inherent within our society, thus leading to the moniker "white feminism". since most libfems aren't interested in feminist theory, there can sometimes be a sort of a hypocrite effect with them (they will claim to be pro-trans, but then go on to use the word tr*nny or crack jokes about men wearing skirts, for example. see: Gillian Anderson).