Liberal Feminism - what's it all about? And who wants to discuss it with me?

[Beachcomber]

This is a subject I have been thinking about for a while. I have been wondering if Liberal Feminism has taken a bit of a hit from the 'backlash'. I'm interested in what Liberal feminists think and how they see the movement at the moment.

I thought maybe we could explore the focus and aims of the Liberal movement as it exists in the world today. My understanding of Liberal feminism is that it uses democracy and laws (i.e. the existing structures) to gain equality for women. This is a very pragmatic approach IMO and certainly measurable gains have been made for women (in the UK at least) with regards to reproductive rights, suffrage and equal pay. What seems to be harder is the struggle for affordable childcare and issues of domestic and other violence.

What do others think?

My understanding is that Liberals are very political in the sense that;

Liberal feminists believe that ?female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women?s entrance to and success in the so-called public world? and they work hard to emphasize the equality of men and women through political and legal reform.

Do people think that this is currently the case for Liberal feminism? Where do we see the future - what reforms/changes are needed for women currently? Do you think Liberal feminism has evolved with regards to how it has been criticised in the past for emphasis on the individual and a lack of inclusion (in particular of women of colour and the women most disadvantaged by society)?

[BIWItheBold]

[VictorGollancz]

Particularly as there's many challenges to equality legislation happening at the moment (and forever...).

[canikickit]

Also interested, but clueless

But doesn't your extract/quote really equal patriarchy, and therefore a rad fem POV??

[Beachcomber]

Canikickit, as far as I'm aware, Liberal feminists support the analysis that society is male dominated - i.e. patriarchal.

For me the difference with the Radical view, is that Liberal analysis concludes that women can work within the system to gain equality (by reforming power structures that are currently male dominated). Radicals see the issue more as one of liberation, and that the current patriarchal system must be dismantled in order to achieve that liberation.

This is the fundamental difference between the two movements - many of the founding tenets of feminism are shared by both though. The existence of patriarchal society being one of them.

The quote is from Rosemary Tong's "Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction"

I haven't read the book, but I understand it is an overview of the different feminist perspectives.

[Hullygully]

[Beachcomber]

I'm going out just now, not ignoring any replies.

[canikickit]

Oh, ok, learning already

And thinking.....how the hell can you maintain patriarchy, but have equality within it?

Or....is the ultimate goal the same? To erradicate it? But lib fems aim to do it bit by bit step by step?? If so, it is not my understanding that rad fems think there will be an actually revolution? Not really an uprising to over throw the 'patriarchy'....its not a tangible thing or organisation....so really it has to be within the structure we currently have? Or to rad fems want anarchy?

I thought liberals didn't subscribe to there being patriarchy? (threadd I started to explore that went on a different tangent)

[canikickit]

I am bejeezus BTW....on phone, can't work how to reverse name change (this is my disguise for when I go in AIBU)!

[Beachcomber]

canikickit I think a lot of Liberal feminists take a pragmatic approach. I don't wish to speak for these women though - I hope they will join the thread.

I know this is MN and you can't control how a thread goes (and I don't wish to do this), but I just wanted to be clear that I didn't start this thread as a debate over the merits of Lib V Rad. Inevitably we will probably compare the two movements for purposes of clarity, but I really wanted this to be an exploration of where Liberal feminism is now.

OK, really have to go now.

[Beachcomber]

And I think your questions are interesting ones.

[CaramelTree]

I'd also like to know if liberal feminism has more presence in some countries than others, and if there is a different impact as a consequence.

[namechangeguy]

Re erasing the patriarchy - it's only a name isn't it? If you change the underlying laws, thinking and prejudices then would you care what it was called? I thought Lib Fem was about evolution, not revolution. Probably wrong

[namechangeguy]

Great link by the way Beach - who knew there was psychoanalytical feminism?? That sounds a bit like capitalist Marxism . I definitely need to read more about this.

[Hullygully]

Firebrands and pragmatists. The firebrands (Rads) trailblaze and the pragmatists (Libs) come behind with keyboards and attention to legislative detail? All have the same end in view I think.

How do the Rads propose to tear down the patriarchy?

[HolofernesesHead]

I think of myself as a liberal feminist, in that I believe in 'change from within', and maybe am sufficiently optimistic to believe that many, but not all institutions want and need feminist kicks up the arse to engender change. I work in a male-dominated area, and am used to being 'the woman', having various stereotypical stuff projected on to me and challenging it.

Most of the people doing the stereotypical projecting aren't bad people at all, they just don't think snout what they're saying, and I use those moments as opportunities to challenge and educate a bit. So that's me - radical feminists may think
I'm a bit woolly, but there you go! I probably am quite pragmatic in my approach, and very 'relational' - I think that by fostering real relationships with people, they are much more likely to listen to you and take seriously what you say.

[namechangeguy]

'How do the Rads propose to tear down the patriarchy?'

This is a very good question. I have read some interesting solutions! I'd love to know the consensus on here though.

[ComradeJing]

Good thread Beach and looking forward to learning more.

[CaramelTree]

I think it would be good if the focus of this thread is liberal feminism, not radical feminism.

[CaramelTree]

Do you think that personality plays a large part in that HH? It seems to me that those kind of gains have definitely happened, where one individual has gone in somewhere and changed the culture, which makes it easier for other women then to follow. But you have to be quite a strong person to go in and make that initial change.

[Hullygully]

But liberal is liberal in comparison to radical. Otherwise it would just be "feminism" without a qualifier.

I am trying to understand the difference, I know the line is Libs work with the system, Rads want to tear it down, if that is the key difference, I want to know HOW they would tear it down so I can understand the liberal position of working with.

[ComradeJing]

Is liberal feminism linked to "choice" feminism or is that something again?

I can't imagine radical feminism is ever accepting of, say, prostitution but I assume liberal feminism could be especially if it seeks to work within the patriarchy. So a liberal feminist could say that we must make prostitution safer, protect prostitutes etc as it won't go away until women are equal.

Is this right?

[Hullygully]

Because I have always thought it desirable to work with, to persuade and carry people (women and men) along with you, but then this morning I was thinking about the suffragettes throwing themselves under horses, chaining themselves to railings and starving themselves to death, and simultaneously the suffrage movement pursuing "peaceful and legal means"

Can the effectiveness and attainment of outcome be neatly divvied up and assessed? I suspect you need both.

[VictorGollancz]

There's an example (I think) in the gendercide thread. Himalaya posted a link to an interesting film in which a 'hearts and minds' approach is being taken in order to change cultural attitudes. It's clearly working, but it'll take time.

I think a radical feminist analysis would not find this acceptable. Working within the system is prioritising the needs of the patriarchy over the needs of the young girls. It is quicker and more absolute to stamp it out entirely: sweep away the entire ideology that views women as something that needs surgically altering.

But feminists don't advocate violent methods, so how this is to happen in the face of male violence is tricky. Which (again, I think) is why the advocation of separation is popular in radical analysis.

[VictorGollancz]

I'm sure I typed 'in regard to FGM'.

[CaramelTree]

I don't know. I thought that choice feminism was more linked to post modern feminism, and that liberal feminism had more of a focus on inequality. I thought liberal feminism was more about rights in the workplace, reproductive rights and other things that are controlled by the state, as well as changing public attitudes/behaviour.