Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Liberal vs Radical

59 replies

AyeRobot · 21/06/2012 21:28

I've been pondering for months on the in-fighting that goes on here, puzzled by the lack of common ground to be found between some posters and the hostility that creates. A friend shared a link with me last night that seemed to ring very true for my experiences on here and irl and wondered if it did for others, whether liberal or radical or undecided. Yes, it's from a radical feminist blog, but I would appreciate it if the words could stand (and be analysed) on their own, at least for a few dozen posts.

"Although media images - and perhaps particularly commercial advertising images - go largely unnoticed, or are often regarded as irrelevant, apolitical background noise, where liberal political analyses of media images are performed, commercial advertising is generally analyzed within a context of consumerism, where the assumed intent is to create and drive desire and to get people to spend money. A liberal analyst might also correctly note that racist, classist, sexist, or other offensive images and messages are often used toward that end. But even liberal feminist media criticism fails to analyze how and indeed whether any alleged "sexism" or offensive stereotypes in media images support patriarchy, including men's individual and collective power, and does not reveal or examine the root of women's oppression by men, and how all patriarchal media - including advertising - is collectively used as political propaganda against women, and toward specifically patriarchal ends.

And indeed, liberal analysis is not intended to do that. Like all politically-liberal analysis, liberal - and liberal feminist - media criticism is a limited, equality-based discourse that only intends to examine various -isms and perceived positional slights, based on the belief that -isms and slights are undesirable on their face. Thus, in liberal analysis, it is just as valid (if not just as likely) to point out how media images may be hurtful or offensive toward men as toward women, as in discourses centering gender or criticizing "gender representation" of both women and men. And for liberal analysts, it is just as valid or likely to point out "sexism" in media images as any other -ism, without ever acknowledging or analyzing how sexism and indeed all -isms and slights make specifically women more vulnerable to misogynistic abuse at the hands of men and male institutions and conventions; and how all -isms therefore ultimately benefit patriarchal power structures by decreasing women's power relative to men, which benefits all men, even men who are members of oppressed political minorities based on, for example, race or class.

By contrast, radical feminists do not believe that a liberal "equality" analysis is adequate because it does not expressly center or activate towards women's liberation from men, and for women's right to be free from misogynistic institutional and interpersonal abuse. We believe that activating for women's freedom from men is a full-time job and that it deserves our full attention.

We observe that in its efforts to eradicate various slights and perceived slights without centering women's sex-based oppression, liberal feminist analyses - including media analyses - deemphasize "men" and "women" as political classes. The result is to privilege an allegedly "neutral" yet decidedly male-centric perspective and reality where girls and women can potentially be made more comfortable, and thus more able or willing to fulfill the roles dictated to us by men to benefit men, but where girls and women are never to be made free. Because women's oppression by men is in fact class-based, meaning that women around the world share the experience of being enslaved and oppressed by men because of our sex, and because the nature and mechanisms of sex-based oppression make our oppression unique where only women experience it, we believe that class-based analysis is critical and the only one that will benefit women and inform a political platform that holds any promise to free us."

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
HereIGo · 29/06/2012 13:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AyeRobot · 27/06/2012 20:42

Himalaya, I think I'm just done. Anyway, it's not about me, so I'll just quietly slip out of the back.

OP posts:
Himalaya · 27/06/2012 18:53

Well I think the dynamics on this thread have been quite fine.

Can't we all "be the change we want to see" and all that?

AyeRobot · 27/06/2012 18:13

Himalaya - (not sure if you wanted us to riff on liberal vs radical or advertising Ayerobot?) - I think I posted this because I was trying to foster a sense of understanding between the starting points of two different positions and the lenses through which an issue could be viewed. It's just that that piece of text was at hand to demonstrate some stark differences.

Thank you all for your contributions. I haven't read them all yet, but will do so, although not respond further given the current dynamics.

OP posts:
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 23:16

We did consider using Eco-paint, acksherly... But it was twice the price. It's like flogging beer at 3 for 2 or bogof, along with pot noodles, or party bags of chocolate, but charging twice as much for veg.

I frigging hate supermarkets.

I loathe that it costs more to be ethically conscious. And loathe even more that it costs more to feed your children fresh produce than processed crap.

I just waste time being cross though, I have absolutely no idea what the processing costs and mark-up are for ready meals than they are for produce. Nor have I ever bothered to look it up. I just pay more. Interesting that I just suck up the price there, and don't for paint. No idea what to make of that.

garlicbum · 23/06/2012 22:19

Oh dear, I do consider gender issues wrt DIY! As an eco-campaigner, Dittany would probably consider the ethical impact of her paint, too, but I'm too cheap shallow pragmatic.

Going back to advertising, the weird thing is that target-audience focus groups (housewives) regularly prefer creative treatments with less patriarchal overtones. I think the reason data wins out is as much about playing safe with millions of pounds as institutional sexism. It's a bloody shame, though. It would/will be interesting to see whether a shift in market share can be achieved by the first brand with the balls to go for an anti-sexist campaign.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:57

Um, I was in the shower, not the woman in the ad. You didn't blink and miss it. Blush

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:55

Plum and cream sounds gorgeous. Ours is red and was going to be cream, but in the event it turned out to be a slightly yellowy colour. It caused no end of bloody drama. The red covered fine, but the cream / yellow was a frigging nightmare. The contractor pissed me right off as he'd said that brand of paint would cover without a primer. I should've watched more bloody paint adverts...

I did have a discussion on here some time ago regarding the red... (it's also the colour of our downstairs loo) and farrow and ball names. I've no idea what the actual colour is (have a pot somewhere) but to me it will always be 'menstrual joy' thanks to mn. Grin

I might have to rewatch that ad though. I just whizzed through it the once, and in the shower it struck me that the woman didn't have a voice. In reality, I think she might have said 'in here', when he came in the door? Not sure though...

Our bedroom is blue and white, which in the context of the ad makes me roar. It was blue and white before we had kids too. Grin

WicketyPitch · 23/06/2012 21:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:28

In fact, in a neat little twist, dh and I chose to paint our living space red. Grin in a colour not dissimilar to that in the dulux ad. Grin in advertiser speak, this probably means I harbour an intense desire to shag on the sofa (or the dining table). In reality, we've already got three kids and he's had a vasectomy. And it isn't his birthday. Or mine.

It doesn't mean I believe that red paint is seductive. It just means that the ad is suggesting that red paint is seductive. (and it's the womn's role to be the seductress)

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:23

Nope. There isn't. And there isn't anything anti-patriarchal in a man doing the same. It's the external gendering of stuff that can be problematic, and whether or not it is done to promote that particular role as gendered (which may in turn normalise it as gendered, making it less likely that the roles will be reversed)

Is it done to promote gendered roles? Or does it just reflect society? I dunno. I assumed the op was pondering feminist readings of ads in an attempt to discover the difference between liberals and radical feminists - so was curious about advertising from a gendered perspective.

How do I feel about decorating my house? Dh and I angsted over colours together for about three months, eventually decided together, and then paid a contractor. it's a very small apartment but we have three storey ceilings in places - we don't have the ladders long enough. Grin. The kids chose the colours for their own rooms - Ds chose orange, the girls chose blue. Dh and I both painted the girls room because we couldn't afford to pay the contractor to do the lot, and needed the girls room done first because we were building a huge bank of wardrobes down the middle for storage, and we couldn't wait another five weeks...

We didn't sit and ponder whether we were acting in any sort of gendered way, and I didn't ponder whether I was acting in a feminist way or not.

My reality is clearly not that envisioned by the advertising fraternity, and I find it interesting to ponder why they choose the images they do.

That's possibly another difference between a liberal and a radical.Grin a radical may well have considered who was going to paint her house and how that may have contributed to VAW, and purchased her paint accordingly. And been pissed off that the liberal hadn't considered it.

Disclaimer - last para is possibly a poor joke, but I feel got at and I'm not sure why. Grin liberals have a victim mentality? Grin

WicketyPitch · 23/06/2012 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:05
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:03

Whilst he is at work, obv.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:02

Had a quick look at the dulux ad. (not seen it before)

Off the top off my head, I'd say it played into a lot of stereotypes, with him coming home exhausted from work, whilst she has had time to ponder the fripperies of home decor - (with some nice sexy secretary hair scooping up, letting it down to tie in with the sexy environs she has created to seduce him - presumably because she fancies either a bit of nookie or babies to keep her company whilst she is at work, a bit ambiguous).

The second bit I see as weekend time, so he is doing 'his bit' with the kids and his new dad paunch (cos clearly marriage and kids means being overweight with a constant backdrop of screaming), and she's so desperate to quit breeding that it's time to get rid of the raunchy red that's caused their current predicament, even though she's about to deliver another one.

So, the power of decor (!) with a nice dose of 'reality', which is either, from a man's pov, that you get suckered by the raunchy trimmings and end up a fat knackered dad that has to deal with the screaming at the weekends (but hey, buddy, we're all in it together), or from the woman's - you can get what you want (and control your fertility) by a nice bit of domestic prettifying. And don't forget your toss your hair and look alluring. Dh doesn't have to - he can look harassed and work- addled, or harassed and child- bestrewn. Oh, and, handing the kids over to him at the weekend so that you can get on paint the walls in peace is ok, because you won't have time to do it for the rest of the week, with him out at work.

Himalaya · 23/06/2012 19:33

(not sure if you wanted us to riff on liberal vs radical or advertising Ayerobot?)

I think the ELC is an interesting case - they started off all wooden toys and educational and non- traditional and gradually shifted to more pink and blue, princess/fireman stuff. Then they went bust because they were a bit crap

I guess their marketing was pushed that way because that is what people wanted, but then they lost their edge to the big box retailers/supermarkets on one hand and the aspirational shops on the other. I think advertisers/marketers have to read what people want but also guess at the direction it is going. ... Sometimes they get it wrong.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 19:23

Claire, just pondering that chicken and egg thought, and trying to rationalise the upsurge in the glamour of domestic advertising post war... have always assumed (and suspect have read in most accounts) that in part the advertising (and indeed product development) was structured that way to encourage women back to the home front as the men were reclaiming 'their' jobs, to realign the status quo and to raise the cultural value of femininity and the home front etc... curious how you feel this would tie in with the reflection of existing society/ or (patriarchal) delineation of the aspirational?

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 19:15

Also, out of interest, what are people's thoughts on

She is doing the 'man's job' of decorating while he looks after the kids, but then he is letting his heavily pregnant wife do manual labour.

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 19:11

I would say though that although for families with SAHD it is their reality and normal, they are perceived by society at large as being unusual - no-one bats an eyelid at a woman saying "I am a SAHM" but SAHD's either get a "Well Done You for being a 'new man'" or looked at as if they have two heads and treated with mistrust - therefore any adverts that show dad's in that role will also be seen unusual.

It would be nice if companies would put adverts out that attempt to subvert the stereotype, but I doubt any would take the probable cut in revenue in order to make an ideological stand while they wait for society to catch up.

At the end of the day adverts are there to make the company money. If you want adverts to subvert the stereotype, advertisers need to believe that doing so will be profitable - what we need is just one product that is seen to uphold the values that we want to be accepted as normal with an organised campaign (external to the company) to get people to buy that product - other advertisers would soon cotton on. A bit like a reverse of the Nestle boycott.

This issue reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) 'story' about the couple who go shopping in the Early Learning Centre. The mom wants to buy their 2.5 year old son a pushchair because he enjoys playing with the one at playgroup - the dad point blank refuses to allow it because it is a 'girly toy' - said with no sense of irony despite the fact that he is the one pushing their sons buggy around the shopping centre.

Just as a general point though - do many nappy ads feature adults at all these days? All of the ones I have seen recently are mostly about cute babies rolling round in the cot or crawling with not an adult in sight, or at least playing only a very minor role (although I will admit to avoiding adverts wherever possible by the conscientious use of Sky+). The most sexist adverts to my mind are the bloody Boots ones (with the two women with colds chatting in the streets).

garlicbum · 23/06/2012 18:02

I want advertisers to see changing nappies as aspirational for men
Good!
Tell them :)

Catherine McMahon

www.facebook.com/PampersUKIre
twitter.com/#!/Pampers_UK Hmm

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 17:17

X post. Yy, claire. Of course. Still frustrating though. Grin

The nappy thing I find a fairly iconic measure of where we're at wrt equality. Grin. I mean, there are sahds. I know a few in rl. Obviously they are a minority at the mo, but they do exist. And yet you don't ever see them used in the same way as mothers in advertising. (for all of the reasons you give wrt reflection etc). So it is absolutely normal for some families. So in that way the advertising isn't a true reflection of society, because they are never ever seen in that role without the underlying codicils (yes I look after my baby but normally i do something else). I want companies to start recognising that some dads do this all the time, and it is possible for men to take this option. And on that way, seeing it on the screen during big brother, or whatever, it seeks to normalise that actually, anyone can care for a baby.

I think it's why I'm drawn to literature - it can be analysed as a reflection of whatever society it was written in, but also can be far more nuanced, I think. You can see attitudes changing, but also can see it being used as a way to change attitudes.

Completely different functions between advertising and literature of course, but dammit, I want advertisers to see changing nappies as aspirational for men. Grin

MooncupGoddess · 23/06/2012 17:13

Enjoy, madwoman! I'm pretty sure it's in Culture and Imperialism, but do let me know if you find it.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 17:06

Oh, I have that somewhere... Must dig it out. Haven't read it for aaaages...

But yes. Difficult to tease out a motive clearly when everything is so ingrained. I think that's what frustrates me with the rad/ lib thing. I want to scratch away all the layers, whereas someone with more radical tendencies goes straight for the VAW line. I need to know how and why, and the nuances of each individual situation. Going straight to VAW is alienating for the majority of society, which then makes them unlikely to engage in debate, and (obv only in my opinion) unlikely that the status quo will change.

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 17:06

There are a couple of nappy ones running here at the moment that are desperately trying to use men in an ordinary way -(we asked ten dads to test x) but there is still the underlying message that this is 'out of the norm', however much it seems to pander to equality.

That's the 64 thousand dollar issue though isn't it - advertising works because it is either aspirational or a reflection of perceived reality. Advertising won't be a bastion of equality until society is. If advertising makes the first move it is seen as 'pandering' or 'out of the norm' and therefore won't be as effective.

I was watching 1950's House the other day and some of the adverts they showed from that time were amazingly sexist by today's standards, but I am willing to bet that the changes to society which allows those ads to be viewed as sexist came before the ads themselves changed.

Advertising is guilty of reflecting issues of inequality, of reinforcing stereotypes, it is of course propaganda in it's literal sense because it is designed to influence people into buying a particular product, but I don't see the conspiracy, just the reflection of societal attitudes.

MooncupGoddess · 23/06/2012 17:01

The problem with advertising is that the status quo is so engrained that any attempt to combat it will be seen mainly in relation to the status quo rather than in terms of its own qualities.

(I'm not sure that makes any sense. Edward Said said this better when talking about imperialism, but I can't find the quote now.)