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:
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 16:43

Yy, I think himalaya's point is crucial. The recognition of the underlying concepts and what effect they will have, but not the recognition of this as deliberate propaganda against women.

I was on the fringes of a very interesting advertising campaign which had two parts, deliberately targeting different recruiting adverts towards different sexes (theoretically running a far more gendered ad campaign than ever before). Previous ads had been in theory non specific but by their nature drew heavily on supposed masculine ideals. The dual ad campaign resulted in a huge increase in applications by women. I haven't done any specific analysis of the ads used (I have a vague recollection of content), but found myself pulled in two different directions - mollified that the institution had recognised their masculine centred ideals and practices, and were trying to move away from them, but pissed that they were utilising feminine and masculine stereotypes in order to do so... thus underlining aspects of patriarchy even whilst attempting to create a greater equality. Head fuck, really. Grin. It's like a qualified compromise, we'll let you do it (we'll even persuade you we want you to do it, and truthfully we need you to do it, but you can only do it if you continue to play by our rules and uphold the binary)

I'm trying to work out if there are any cleaning ads (or any domestic claggage) that do a similar thing - ie don't use men in an 'incapable' role, or as the saviour or specialist helping the poor woman or advising her on a better way/ product, but seek to actually persuade men it's ok to clean, and they can to do it themselves... (because we know it's necessary for men to do it in the 21stC, even though we know that women should do it if there's one available) i have a completely different selection of ads here though, lol. 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. (the ad recognised that the dads would absolutely be left with their babies for the afternoon, but their unfamiliarity with the equipment at hand suggested this was normal abut not natural iykwim)

Impossible not to see the reinforcement of the status quo with most advertising, isn't it?

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 16:43

I come out as 100% Libertarian and 80% Liberal Feminist in that quiz.

I don't think I am as individualistic to be 100% libertarian, but it does fit with my general politics which puts me slightly towards the right and slightly more libertarian than Ghandi in the political compass test.

I don't generally tend to think about what type of feminist I am though - possibly because I don't tend to call myself a feminist due to my views on patriarchy (I tend to lean towards Foucauldian post structuralism which means I view patriarchy as a social construct rather than an actual thing that exists). However, I do recognise that gender equality exists and needs to be overturned, I just don't subscribe to the idea of worldwide systematic oppression of women by men.

I think I see inequality as a set of interconnected but separate issues which need to be tackled in different ways because they exist for different reasons. For example, the action that needs to be taken to tackle inequality in the workplace is very different and completely unrelated to the action that needs to be taken to sort out the oppression of women in some muslim countries. Each issue needs to be examined on it's own terms, within it's own cultural framework as it is only by understanding how something came to be in the first place that it can be cured.

To me, the rad fem stance in the extract in the OP is too homogeneous and I personally see the issues as more heterogeneous.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense

garlicbum · 23/06/2012 15:57

In reality non-patriarchal adverts for cleaning products, say, test extremely well with focus groups. The more patriarchal treatment tends to win out because the desk research - which is based on enormous, statistically solid samples - says the vast majority of purchaser-users are women, and that those women consider themselves the boss of home hygiene. The ad agency's paid to sell products in an existing society, not to change that society. So, surprise surprise, patriarchal values end up self-reinforcing.

When I'm a multi-trillionaire I will buy Procter & Gamble, just so I can change this Grin

Himalaya · 23/06/2012 08:39

On the article,Ayerobo

I'm all for calling out sexism, racism, agism etc... in advertising but dont see the underlying conspiracy (which i guess means the article has me pegged right Grin).

The way i see it is two competing hypothesese for why.

One is that advertising is aimed at selling stuff, tends to be conservative, reflects mainstream stereotypes and cultural totems, is risk averse, but ultimately is driven by profit motives, and secondarily the career concerns of the people who make it and commission it.

The other way, as stated in the article is that advertising is collectively used as political propaganda against women, and toward specifically patriarchal ends.

I imagine a situation where the company tests two adverts - one that is patriarchal and the other not and find that they sell more with the non patriarchal one. The second theory suggests that they go with patriarchal one anyway for non-commercial reasons but driven by their underlying political agenda against women. I cant imagine how this conversation goes, and i cant see how this company doesnt go out of business, losing ground to the company that makes commercially driven decisions.

Ockham's razor favours the first explanation.

This bit also makes me itchy:"activating for women's freedom from men is a full-time job and demands our full attention"....so many things are put forward as full-time jobs for women - looking pretty, keeping up with fashion, being the senior parent in modern intensive parenting, being a domestic godess etc... There are only 24 hours in the day.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 02:50

Having pondered briefly whilst helping ds1 pack for cub camp and sewing up a rip in his rain coat (and walking the dogs), I suspect 'focus' is indeed the culprit.

I don't see any dilution of my views as a feminist if I stop and ponder the opposite viewpoint in an attempt to engage the holder of that viewpoint in conversation. I don't see it as a dilution of my feminism to try and understand why they feel the way they do, and try to get them to see how I feel. I don't see it as any dilution of my feminism to recognise and try to engage with disability rights, and to put a lot of effort and time into improving supports and provisions. I just don't. I see it as all moving towards a more equal society where everyone is valued. Depending on my focus at the time I am equally likely to have an aneurism on behalf of a spinal cord injury survivor, or a victim of domestic abuse.

My personal research is largely feminist with a focus on institutional change, but that doesn't mean I need to ignore other 'isms' that smack me in the face. To choose not to ignore them alongside my wider feminist concerns doesn't make me any less feminist. It might make me more liberal, but it doesn't dilute my feminism.

But that just isn't focus enough for purists, and so I mostly don't bother with the fwr boards. I'm content in my feminism. I recognise the need for hard liners of all sorts (radfems as well as transactivists). I'm grateful for anyone that devotes their time and energy to fighting on behalf of minority groups. So I don't have any beef with radfems at all, save that I find the constant denigration of liberals extremely wearing, and not worth the effort of engaging with.

I'm aware that's ironic given my interest in open debate - but I don't find the 'debate' particularly open here - with the possible exception of this thread. It's just liberals being hounded until they give up, and I've got more worthwhile things to do in rl than to butt my head against that brick wall (although I do occasionally, just to see if anything has changed).

I am just horrified that regular fwr posters have been caught in this carnage though. I'm used to it being a space where only very narrow views are tolerated, and frankly can live without posting on here, but I'm stunned and shocked that some posters who espouse those very views are now being ostracised.

ScroobiousPip · 23/06/2012 01:42

Sorry, again, Aye, I realize my posts about my work have been a bit ambiguous. In theory lawyers take pretty on much any case within their field. But, I have developed a special interest in discrimination law which is where the arguing/promoting/educating comes from - because I am known for my specialist areas, I am far less likely to ever be involved in, say, tax law, or mainstream criminal law. But i do still have to argue cases which don't align with my own personal viewpoint, iykwim.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 01:34

Lol, it's feeding time at the zoo, and I'm on the crappy iPad and can't do links on here, but will try and pop back later when kids are abed.

Should be reasonably easy to find though - will be splashed all over any research methods course for any uni, I would have thought.

God, no. No open mind in my professional life. Spent sixteen years in the military being told how crap women were and watching them get discriminated against, why would I hold a neutral stance? Grin. Since I left I've been a carer to my disabled daughter, a student, a sahm, a pt worker in crappy child friendly jobs, and a resolute disability rights campaigner. I'm also a compulsive volunteer. Most of the recent years have been taken up with emigrating.

I'm being slightly tongue in cheek, obv, but I lurch from mainstream liberal to just about ready to have an aneurism at any given moment due to perceived inequalities. Grin

But y'know, I'm just interested in people and their many and varied views, and I want to hear them all. I don't want people to be silenced. I want their viewpoints out in the open so that they can be talked through. But I stopped posting on fwr when I got told off for asking questions, because apparently I shouldn't be interested in the answers of people who were non - U. At the time it was a couple of women who worked as prostitutes, and I was interested in hearing how they rationalised their choices. Listening to them and asking them further questions to probe their rationale didn't make me pro-prostitution, or anything else, it made me interested in them as human beings, and curious how they felt their choices impacted women in wider society, and ESP men's views of women in wider society. But I was told off for giving them air time.

This has been a repeated theme, so I am genuinely sorry that I misread your op - I'm all for open discussion, not open warfare.

I just think we can't hope to change society until we start talking to people who have other views. Sensibly, rationally, and exploring why they hold the views they do. Not refusing to discuss with them and telling them they are wrong. Because that doesn't solve anything, and just builds bigger barriers. (IMO, of course. I don't purport to speak for anyone else.)

ScroobiousPip · 23/06/2012 01:28

Hi Aye, sorry if my questions appeared snipey or not serious - they were intended as genuine questions.

I honestly don't think I know enough about feminist theory to say whether I am a liberal feminist or not. I'd actually really like some guidance on whether this is an appropriate board/thread for me to be posting!

In terms of my professional life I am pretty much required by my profession (lawyer) to be a 'hired gun'. In as much as I believe in promoting woman's rights, I also believe everyone has the right to a fair trial, including legal representation. Although I don't do a lot of criminal law, I would have no hesitation defending a man on rape allegations if I had to.

I guess that's what I mean about grey areas and life being messy, and being cautious about applying theory to individual matters.

solidgoldbrass · 23/06/2012 01:21

I certainly agree that the 'neutral' position (on any given topic) is the white, heterosexual male position,which is a bit much considering that Straight Boy Whitey is in fact a minority in terms of world population.

AyeRobot · 23/06/2012 01:14

madwomanintheattic, as I said, I'm not an academic, so can you expand a bit on the discourse analysis bit, please? And the same question, do you have an open (and neutral) mind in your professional life?

OP posts:
AyeRobot · 23/06/2012 01:12

No, no, no. I started thread to understand the different starting points and actually encourage some understanding (perhaps), not to do a "you're in, you're out". Why would anyone think that of me? I am pretty mild-mannered on here, I think. And it's not about theory for me, really. It's about women's lived experience and seeing that converted from anecdote into, say, crime data.

And, no, it's not a "gotcha". I really want to understand why posters (in general) post what they do on this here feminism board. You say you operate in the grey area, Scroobius. Does that mean that you have an open (and neutral) mind in your professional life?

OP posts:
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 01:11

Ah, no, sorry, not what I meant, I was referring to general discourse analysis, not general discourse, iykwim. So, just regular old discourse analysis, not any particular special radical brand.

Apols for misunderstanding.

ScroobiousPip · 23/06/2012 01:04

If i'm totlally honest i'm actually somewhat ambivalent about debating feminist theory. Don't get me wrong, I know it's important in the same way that economic theory is important to monetary policy, but I guess I'm more interested in promoting the cause than debating the distinctions.

Otoh, I have a personal and professional interest in campaigning and working at a practical level to improve women's situation, as well as the situation of other minority and oppressed groups. I spend a lot of my professional life promoting, educating and arguing about discrimination, including sex discrimination. It's something I feel passionately about at a personal level too and I enjoy debating new ideas for improving women's lot in the world.

I also come from the view that life is grey and complex and that theories are all well and good in their place but should be applied with a good deal of caution in fact-specific cases (eg see the results of fervent application of monetarism to national and international monetary policy).

Does that make me a liberal feminist? Or not a feminist at all?? Does it even matter, if the overall outcome if the advancement of women in a patently unequal society?

I honestly don't know if this means I shouldn't post on the FWR board? But if not here, where would be the best place to have those sorts of discussions?

Hope I'm not derailing your thread, AyeRobot - happy to go off and post elsewhere if so.

AyeRobot · 23/06/2012 01:01

I think perhaps the "general discourse" is where the division exists. Not a stretch, just not a focus.

OP posts:
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 00:57

Oh, just stude stuff, not work. But all under general discourse analysis umbrella - (ex social research stude) - have always been fascinated by media and how the status quo is contrived and maintained, really.

Not sure why that's a supposed stretch for liberals?

AyeRobot · 23/06/2012 00:50

madwomanintheattic, given that I was really using this as a springboard to discussing the different starting points of liberal and radical analysis, can you give a flavour of the media analyisis you have done and where you started from, in a feminist sense? Sounds fascinating.

OP posts:
madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 00:30

Oh quite. I don't disagree with that. But it gets a bit boring when the 84% that you have in common is completely ignored and you are called mra-tastic, accused of being a man, or told that you are not espousing feminist views.

Hey ho.

I'm also rofling away at the 'radfems and academics in the centre, and liberals surrounding' description. Is that because we want the radfems and academics to kill each other off? I mean, I've been on the radfems v feminist academics bloodbath threads, and it can be worse than rads v libs. Grin

I have absolutely no idea wtaf has happened off board with fwr, but there are some v lovely people that used to be right in the centre of debate, and strongly allied with the status quo that have been put off. It seems to be imploding. I've barely posted on there since any actual discussion was frowned upon, so am well out of the loop, but it's all v messy.

WicketyPitch · 23/06/2012 00:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 00:05

I think I'd agree more with a neutral analysis of liberal feminism, tbh.

As a list of complaints against liberals, it's all well and good, but only really echoes the rest of the argument raging about our heads 'liberals aren't good enough, lots of love, the radfems x'

Having done a fair amount of media analysis, and identifying as a liberal feminist, I don't agree that my analysis stops at 'isms' and disregards wider thought regarding societal implications / the patriarchy.

And if anyone cares, on that quiz I came out as 100% lib fem, and 84% radfem, which made me laugh like a drain. I didn't count the questions, but by my maths, the difference between rad and lib fem is only one or two answers on a fem quiz. Grin other than that, we are identical.

WicketyPitch · 22/06/2012 23:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

24HourPARDyPerson · 22/06/2012 23:47

Totally agree with you AyeRobot, for the second time in two minutes.

It's the why why why that lead me towards radfemininsm - I don't know if I'm there yet (though the quiz thinks I am Grin)

AyeRobot · 22/06/2012 22:47

Yes, I did.

I saw that liberal-feminists approach issues with an equality mindset, which explains the "women lie about rape", "women are just as violent", "women just don't have ambition", "it's all about choices". I do think there is an element of not looking further, but I think that comes from a "we're all equal now" stance, rather than anything else. Actually, I lie, I do find the lack of curiosity of the "why?" odd and infuriating, but then I am the curious cat on her 8th life.

I think that's where the diversions occur. Liberal-feminists (ime) don't go much beyond the issue at hand. Hence the ructions on this board, because there is a lack of counter-argument that leads to frustration on both sides.

OP posts:
garlicbum · 22/06/2012 22:21

Actually, Aye, I find it insulting. It seems to say that a ' liberal' just hates -isms (bigotry) because they're bad manners, and thinks no further. I'm hoping you saw more in it than I did!

AyeRobot · 22/06/2012 22:13

Tilly, I love your post.

Garlic, what do you think of the part I bolded in my second post? This is a bit hard-going - I think that part of the problems on the board are because of this division (as the quiz seems to bear out).

Proles, if I knew more I think I would agree with you Grin.

OP posts:
garlicbum · 22/06/2012 22:05

I dunno, Proles, I suppose I scored radical on that quiz because I see women as a class being oppressed on the basis of our sex. I emphatically am not "male-centric" in my thinking. But, according to most of the hard-liners on here I'm a liberal. I sure as hell don't believe ' men' are the problem. I think patriarchy is.

There is often confusion on mumsnet between liberal and libertarian.

Swipe left for the next trending thread