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:
YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 22/06/2012 21:06

I love the idea of debating different types of feminism. It acknowledges our difference and similarities. However I have drunk two double gin and tonics and that's quite a lot of words to read on a phone on the Underground....

I want feminism to be like this: on the inside the radfems and academics. Keeping the core where it should be. Uncompromising. Around them you have the liberals. Very paletable to women who are not yet feminists. Very reasonable and marketable. Then you have the outliers: looking for a Green future / left wingers and the opportunists like myself who see the advancement of the female self as small victories for equality.

i am never going to be a feminist intellectual but there are others who can do that but what i have been is someone who sued an investment bank for sexual discrimination and a sportswoman at international level (albeit in a minority sport) and now i am a leader of men. We are all different and that is a strength.

Prolesworth · 22/06/2012 20:51

Liberalism is a male-centred ideology that masquerades as neutral (imho). Who was it that said "objectivity is men's subjectivity"? Liberal feminism applies this male-centred ideology to 'women's issues'. Ditto marxist feminism applies another male-centred ideology to women. The only type of feminism that is female-centred is radical feminism and that's the difference; it begins with women, it is rooted in our reality of being a class oppressed on the basis of our sex. I'm not saying there's nothing of value in other ideologies (I thought of myself as a socialist/marxist for years), but the fact that they're not rooted in women's reality means that - imho - they don't offer good solutions for women.

garlicbum · 22/06/2012 20:46

Lol. I just the quiz AyeRobot linked on the other thread. It says I'm a radical feminist.

garlicbum · 22/06/2012 20:35

YY, it's sort of about Overton windows, innit.

I come from a position where equality SHOULD be the norm; it isn't and that's a problem. Also that everybody SHOULD get what feminist-friendly speakers mean by 'equality'. They don't, and that's a problem too.

I try to keep my 'window' in the balanced middle of a continuum which features absolute power for men at one end, with absolute female power at the other.

To my perception, most people's windows are further along towards the male end, for reasons not unconnected with hegemonic masculinity. This, to me, is a problem with living in patriarchy.

I get the impression that many self-styled radfems want everybody's windows to be further along the 'female' end. Though I don't know where their own windows sit at the moment.

Oh dear, I'm making this even more complicated aren't I?

AyeRobot · 22/06/2012 05:43

Perhaps it was the wrong evening to post this.

I'm not interested in the labels (or even the results of the analysis for the purposes of this thread), rather in the approaches from the off to an issue/article/scenario and how that might go some way to explain why there is disagreement even when, on the face of it, it is surprising that common ground isn't found.

I think it was this bit 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 that gave me a bit of an a-ha moment.

I'm not formally educated in post-modernism, queer theory, schools of literary criticism etc, though do try to keep my reading as wide as my limited time available. That writers are perhaps coming from a position of "equality is the centre and deviations from that are wrong, period" helps me makes sense of some of the ructions within feminism, that otherwise are just baffling.

OP posts:
garlicbum · 22/06/2012 00:50

This is why I now abjure labels. If I'm a liberal feminist, your quoted author has got me badly wrong. I can't be a radical feminist, probably, as I violently disagree with some stances adopted by self-styled radicals.

I'd rather not be labelled by anyone else, either, if that's OK.

24HourPARDyPerson · 21/06/2012 23:37

You would identify as a liberal feminist, WW?

WidowWadman · 21/06/2012 21:41

"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"

I want to live in a society where people of any sex or gender live as equals. I don't want to be "liberated" from men, and don't think it is neccessary to achieve equality.

Beachcomber · 21/06/2012 21:38

Yes that makes sense to me.

Swipe left for the next trending thread