Liberal feminist?

Think about all the women who had to deal with that "male feminist" who was then ousted for being a creep only to have him then come out as transgender?

Oh yes. Bet they didn't have a gold lamé pocketbook though.

I imagine liberal feminism actually pushes women towards radical feminism because it forces women to engage with male feminists.

I will say that I honestly did not distinguish 'radical' and 'liberal' until recently. For me it was feminism (applying the logic I had learned as a teen from 2nd wave feminism) and bullshit - stuff where I thought 'come on, that feels counterproductive. That's not in women's interest'.

So I guess that there will be a lot of overlap in 'liberal' and 'radical' feminism but there are some focal points where they differ: like prostitution (Nordic versus German model) and the transgender issue, where liberal feminism may focus on personal freedom to self-identify and insist that transwomen can't be held responsible for Karen White, therefore, open women's prisons to transwomen! - while radical feminists will reject that due to class analysis, which finds society shaping male pattern violence and socialization - so why let male pattern violence into women's spaces?

Maybe it makes sense for women to just be feminists and judge each contentious issue between radical and liberal feminism for themselves, and then decide whether they more align with the 'liberal' or 'radical' feminist view on the respective issue.

I imagine liberal feminism actually pushes women towards radical feminism because it forces women to engage with male feminists

Think about all the women who had to deal with that "male feminist" who was then ousted for being a creep only to have him then come out as transgender?

Parity of rights is all very well, but unfortunately, because we are talking about upsetting a status quo, and therefore there is no great appetite to go beyond surface level stuff, it becomes counterproductive.

So you get this argument spring up "Well, you've got equal rights now, what are you still complaining about?" and then before too long, maybe when some of those rights help women achieve or expose something, it becomes "Have women's rights gone too far?"

Then you start seeing a pushback - sometimes bluntly and openly, other times with a bit more subterfuge as in the trans wedge.

All that is achieved by focusing solely on the goal of equal rights is moving deckchairs on the Titanic. As much as it's a daunting prospect to challenge an entire system of oppression, it is the only way to actually move forward.

And yes, women working together is vital to the success of the endeavour. Which is probably why the tension exists between the lib fems and the rad fems, because there is a touch of the divide and conquer about it.

Going back to something the OP said upthread:
Is not the core of feminism simply equal rights for women? Not all feminists ive encountered refer to the patriarchy

Unfortunately, 'equal rights' aren't enough to ensure women actually experience equality. They're just the first, necessary step. This country has, in law, 'equal rights'. But women still don't experience equality with men.

Some of this is because of 'patriarchy' but a lot is 'structural sexism' rooted in biology...the simplest example being that women still suffer from the unspoken 'hm, yes but she might get pregnant but he won't' when she's on the shortlist for a job.

Then you can consider rights versus responsibilities. Do men (in general) take equal responsibility for childcare? For looking after elderly parents? For housework? The fact that there are are men who are exceptions to this shows it's possible.

Even during the Speaker Corner incident, I think it was actually one of the women on the other side who stepped in to stop the TRA attack.

Radfems aren't angry TERF bigot robot killers and libfems aren't handmaidens to the patriarchy who want nothing but to wank off their fellow woke bros. Different angles but same objective. I also think a lot of people start with liberal feminism, so it's not wise to make them feel bad about it or put them off different forms.

This is a bloody good point.

I would have described myself as a liberal feminist a few years back, but without really thinking about it. I'd guess because I've always been a leftie liberal sounded right. I also really appreciated the way the lib feminists called out slut shaming.
However, in the last year or so, I've seen some really awful ageism, regressive stereotyping and lesbophobia coming out of the liberal feminist movement mostly as part its general alignment with the trans movement.
It's made me think more deeply about the roots of sexism and realise how thoroughly entrenched misogyny is in society.
My beliefs about womanhood are a lot more aligned with the radical than the liberal than I realised.

Oh yes and i agree with man just above me, dont remember who she is quoting but i agrre with both the points

I’ve been through the journey. In my teens and early 20s I didn’t consider myself a feminist at all. I was utter blind and naive on the whole front. Late 20s and early 30s I became more aware of feminist issues and would have definitely viewed myself as a liberal feminist. Late 30s, I had 2 daughters, opened my eyes to the massive inequality that women face and then along came the whole self ID debacle and the scales fell. I’m getting more and more radical by the day and am amazed I didn’t see it when i was younger. I don’t think my journey is too unusual. I will be bringing up my daughters up with way more awareness of the world then I ever had.

as we know radical feminists is a term that's practically been vilified

6 posts in and your points been proved

I dunno where i fall as i agree with errol

I always thought i was just a feminist but from what ive read i would probably come down on the side of society needing a massive change so more radical, though i do appreciate that somethings are probably going to be impossible to change completely

I woukd appreciate a debate on actual views of liberal and radical feminism such as cats and deeps which i think would be helpful, rather than the digs that we are already seeing on your thread

I don't find either word or concept particularly useful. Some things can be done within the current framework, some can't.

The terms seem to have changed meaning to make them even less useful

Agree with both points.

Feminist don't murder people. They don't rape women.

I should probably specify that I'm one of those feminists who don't think men can be feminists so I stand by the above assertion.

Case in point: Prostitution. The Nordic model, which criminalizes buying sex (not selling it) was conceptualized and won by radical feminism. The German model of ‚sex work is work‘ was won by pimps, with eager help from liberal feminists.

I'm a feminist I probably lean in the direction of radical feminism, and was probably more liberal in my twenties.

It makes me angry that either are seen as a dirty word by other feminists though. Whatever kind of feminism you do, women are not the problem. Feminist don't murder people. They don't rape women.

Radfems aren't angry TERF bigot robot killers and libfems aren't handmaidens to the patriarchy who want nothing but to wank off their fellow woke bros. Different angles but same objective. I also think a lot of people start with liberal feminism, so it's not wise to make them feel bad about it or put them off different forms.

No, Mephistopheles, Feminism is about freeing the city from a crushing Occupation, and share the city with its inhabitants, equally, instead of suffering in the wilderness. And while liberal feminists tell the occupiers that they won‘t fight them, if only they individually can sneak into the city and get a comfy home there, ‚l‘ll give up all my weapons and you can supervise me 24/7 just let me in, who cares about the others‘, radical feminists are determined to free the city together, repeatedly storm it, at times make some tiny gains - and leave no one behind.

Feminists are like explorers in a jungle of ignorance and sexism, looking for the golden city of equality and justice.

Liberal feminists confront the dangers of the jungle alone. They may falter, they may fall, but with every step they blaze a trail that leads closer to the city.

Radical feminists huddle around a campfire, telling each other how they would totally be the best explorers ever, they'd be huge, they'd totally find the golden city, if only everyone would do as they say, drop everything, and stamped the jungle flat for them first.

I'm a feminist and I think men can be feminists in the sense of allies.

Whereas we radical feminists tend to say men can be allies, but not feminists, as they are members of the oppressing class.

You’ll find many men will argue about this, proving why anyone who seeks to deny women the right to define the tools to fight their own oppression isn’t a feminist.

I have read feminist literature as a teen in the 80‘s and 90‘s. 2nd wave feminism. During that time the whole ‚sex positive - prostitution can be sooo liberating‘ movement entered the main stream. Which I always knew was crap. When all those prostitutes flooding the market come from dirt poor Eastern European countries, how free is that choice?
And this is what liberal feminism boils down to. Making ourselves a bit more comfy in our own oppression, shitting on the women who said oppression crushes, because their class does not isolate them from the worst excesses.

So, no, I have not much respect for ‚liberal feminism‘ and I challenge the notion that it is feminism at all.

I dunno, I was a reluctant feminist until this came up.

I'm still reluctant really. I think feminism is only one way of analysing the world. But once you have looked through a feminist lens, it's an analysis you can't forget. I'm probably still reluctant but bloody real life keeps pointing out to me that it's still relevant.