Liberal/radical feminism?

[LackingInspiration]

In the thread getting people to jump in and introduce themselves (which I'm just getting to the end to and about to do so myself!), Dittany wrote this:

"Radical feminists believe that the whole system is patriarchal and oppressive and needs to be overthrown whereas liberal feminists for example want to work for equality with men within the existing system."

I was wondering, then, how I would define myself. I would describe myself politically as libertarian leaning. But I also would say from Dittany's definition, that I am a radical feminist.

I feel very strongly that women should not be trying to be equal to men, but should be trying to be equally celebrated for the wonderfully different ways in which they are able to contribute to society. Women are not men...but they are also not second class citizens because they have different skills and abilities.

Please can you wonderful women help me explore this further?

It's just that I don't understand it, dittany. I haven't read enough, and I haven't explored it enough. I was brought up by a feminist; and I know I have very strong feelings about being a woman, and what that means, socially and personally.

So I don't understand where I fit in feminism. I don't even like labelling things, so I'm not sure why I want to label myself but I'm interested in the different feminists and their differing ideas about what it means IYSWIM, and am keen to know where I'm starting out fitting in.

What I want is for women to have choices equal to men those of men, but if they choose SAHMing, that that should be as equally respected to if they choose being a solicitor or politician. I have found it very disheartening when I've read that some feminists see SAHMs as 'letting the side down'.

But how does women deliberately, and without any coercion, choosing to stay at home and care for their children fit in with feminism? Because I have been 'told off' for it (for want of a better word) by a feminist in the past...well, not directly, but in a blog post where she said she despised SAHMs . It was a long time ago, but it touched a nerve.

It felt like sexism - because I am a woman, I'm not allowed to choose to be the SAHP...because traditionally women did that job and the only way we can achieve what we want to achieve (whatever that is!) is for women to choose non-traditional roles, I suppose!

Sorry for rambling - I really want to know more, but come to the threads on here when there already 100+ posts on it and I just don't get the chance to read through it all before I get a chance to contribute!

I think, politically, there is a difference between liberal and libertarian.

Taken to the ideological roots, libertarianism would extend to anarchy/individualism (as a positive, not a bad thing). Having libertarian leanings would fit well with radical feminism as both take it as a given that there are issues that cannot be resolved by simply altering the current system because they are an integral part of the system.

I'd imagine that a radical feminist without libertarian/anarchist leanings would want to replace the current system with an alternative?

dittany - Any chance you be more welcoming to new posters here? I think that your response is the sort of thing that puts people off.

I think I know why you responded as you did - you didn't like your words being associated with "trying to be equally celebrated for the wonderfully different ways in which they are able to contribute to society"

LackingInspiration - good question:

Your comment "Women are not men...but they are also not second class citizens because they have different skills and abilities"

The way I see it (although my views are not fully formed) - stereotypes of women and men are limiting because the damage expectations of what individual girls and boys will grow up to do and I think they assist in oppressing women.

There is a "nature v nurture/biological determinism" debate within the scientific community/feminist community.

I believe that highlighting differences between men and women is not usually of benefit to women. I subscribe to the notion that small biological/physical differences can be magnified to large differences due t upbringing/culture.

So of course all men and all women have different skills and abilities and where as your own observations and various studies may demonstrate these differences to you - in fact what I believe is that the variation within the sexes is far greater than the average difference between the sexes.

I am hoping that there is going to be a wonderful thread about Feminism and mothering.

The great thing with Feminism - is that there is no "one" Feminism.

Of course you can be a SAHM! Try not to be put off. Everyone makes choices due to different circumstances.

I am working part time (through choice) and I try to reconcile this with my desire that there be more women in positions of power - there are different routes to that - some would say access to full time subsidised childcare - some would say acknowledge and respect women for taking "career breaks" and ensure there are opportunities for a career to be rejoined at a later date. Probably a mixture is needed.

Thanks Tabouleh.

I think I didn't express myself very well in my OP, and, in fact, didn't even know exactly what I wanted to say.

Dittany - I wasn't using your words negatively at all, even if you felt I was. I was using them thoughtfully...they made me think and I wanted to explore that further.

I'm definitely not put off being a SAHM - I feel strongly about my job(s) (also a HEor and a home-maker) and take pride in them. I know DH would too if he were doing it.

I agree that the skills I have are not mine because I was born female. I'd love to talk about the skills involved in mothering some time; and about why so many men I know don't have them...is it cultural conditioning? Or practice?

I also work part time - self-employed as a breastfeeding counsellor - but it's nature is such that it never means we need paid childcare, which is the principle we parent by. And I love and take pride in my paid work and voluntary work outside of the home too.

Don't know why I'm rambling so much! I'm still not at the end of the 'intros' thread, but I love this topic!

This is a question I've been wanting to ask for a while.I think I am a liberal feminist,but I would also assume that women achieving equality with men by whatever means would mean that the existing system would need to change,a lot.
What I really don't get is what "overthrowing the patriarchal system"
means in practice.All you radical feminists out there - when you say this,what are you actually imagining? And what will be there afterwards? And how - violent revolution??
I can see how the system can be changed bit by bit ,and I'd hope the end result of that change would be totally different.But our world is so complex,and men and women are,IMO, inextricably tied together - it's not like a conquered people rebelling and throwing out an occupying army,is it?

OK,I've just realised I should have been cooking dinner 30 mins ago...whoops

dittany - I am not "having a dig at you" - I am just concerned, following various recent threads where people have de-lurked and said they were scared to post here/scared-off.

I said "I think that your response is the sort of thing that puts people off."

I've learnt lots from you and you were the driving force behind setting this section up and that's great. I don't identify with a fair few of your radical feminist ideas and as you know I personally find that when people explain some of the feminist ideas to me I get them a lot quicker. So that is the approach I am taking to "consciousness raising" by posting on here.

I am also aware that people are put off this section by the "in-fighting" so I am going to try and do my thing here and let you do yours without further comment on your posting-style/explanations etc.

This means that I am going to have to think twice before actually addressing any parts of your posts which I disagree with.

dittany I am curious as to how a complete feminist revolution that destroys the existing patriarchy would come around? You do mention awareness, which is great, but doesn't in itself constitute a revolution as such. How do you envisage the current system being torn down?

I DO agree that women are oppressed, although there's an illusion of freedom. For example how much women get bashed for their choices especially the SAHM/WOHM debate.

It all seems a bit loose dittany. How will male violence against women end? What can women do, what could I do, to be part of the groundswell?

Ah sorry - don't know how I missed that. Female non-compliance with oppression = the revolution?

I'm not sure I can see a world where male on female violence is ended though. Largely because there are still men who pass on their 'values' to their sons. I think the taboo needs to end - women need to be able to speak out about it, and stand up to it but I'm not sure it will eradicate the problem itself. Sexism is inherently ingrained in society. And then there are plenty of women who agree with/submit to these mentalities. My mum is one! She is incredibly anti-feminist.

Or does that seem entirely too negative/defeatist?

anastasia, I think that there is perhaps more of a difference between radical feminism and anarchist feminists than you suggest.

I was thinking about this earlier today sparked off by another thread (always my problem on here, I need to think about what I'm trying to say for a day or so, by which time the discussion has moved on too far). As an anarchist and a feminist, I see the patriarchy as a manifestation of hierarchy in our society. I don't feel that it is possible to dismantle the patriarchy without a fundamental change in social relations to a non-hierarchical society without rulers, men or women.

I'm not sure that I'm explaining myself clearly here, but in fact wikipedia has a reasonable summary of some anarchist feminist thought here.

In practice, in fact, I'm not so very sure that the end result would necessarily be so different from what Dittany is imagining? Or maybe it is, Dittany?

I don't think that it is too loose, though - we are in a rather static point in history, where it is easy to feel as though patriarchal-capitalism-as-it-stands is the only option. You don't need to look far back in history to see that no system lasts forever - the fall of feudalism across Europe is a really good example. As I understand it there were situations where serfs themselves were fighting against the end of serfdom (in the same way as some women will fight for the patriarchy), but now it seems like ancient history.

Equally there were points in the last century where fundamental social change spread across Europe dramatically quickly (sorry don't know much about history outside Europe)

Struggling to express myself here but I hope I'm making my point - really to say the system as it is is the only one we are ever going to have and we have to work within it is absolutely negative/defeatist

We're also at a real tipping point in history in terms of climate change and peak oil - these are of themselves going to have radical effects on our society. I has to be up to us to make sure that these aren't - as they so easily could be - changes towards a more hierarchical, unequal
(and hence more violent towards women) society.

Just realised that the start of my two last posts completely contradicted each other - what I am, of course, trying to say is that ooking back we are in a rather static point, whereas looking forward^ we are coming to a tipping point.

I agree with dittany that a feminist revolution would be all about consciousness - women's, and eventually, men's.

We live in a society where women are continually belittled or demeaned - both by men and by themselves and each other. An end to this WOULD be a revolution.