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?

dittany that is indeed inspiring!

Takver, I don't think I was thinking about them being the same things so much as them not being contradictory views for the OP to hold.

But I was kind of thinking as I typed and haven't really thought the whole thing through - will go read your link when DD is in bed :)

I see what you mean.

Thinking about it, this is a much better link.

This quote is over 100 yrs old, but really it still says it all for me:

"(Women) will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the legislator who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces you to an object is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is a man; that the capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid work and the speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body, are men."

dittany I find your post of 18:15 really inspiring.

Wow that Andrea Dworkin speech is powerful stuff! "Deep silence" - I like that phrase.

And as for this section:

"The political systems that we live in are based on this deep silence. They are based on what we have not said. In particular, they are built on what women - women in every racial group, in every class, including the most privileged - have not said. The assumptions underlying our political systems are also based on what women have not said. Our ideas of democracy and equality - ideas that men have had, ideas that express what men think democracy and equality are - evolved absent the voices, the experiences, the lives, the realities, of women.

This is what I'd been looking for to support my ideology that quotas would be a good thing to get 50% women in parliament.

To go back to the OP.

Regardless of real or perceived skills and abilities I think that as our society has 50% men and 50% women then so our societal strutures should reflect this.

To not do this is to deny women our true voice in society - to deny our ability to define society.

I believe it is a serious red herring to say that there can't be 50% women's involvement in parliament/boards of companies due to the fact that women have children.

Dittany - firstly, can I say that I was very concerned that my OP had offended you. I'm glad to read that it didn't, as I hadn't intended it to at all! I want to learn, and I know that you are one of the very prolific posters on here whose posts I can read and gain more understanding from.

Tabouleh - yes I agree, but what happens if few women want to go into a certain job, which creates a gender imbalance? Would that matter?

And, although I would love to be a politician; I can't imagine doing a job that took me away from my family that much. I think my DH wouldn't want to either...is it part of the patriarchy that makes men more likely than women to be happy being away from their family so much? Has my DH been brought up very differently to most men, so has grown up wanting to be very close to his children? Or is it that he's just very effeminate?

WRT to a feminist revolution - I totally agree that we have a long, long way to go still. But I remember discussing this with my Mum a couple of years ago, and her saying that feminism in the 60s felt very different to how it felt now...and would have felt even more different back when we were trying to win the vote even! Feminists have changed a huge amount over the course of 100 or so years. I don't mean for one minute that we should be complacent, that we should stop fighting, but I am trying to say that we mustn't lose heart, simply because we have achieved so much...we must be able to achieve more.

LackingInspiration - surely come the representation revolution we wouldnt have to choose between career and family as the childcare and work/life balance would be so altered as to make that whole problem redundant.

Its part of the patriarchy to not be able to think outside the box to that extent I think.

So you would see a society that children are so much a part of, that no one would have to choose? Or families would be working closer with eachother to have more 'natural' communities where everyone helps everyone else?

I'm not sure but there would need to be a fundamental change in the way jobs and work is structured to allow everyone to participate in work and family equally (not just to allow women to participate in work equally).

Yes, I agree. I was struck when reading The Politics of Breastfeeding how Gabrielle Palmer described how the work families traditionally had to do to survive didn't require children to be out of the way. Technology and large-scale industry has a lot to answer for!

This goes along with the discussion on the 'just jump in' thread about anarchy!

Liberal vs. Radical Feminism = Old Skool.

Feminism has moved on so much since then!

in what way?

my understanding is liberal = we need to change how we work within the current system

radical = the system itself must change

sorry to be old skool (?) but what else is there?

Now that is a very precise and easy to understand explanation, chibi!

Ok, I think I'm a radical then! I'd love to change the whole system for many, many reasons, not just feminism.

Yay! I have a feminist label!

That's interesting,swallowedAFly.My feeling is that our society is so complex that the chances of dramatic change are minimal(Or at least rapid dramatic change).
Which is why I was very sceptical about "overthrowing the patriarchy" - I'd get to that point in a discussion and my brain would stall.But hearing what those of you who are radical are saying,that doesn't sound so much different from what I'm thinking.
I do think that what ends up as being dramatic change in institutions and a complete change of values can be achieved by from the cumulative effect of lots of minor changes.

dittany, if you are still there,thanks a lot for your answer to my question -that was really helpful,sorry I didn't get back yesterday to say so.
And for posting the Andrea Dworkin speech too - powerful stuff.

I don't think you did name muddle swallowedAfly - I did post upthread about "overthrowing the patriarchy",but the bit about liberal feminism was proles (my posts are nowhere near as coherent and knowledgable! )

SAF absolutely agree with you. A lot of women are SAHMs not through choice but because childcare costs are prohibitive. I'm a SAHM at the moment simply because I CANNOT get work. But when I do, DP's mum will be childminding for us. We're lucky to be in that position, alot of parents don't have family nearby to help.