Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

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:
Beachcomber · 21/06/2012 21:38

Yes that makes sense to me.

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.

24HourPARDyPerson · 21/06/2012 23:37

You would identify as a liberal feminist, WW?

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.

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 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?

garlicbum · 22/06/2012 20:46

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

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.

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.

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.

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 22:21

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 22:47

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:
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)

WicketyPitch · 22/06/2012 23:58

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 · 23/06/2012 00:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

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 00:57

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 01:01

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

OP posts:
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.

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.

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:
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:
Swipe left for the next trending thread