Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
solidgoldbrass · 23/06/2012 01:21

I certainly agree that the 'neutral' position (on any given topic) is the white, heterosexual male position,which is a bit much considering that Straight Boy Whitey is in fact a minority in terms of world population.

ScroobiousPip · 23/06/2012 01:28

Hi Aye, sorry if my questions appeared snipey or not serious - they were intended as genuine questions.

I honestly don't think I know enough about feminist theory to say whether I am a liberal feminist or not. I'd actually really like some guidance on whether this is an appropriate board/thread for me to be posting!

In terms of my professional life I am pretty much required by my profession (lawyer) to be a 'hired gun'. In as much as I believe in promoting woman's rights, I also believe everyone has the right to a fair trial, including legal representation. Although I don't do a lot of criminal law, I would have no hesitation defending a man on rape allegations if I had to.

I guess that's what I mean about grey areas and life being messy, and being cautious about applying theory to individual matters.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 01:34

Lol, it's feeding time at the zoo, and I'm on the crappy iPad and can't do links on here, but will try and pop back later when kids are abed.

Should be reasonably easy to find though - will be splashed all over any research methods course for any uni, I would have thought.

God, no. No open mind in my professional life. Spent sixteen years in the military being told how crap women were and watching them get discriminated against, why would I hold a neutral stance? Grin. Since I left I've been a carer to my disabled daughter, a student, a sahm, a pt worker in crappy child friendly jobs, and a resolute disability rights campaigner. I'm also a compulsive volunteer. Most of the recent years have been taken up with emigrating.

I'm being slightly tongue in cheek, obv, but I lurch from mainstream liberal to just about ready to have an aneurism at any given moment due to perceived inequalities. Grin

But y'know, I'm just interested in people and their many and varied views, and I want to hear them all. I don't want people to be silenced. I want their viewpoints out in the open so that they can be talked through. But I stopped posting on fwr when I got told off for asking questions, because apparently I shouldn't be interested in the answers of people who were non - U. At the time it was a couple of women who worked as prostitutes, and I was interested in hearing how they rationalised their choices. Listening to them and asking them further questions to probe their rationale didn't make me pro-prostitution, or anything else, it made me interested in them as human beings, and curious how they felt their choices impacted women in wider society, and ESP men's views of women in wider society. But I was told off for giving them air time.

This has been a repeated theme, so I am genuinely sorry that I misread your op - I'm all for open discussion, not open warfare.

I just think we can't hope to change society until we start talking to people who have other views. Sensibly, rationally, and exploring why they hold the views they do. Not refusing to discuss with them and telling them they are wrong. Because that doesn't solve anything, and just builds bigger barriers. (IMO, of course. I don't purport to speak for anyone else.)

ScroobiousPip · 23/06/2012 01:42

Sorry, again, Aye, I realize my posts about my work have been a bit ambiguous. In theory lawyers take pretty on much any case within their field. But, I have developed a special interest in discrimination law which is where the arguing/promoting/educating comes from - because I am known for my specialist areas, I am far less likely to ever be involved in, say, tax law, or mainstream criminal law. But i do still have to argue cases which don't align with my own personal viewpoint, iykwim.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 02:50

Having pondered briefly whilst helping ds1 pack for cub camp and sewing up a rip in his rain coat (and walking the dogs), I suspect 'focus' is indeed the culprit.

I don't see any dilution of my views as a feminist if I stop and ponder the opposite viewpoint in an attempt to engage the holder of that viewpoint in conversation. I don't see it as a dilution of my feminism to try and understand why they feel the way they do, and try to get them to see how I feel. I don't see it as any dilution of my feminism to recognise and try to engage with disability rights, and to put a lot of effort and time into improving supports and provisions. I just don't. I see it as all moving towards a more equal society where everyone is valued. Depending on my focus at the time I am equally likely to have an aneurism on behalf of a spinal cord injury survivor, or a victim of domestic abuse.

My personal research is largely feminist with a focus on institutional change, but that doesn't mean I need to ignore other 'isms' that smack me in the face. To choose not to ignore them alongside my wider feminist concerns doesn't make me any less feminist. It might make me more liberal, but it doesn't dilute my feminism.

But that just isn't focus enough for purists, and so I mostly don't bother with the fwr boards. I'm content in my feminism. I recognise the need for hard liners of all sorts (radfems as well as transactivists). I'm grateful for anyone that devotes their time and energy to fighting on behalf of minority groups. So I don't have any beef with radfems at all, save that I find the constant denigration of liberals extremely wearing, and not worth the effort of engaging with.

I'm aware that's ironic given my interest in open debate - but I don't find the 'debate' particularly open here - with the possible exception of this thread. It's just liberals being hounded until they give up, and I've got more worthwhile things to do in rl than to butt my head against that brick wall (although I do occasionally, just to see if anything has changed).

I am just horrified that regular fwr posters have been caught in this carnage though. I'm used to it being a space where only very narrow views are tolerated, and frankly can live without posting on here, but I'm stunned and shocked that some posters who espouse those very views are now being ostracised.

Himalaya · 23/06/2012 08:39

On the article,Ayerobo

I'm all for calling out sexism, racism, agism etc... in advertising but dont see the underlying conspiracy (which i guess means the article has me pegged right Grin).

The way i see it is two competing hypothesese for why.

One is that advertising is aimed at selling stuff, tends to be conservative, reflects mainstream stereotypes and cultural totems, is risk averse, but ultimately is driven by profit motives, and secondarily the career concerns of the people who make it and commission it.

The other way, as stated in the article is that advertising is collectively used as political propaganda against women, and toward specifically patriarchal ends.

I imagine a situation where the company tests two adverts - one that is patriarchal and the other not and find that they sell more with the non patriarchal one. The second theory suggests that they go with patriarchal one anyway for non-commercial reasons but driven by their underlying political agenda against women. I cant imagine how this conversation goes, and i cant see how this company doesnt go out of business, losing ground to the company that makes commercially driven decisions.

Ockham's razor favours the first explanation.

This bit also makes me itchy:"activating for women's freedom from men is a full-time job and demands our full attention"....so many things are put forward as full-time jobs for women - looking pretty, keeping up with fashion, being the senior parent in modern intensive parenting, being a domestic godess etc... There are only 24 hours in the day.

garlicbum · 23/06/2012 15:57

In reality non-patriarchal adverts for cleaning products, say, test extremely well with focus groups. The more patriarchal treatment tends to win out because the desk research - which is based on enormous, statistically solid samples - says the vast majority of purchaser-users are women, and that those women consider themselves the boss of home hygiene. The ad agency's paid to sell products in an existing society, not to change that society. So, surprise surprise, patriarchal values end up self-reinforcing.

When I'm a multi-trillionaire I will buy Procter & Gamble, just so I can change this Grin

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 16:43

I come out as 100% Libertarian and 80% Liberal Feminist in that quiz.

I don't think I am as individualistic to be 100% libertarian, but it does fit with my general politics which puts me slightly towards the right and slightly more libertarian than Ghandi in the political compass test.

I don't generally tend to think about what type of feminist I am though - possibly because I don't tend to call myself a feminist due to my views on patriarchy (I tend to lean towards Foucauldian post structuralism which means I view patriarchy as a social construct rather than an actual thing that exists). However, I do recognise that gender equality exists and needs to be overturned, I just don't subscribe to the idea of worldwide systematic oppression of women by men.

I think I see inequality as a set of interconnected but separate issues which need to be tackled in different ways because they exist for different reasons. For example, the action that needs to be taken to tackle inequality in the workplace is very different and completely unrelated to the action that needs to be taken to sort out the oppression of women in some muslim countries. Each issue needs to be examined on it's own terms, within it's own cultural framework as it is only by understanding how something came to be in the first place that it can be cured.

To me, the rad fem stance in the extract in the OP is too homogeneous and I personally see the issues as more heterogeneous.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 16:43

Yy, I think himalaya's point is crucial. The recognition of the underlying concepts and what effect they will have, but not the recognition of this as deliberate propaganda against women.

I was on the fringes of a very interesting advertising campaign which had two parts, deliberately targeting different recruiting adverts towards different sexes (theoretically running a far more gendered ad campaign than ever before). Previous ads had been in theory non specific but by their nature drew heavily on supposed masculine ideals. The dual ad campaign resulted in a huge increase in applications by women. I haven't done any specific analysis of the ads used (I have a vague recollection of content), but found myself pulled in two different directions - mollified that the institution had recognised their masculine centred ideals and practices, and were trying to move away from them, but pissed that they were utilising feminine and masculine stereotypes in order to do so... thus underlining aspects of patriarchy even whilst attempting to create a greater equality. Head fuck, really. Grin. It's like a qualified compromise, we'll let you do it (we'll even persuade you we want you to do it, and truthfully we need you to do it, but you can only do it if you continue to play by our rules and uphold the binary)

I'm trying to work out if there are any cleaning ads (or any domestic claggage) that do a similar thing - ie don't use men in an 'incapable' role, or as the saviour or specialist helping the poor woman or advising her on a better way/ product, but seek to actually persuade men it's ok to clean, and they can to do it themselves... (because we know it's necessary for men to do it in the 21stC, even though we know that women should do it if there's one available) i have a completely different selection of ads here though, lol. There are a couple of nappy ones running here at the moment that are desperately trying to use men in an ordinary way -(we asked ten dads to test x) but there is still the underlying message that this is 'out of the norm', however much it seems to pander to equality. (the ad recognised that the dads would absolutely be left with their babies for the afternoon, but their unfamiliarity with the equipment at hand suggested this was normal abut not natural iykwim)

Impossible not to see the reinforcement of the status quo with most advertising, isn't it?

MooncupGoddess · 23/06/2012 17:01

The problem with advertising is that the status quo is so engrained that any attempt to combat it will be seen mainly in relation to the status quo rather than in terms of its own qualities.

(I'm not sure that makes any sense. Edward Said said this better when talking about imperialism, but I can't find the quote now.)

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 17:06

There are a couple of nappy ones running here at the moment that are desperately trying to use men in an ordinary way -(we asked ten dads to test x) but there is still the underlying message that this is 'out of the norm', however much it seems to pander to equality.

That's the 64 thousand dollar issue though isn't it - advertising works because it is either aspirational or a reflection of perceived reality. Advertising won't be a bastion of equality until society is. If advertising makes the first move it is seen as 'pandering' or 'out of the norm' and therefore won't be as effective.

I was watching 1950's House the other day and some of the adverts they showed from that time were amazingly sexist by today's standards, but I am willing to bet that the changes to society which allows those ads to be viewed as sexist came before the ads themselves changed.

Advertising is guilty of reflecting issues of inequality, of reinforcing stereotypes, it is of course propaganda in it's literal sense because it is designed to influence people into buying a particular product, but I don't see the conspiracy, just the reflection of societal attitudes.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 17:06

Oh, I have that somewhere... Must dig it out. Haven't read it for aaaages...

But yes. Difficult to tease out a motive clearly when everything is so ingrained. I think that's what frustrates me with the rad/ lib thing. I want to scratch away all the layers, whereas someone with more radical tendencies goes straight for the VAW line. I need to know how and why, and the nuances of each individual situation. Going straight to VAW is alienating for the majority of society, which then makes them unlikely to engage in debate, and (obv only in my opinion) unlikely that the status quo will change.

MooncupGoddess · 23/06/2012 17:13

Enjoy, madwoman! I'm pretty sure it's in Culture and Imperialism, but do let me know if you find it.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 17:17

X post. Yy, claire. Of course. Still frustrating though. Grin

The nappy thing I find a fairly iconic measure of where we're at wrt equality. Grin. I mean, there are sahds. I know a few in rl. Obviously they are a minority at the mo, but they do exist. And yet you don't ever see them used in the same way as mothers in advertising. (for all of the reasons you give wrt reflection etc). So it is absolutely normal for some families. So in that way the advertising isn't a true reflection of society, because they are never ever seen in that role without the underlying codicils (yes I look after my baby but normally i do something else). I want companies to start recognising that some dads do this all the time, and it is possible for men to take this option. And on that way, seeing it on the screen during big brother, or whatever, it seeks to normalise that actually, anyone can care for a baby.

I think it's why I'm drawn to literature - it can be analysed as a reflection of whatever society it was written in, but also can be far more nuanced, I think. You can see attitudes changing, but also can see it being used as a way to change attitudes.

Completely different functions between advertising and literature of course, but dammit, I want advertisers to see changing nappies as aspirational for men. Grin

garlicbum · 23/06/2012 18:02

I want advertisers to see changing nappies as aspirational for men
Good!
Tell them :)

Catherine McMahon

www.facebook.com/PampersUKIre
twitter.com/#!/Pampers_UK Hmm

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 19:11

I would say though that although for families with SAHD it is their reality and normal, they are perceived by society at large as being unusual - no-one bats an eyelid at a woman saying "I am a SAHM" but SAHD's either get a "Well Done You for being a 'new man'" or looked at as if they have two heads and treated with mistrust - therefore any adverts that show dad's in that role will also be seen unusual.

It would be nice if companies would put adverts out that attempt to subvert the stereotype, but I doubt any would take the probable cut in revenue in order to make an ideological stand while they wait for society to catch up.

At the end of the day adverts are there to make the company money. If you want adverts to subvert the stereotype, advertisers need to believe that doing so will be profitable - what we need is just one product that is seen to uphold the values that we want to be accepted as normal with an organised campaign (external to the company) to get people to buy that product - other advertisers would soon cotton on. A bit like a reverse of the Nestle boycott.

This issue reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) 'story' about the couple who go shopping in the Early Learning Centre. The mom wants to buy their 2.5 year old son a pushchair because he enjoys playing with the one at playgroup - the dad point blank refuses to allow it because it is a 'girly toy' - said with no sense of irony despite the fact that he is the one pushing their sons buggy around the shopping centre.

Just as a general point though - do many nappy ads feature adults at all these days? All of the ones I have seen recently are mostly about cute babies rolling round in the cot or crawling with not an adult in sight, or at least playing only a very minor role (although I will admit to avoiding adverts wherever possible by the conscientious use of Sky+). The most sexist adverts to my mind are the bloody Boots ones (with the two women with colds chatting in the streets).

ClaireDeTamble · 23/06/2012 19:15

Also, out of interest, what are people's thoughts on

She is doing the 'man's job' of decorating while he looks after the kids, but then he is letting his heavily pregnant wife do manual labour.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 19:23

Claire, just pondering that chicken and egg thought, and trying to rationalise the upsurge in the glamour of domestic advertising post war... have always assumed (and suspect have read in most accounts) that in part the advertising (and indeed product development) was structured that way to encourage women back to the home front as the men were reclaiming 'their' jobs, to realign the status quo and to raise the cultural value of femininity and the home front etc... curious how you feel this would tie in with the reflection of existing society/ or (patriarchal) delineation of the aspirational?

Himalaya · 23/06/2012 19:33

(not sure if you wanted us to riff on liberal vs radical or advertising Ayerobot?)

I think the ELC is an interesting case - they started off all wooden toys and educational and non- traditional and gradually shifted to more pink and blue, princess/fireman stuff. Then they went bust because they were a bit crap

I guess their marketing was pushed that way because that is what people wanted, but then they lost their edge to the big box retailers/supermarkets on one hand and the aspirational shops on the other. I think advertisers/marketers have to read what people want but also guess at the direction it is going. ... Sometimes they get it wrong.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:02

Had a quick look at the dulux ad. (not seen it before)

Off the top off my head, I'd say it played into a lot of stereotypes, with him coming home exhausted from work, whilst she has had time to ponder the fripperies of home decor - (with some nice sexy secretary hair scooping up, letting it down to tie in with the sexy environs she has created to seduce him - presumably because she fancies either a bit of nookie or babies to keep her company whilst she is at work, a bit ambiguous).

The second bit I see as weekend time, so he is doing 'his bit' with the kids and his new dad paunch (cos clearly marriage and kids means being overweight with a constant backdrop of screaming), and she's so desperate to quit breeding that it's time to get rid of the raunchy red that's caused their current predicament, even though she's about to deliver another one.

So, the power of decor (!) with a nice dose of 'reality', which is either, from a man's pov, that you get suckered by the raunchy trimmings and end up a fat knackered dad that has to deal with the screaming at the weekends (but hey, buddy, we're all in it together), or from the woman's - you can get what you want (and control your fertility) by a nice bit of domestic prettifying. And don't forget your toss your hair and look alluring. Dh doesn't have to - he can look harassed and work- addled, or harassed and child- bestrewn. Oh, and, handing the kids over to him at the weekend so that you can get on paint the walls in peace is ok, because you won't have time to do it for the rest of the week, with him out at work.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:03

Whilst he is at work, obv.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 20:05
WicketyPitch · 23/06/2012 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:23

Nope. There isn't. And there isn't anything anti-patriarchal in a man doing the same. It's the external gendering of stuff that can be problematic, and whether or not it is done to promote that particular role as gendered (which may in turn normalise it as gendered, making it less likely that the roles will be reversed)

Is it done to promote gendered roles? Or does it just reflect society? I dunno. I assumed the op was pondering feminist readings of ads in an attempt to discover the difference between liberals and radical feminists - so was curious about advertising from a gendered perspective.

How do I feel about decorating my house? Dh and I angsted over colours together for about three months, eventually decided together, and then paid a contractor. it's a very small apartment but we have three storey ceilings in places - we don't have the ladders long enough. Grin. The kids chose the colours for their own rooms - Ds chose orange, the girls chose blue. Dh and I both painted the girls room because we couldn't afford to pay the contractor to do the lot, and needed the girls room done first because we were building a huge bank of wardrobes down the middle for storage, and we couldn't wait another five weeks...

We didn't sit and ponder whether we were acting in any sort of gendered way, and I didn't ponder whether I was acting in a feminist way or not.

My reality is clearly not that envisioned by the advertising fraternity, and I find it interesting to ponder why they choose the images they do.

That's possibly another difference between a liberal and a radical.Grin a radical may well have considered who was going to paint her house and how that may have contributed to VAW, and purchased her paint accordingly. And been pissed off that the liberal hadn't considered it.

Disclaimer - last para is possibly a poor joke, but I feel got at and I'm not sure why. Grin liberals have a victim mentality? Grin

madwomanintheattic · 23/06/2012 21:28

In fact, in a neat little twist, dh and I chose to paint our living space red. Grin in a colour not dissimilar to that in the dulux ad. Grin in advertiser speak, this probably means I harbour an intense desire to shag on the sofa (or the dining table). In reality, we've already got three kids and he's had a vasectomy. And it isn't his birthday. Or mine.

It doesn't mean I believe that red paint is seductive. It just means that the ad is suggesting that red paint is seductive. (and it's the womn's role to be the seductress)