Liberal Feminism - what's it all about? And who wants to discuss it with me?

[Beachcomber]

This is a subject I have been thinking about for a while. I have been wondering if Liberal Feminism has taken a bit of a hit from the 'backlash'. I'm interested in what Liberal feminists think and how they see the movement at the moment.

I thought maybe we could explore the focus and aims of the Liberal movement as it exists in the world today. My understanding of Liberal feminism is that it uses democracy and laws (i.e. the existing structures) to gain equality for women. This is a very pragmatic approach IMO and certainly measurable gains have been made for women (in the UK at least) with regards to reproductive rights, suffrage and equal pay. What seems to be harder is the struggle for affordable childcare and issues of domestic and other violence.

What do others think?

My understanding is that Liberals are very political in the sense that;

Liberal feminists believe that ?female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women?s entrance to and success in the so-called public world? and they work hard to emphasize the equality of men and women through political and legal reform.

Do people think that this is currently the case for Liberal feminism? Where do we see the future - what reforms/changes are needed for women currently? Do you think Liberal feminism has evolved with regards to how it has been criticised in the past for emphasis on the individual and a lack of inclusion (in particular of women of colour and the women most disadvantaged by society)?

Thanks Kritiq, way more eloquent than I managed !

See I don't think Radical feminists do condemn Liberal feminism. (There are disagreements, particularly on the more individualistic approach of Liberal feminism - but disagreements are not condemnations.)

By Liberal Feminism, I mean classical Liberal Feminism which seeks to end the oppression of women through legislation and by reforming existing power structures.

However, I think currently there is a tendency for people to use the term 'Liberal Feminism' to mean 'not Radical feminism'.

And the problem with that is that there are all sorts of viewpoints and ideologies which don't come under the umbrella of classical Liberal feminism but which seem to be identified by many as being Liberal feminist approaches.

I think it is a shame that the term has been hi-jacked in recent times.

I think often people make the mistake of thinking Radical = extreme and Liberal = not Radical.

I know that there are variations of thought within Liberal feminism (on the institution of prostitution for example) - but what would the posters here consider to be the basic tenets of Liberal feminism?

In my opinion there are a lot of women who are feminists but are neither really Radical or Liberal (or Socialist, Marxist, etc.) in their approach. And that is fine.

That wasn't remotely tangential, Kritiq, it was completely sound. I think feminism can come across at attacking a woman's femininity - her whole being, basically. It's probably a direct parallel to the American church thing you've described.

I agree with the evangelical description and that does fit with why I'm finding the word feminist one I'm uncomfortable with. In the context of the thread in site stuff and this thread, to me, its about the fact I feel told I can't be a feminist and have certain other beliefs (this thread has been helpful in saying "yes you can").

And whilst I do agree with the idea that radical extremes are needed to counter conservatism in any political arena, my cavet with that, is there needs to be balance between both in order to be productive rather than a problem. If extreme ideas at either end of a spectrum, dominate debate rather than simply influence it its a concern (Again religion is a very good comparison).

I think for me, I'd like to hear a lot more of the voices in this thread expressing opinions more often to be more of that balance in the middle. I'd like to see more views like these represented on FWR as I feel that at times they are being drowned out and they have a lot to offer.

Garlic, I suppose in a way, I'm not terribly worried whether a person calls themselves a feminist or not. It's more about actions and attitudes than labels. Maybe I feel disappointed if they don't feel they can "embrace" the term, but that's more about me than them. In any case, on many an occasion, by talking with someone, working with them, etc., when they've gained more insight into what feminism means "in action," folks have shifted from the, "I'm not a feminist . . . but," to, "Okay, I'm a feminist!" :)

I think another point is that a person, a policy even doesn't have to be "explicitly feminist" in order to achieve goals of feminism. In other words, you don't always have to change hearts and minds to achieve the outcome you want.

I remember a presentation from the late Ellen Pence, one of the founders of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Minnesota, nearly 20 years ago. She and colleagues from the shelter movement had slogged their guts out, talking to police officers at all levels, trying to convince them to change their attitudes to domestic abuse. They knew women weren't being believed or helped, and the negative attitudes of cops were making them feel even more reluctant to press charges against their abusers. The talks, the workshops, the leaflets, the classes, none of it was working.

Then they hit on a different idea.

They talked with the Chief of Police about what he thought the problem was - why were cops doing such a crap job dealing with "domestics" and what could be done about it. The Chief said one problem was that officers believed that it didn't matter what they did, battered women rarely pressed charges. Cops thought they were wasting their time doing anything about "domestic cases." He also admitted some had neanderthal attitudes about women and would probably never be convinced that domestic violence was a law and order issue.

So, what happened is the Chief agreed to implement a new procedure for dealing with domestic abuse calls. Officers had to take down detailed statements and reports, take photos of the scene and the complainant and file these reports promptly. It didn't matter whether they thought it was a waste of time, didn't matter if they thought men had a right to beat their wives, they still had to fill in the forms or they'd get it in the neck from their boss. So, they did it, all of them.

And within a few months, they noticed a change. More women were pressing charges. More cases were going to court. More men were being convicted of abuse. More women were leaving abusers and staying away. Why? In part, it was because women felt their complaints were being taken seriously because the cops were taking down so much detail, when they hadn't bothered before. Also, if they decided to press charges, there was now a swathe of robust evidence to back their case and a greater chance of getting a conviction.

Over time, the attitudes of cops started to shift as they saw their efforts bearing fruit and more convictions being secured. The proof in the pudding was in the eating and ultimately, more women escaped violent partners and more men were punished.

So it didn't matter that the police weren't convinced by feminist arguments, or any arguments really. Changing the practice led to positive outcomes for abused women and eventually, a massive culture shift for the police as well.

Apologies if that's a major thread diversion, but I sort of thought it might be helpful to give an example of why it doesn't always matter if you convince someone to your way of thinking. You can still get the outcome you want by different means. And perhaps that is what some strands of feminism seek to do.

"Glasgowwean, I like your evangelical analogy. As a lurker and very average woman, that is how I have felt too in the feminist context. The only difference is that, for me, it's not so much the ideas themselves that are the issue, but the tone of engagement - the 'I'm right, you're wrong' - that I found off putting. I'd find it easier to listen to the ideas if there was room for real debate to question, probe and even disagree with some aspects. I agree though that this issue isn't necessarily limited to one particular group."

I think this idea is at the heart of it. I think some of the problem stems from trolls derailing threads, and long-time posters grow very tired of repeated 'derailing tactics' and hence deal with them quite cynically. Unfortunately, some of the questions and arguments used by trolls are quite similar to those that someone new to feminism might ask, albeit in a more polite way, and they might therefore be discouraged from asking them.

whatmeworry - I don't think extreme radfems are the problem, although I disagree vehemently with some of their opinions. Every movement needs some people asking the really radical questions and some people effecting gradual change in society. The problem is that all feminists get stereotyped in the media, but I don't think our movement could ever be palatable enough to not get stereotyped by our enemies.

What a great story, Kritiq! It's an example of something we're always saying in real life: Words matter, and actions matter more :) By getting the police officers to act as if they gave a damn, the objective was achieved.

Beach, these threads have made me put into words some things I'd only 'thought' viscerally until now. Thanks for your continued engagement. One of those things is the very business of labels! I acknowledge that some people work better when they can categorise everything, including people. I'm not amongst them. If you address me as "A [Label] Feminist" I feel pressed to put forward, or to defend, a position as if I were speaking on behalf of some defined group. It makes me uncomfortable because it isn't true. Similarly, I would rather hear your own opinion, or Dittany's or Himalaya's, free from overtones of party line.

Clearly there's a strong subset of FWR posters who enjoy comparative analysis of different party lines within feminism. Fine; labelling matters on those threads. But it doesn't matter to me. In threads that I'm on, I would much prefer to be addressed as the person I am - because that's all I am. If it helps you to label me privately, go ahead. Just please understand that I am unable to 'fit' an ideological template.

Not sure I've put this well enough; I am trying!!

My new 'party':- Free-Floating Feminists

This might deserve its own thread but I'm going to put this here because it links back nicely to the stuff upthread about being a feminist and also believing in supporting other causes and there not being a conflict of interest.

Besides which there is also a thread elsewhere on MN about this already for debate on the actual court decision.

The thread is this one about German Courts decision to ban male circumcision on the grounds of religion:

and relates to this article published in the Guardian.

I don't want to get into the rights and wrong of the decision itself, but wanted to highlight something else in the article.

Someone on the other thread pointed out this quote in the article:
Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.

This is the stuff that I find deeply disturbing and deeply depressing. Its as if its some kind of competition and puritism. This is the kind of stuff that puts me off the word 'feminism' (ironically, in this case they are described as a woman's rights group though). I don't want to associate myself with opinions like that.

Can I ask where all the 'you're not a feminist' stuff is? I haven't seen it in this thread or the site stuff thread.

On the label front, it does feel as though the label used most is rad-fem, and that it's sometimes used almost as a pejorative. Even on a thread that's about exploring liberal feminism there are posts accusing rad-fems of being the problem. I agree that labels and focusing on differences is a problem, but it can't be stopped by sidelining anyone, only by posters of all persuasions calling a halt to naming, blaming and finger pointing.

it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing - Huh? How come?

Confession: I'm too tired to read the links. But would say: If it's easier to blanket ban all circumcision, go for it. The boys will just have to learn to wash their willies.

Hi all, just catching up!

Hester, my post earlier about intersectionality, asking if it meant I couldn't be a feminist, was addressing your post saying:

Yes, Kritiq, but that is intersectionality, as you point out. Feminism and intersectionality are not the same thing. Feminism is, surely, still the movement that fights for the rights of women.

I see now you have embraced the term 'intersectional feminism' so that's all good! I was just trying to address that narrow point really.

Based on the quote, it's hard to see the justification for that view. Female circumcision is already banned and quite rightly because it's mutilation. I don't see how, on the face of it, a later ban on male circumcision undermines feminism or minimises female circumcision.

Anyhow, male circumcision isn't banned in Germany as far as I can see, it's still allowed on medical grounds which are few and far between.

I don't know what I'm not getting but I don't see the link.

Hmmm, I don't think the point being made by the German minister about "putting male and female circumcision" on the same footing was in the context of competition. In real terms, the clinical risks during and after the two procedures are very different, just as the clinical risks of an abdominal hysterectomy are far greater than the risks of a bilateral orchidectomy (removal of the testes.) Also, male circumcision is usually carried out by a doctor or trained Rabbi and performed in a sterile setting. FGM is a more radical procedure, but generally carried out by an untrained person in an unsterile setting, which adds to the risks.

I haven't read up alot on the German legal ruling, but I'm guessing that she was concerned that the ban on FGM was being used as an "excuse" to ban male circumcision under the argument of sexual equality when the procedures and risks are very different (whether or not one believes circumcision of male children is right.)

Hester, I don't think there were many direct statements of "you're not a feminist," but about this time last week, there were some discussions where some folks were suggesting that non radical feminist views were "diluted" or "watered down," and questioning why some people called themselves feminist when they didn't believe x, y or z. I think some of the wording in this thread got a few backs up when they saw themselves as feminists, but felt they were being thought of as not cutting the mustard, so to speak.

Also, I think there was some discussion about having a discussion room for "feminist beginners" but some felt it was implied that this should also be for those who didn't fit into the radical feminist mode, which didn't play too well with those who felt they were "seasoned" feminists, not beginners, but not radical either.

It was all just a bit messy really, so I ducked out. And, that's what I plan to do in future if things start flying around, getting personal and such because the chances of having constructive conversation in such circumstances are pretty well nil! :)

The past couple days though, I've found some of the discussions incredibly interesting and constructive, so I've dipped in a bit. However, I think there are serious limitations to this form of communication. It's ripe for misunderstandings and when people are talking about things close to their heart, stuff kicks off from time to time. I don't think it's just a feature of this particular message board.

whatmeworry - I don't think extreme radfems are the problem, although I disagree vehemently with some of their opinions. Every movement needs some people asking the really radical questions and some people effecting gradual change in society. The problem is that all feminists get stereotyped in the media, but I don't think our movement could ever be palatable enough to not get stereotyped by our enemies.

I disagree, for 2 reasons:

Firstly, you limit your own effectiveness. There was an interesting point raised (can't recall the thread - this or the other 2 currently running) where someone mentioned Overton Windows, ie if you want to persuade someone of your views, a good approach is to showcase even more extreme views so you look benign in comparison.

Secondly, you increase your opposition's effectiveness. The corollary to the Overton approach is that you can't be associated directly with those extreme views, they are a counterpoint.

To your point, stereotyping always occurs, but I disagree that it is not possible to influence what you are stereotyped for. Your opponent will always go for the stereotype most likely to cause the most incredulity/ridicule/fear against you among the middle ground (the floating voters, if you like). That is a given. But IMO there is no need to help them by adhering to views that will paint the "worst possible case" stereotype.

Especially if - and I do believe i am talking for most Feminists here - you don't hold these exterme views yourself.

And I really like Kritiq's story about the police.

It's similar to the American civil rights movement, in a way, which was incredibly inspirational and successful in many ways but still needed Lyndon Johnson to go along and enforce change from the top.

I'm a lefty who works at times within an industry that is often a big target of the left. Perhaps I'm naive to think I can change things from within, but I've seen some small scale successes that keep me going. A lot of what I do is try to get bigwigs to 'do the right thing' but for reasons that make sense to them, because I know they will never buy my lefty ideas. It does work sometimes!

what I do is try to get bigwigs to 'do the right thing' but for reasons that make sense to them

That's negotiation :) Good for you, dreaming!

Thinking about the circumcision: it must be something to do with the fact that both types are justified on cultural grounds, mustn't it? I agree that FGM is nothing like circumcision of boys - a direct equivalent might be removing the clitoral hood in a surgical setting - but I can imagine lengthy cases going through the international courts, arguing that Jews are allowed to circumcise their boys, so why can't Africans 'circumcise' their girls?

I see now it might be better addressed with a strict definition of permitted procedures.

Garlic thats my thought. If something is bad, its bad. Trying to make one worse than another in the interests of one group over another does not compute in my head.

I feel liberal feminism is a much broader thing. Its less single targetted and narrow in ambition. I find comments like the one in that article hard to digest, whatever the reasoning behind them because of that. I just can't relate to the logic behind it as I find it, well competitive rather than just focusing on problems.

Hester, its part of a hangover of a lot of stuff - it might not be in this thread or the site thread, but a lot of people certainly have expressed that view and why I think in part, this thread was started in the first place. Precisely because there has been all this labelling. And to explore and give voice to express what liberal feminism is (and why people prefer it to other parts of feminism) as people have said they felt unable to do that as much as they would like.

With whats happened I feel I've come out the other end of it, needing to reestablish and reaffirm that you know what, I'm not a troll, and I'm not an anti-feminist and my beliefs are actually valid. Its really left me with a feeling of being devalued - because of this competitive stuff. I do not want to blame, point fingers etc. But what I do want to say, in as constructive manner as possible, why certain things have bothered me and why I define myself as liberal rather than radical.

I do think some points need to be raised in this thread for that reason. Points that may be taken as attacking to a certain amount, but not necessarily meant that way. Its trying to explain. I do think its part of a process that needs to happen to get more liberal minded people feeling they can post here in the context of whats happened previously. Its going to take a bit of time and its going to take understanding from both sides, to change things. Both sides need to learn to express the same points in a better way...

The question has been raised about whether people feel there has been a backlash against feminism. I posted that link as I'm trying to explain, why that bothered me and why I don't think its a particularly liberal school of thought.

I think even by approaching it terms of sides it can only reinforce division. I've really enjoyed this thread, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of taking sides, of liberal good, rad fem bad, or even that all of rad fem is that extreme. Attacks are attacks, whether they're made by or on those you agree with. Sides leads to defending that same behaviour you criticize in the other side when it comes from someone ostensibly on your side.

This thread has been interesting, though I still have no idea what liberal feminism is! Time to go away and do some reading.

What whatmeworry said.

It is too easy to point the finger at and ridicule feminists when some say things like penetrative sex is a bad thing. It is less easy to do so when we point at the discrimination and oppression and demand equality, without these extreme views.

Hester - Do you think criticisms are attacks?

That depends, Cote. Criticism can be all kinds of things, from constructive to an attack.

I'd be pissed off if I thought anyone was reading my references to 'extremists' as 'radicals'. I am capable of using different words for different things. I did say that, ime, proponents of extreme 'feminism' - that is, female supremacy - label themselves as radicals. I see this as damaging to the image of all feminism, not just one particular sector. Movements do need their extremists, however.

I think it's tricky. Movements do need extremists, but then they also need to be seen as extremists, somehow.

For example, my anarchist friends are generally of the pacifist variety. I can't imagine them not criticising more extreme anarchists just because they're sort of working toward the same goal. They feel the extremists complicate their work.

I think extremists within feminism should be free to say and do whatever they want, but I also think there's nothing wrong with other feminists considering them extreme (in a PARDy way of course!)

I don't equate rad fem with extreme, to be clear.

I don't think there is anything remotely wrong with what liberal feminists do.
For me the divide is in my heart. It has nothing to do with what I do. For me, liberal feminism lacks a grasp of a bitter analytic truth about the way things work.

Actually in real life bitter analytic truths are no bloody use to anyone, so more power to the lib-fems elbows