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)?

For me, liberal feminism lacks a grasp of a bitter analytic truth about the way things work.

IMO Liberal Feminism has a perfectly fine grasp of analytical truth, but without the bitter element.

I would really like to hear what Liberal Feminism is to Liberal feminists rather than what it is not (or how it is better than other types of feminism).

I have clearly stated what I think Liberal feminism is on this thread (more than once). I don't mind if you disagree and tell me that I have picked up the wrong end of the stick.

I'm interested in exploring what Liberal feminism is today and what its aims, tenets, ideas, values, activism and strategies are. What is the focus - in the past it has been suffrage, reproductive rights and employment law. Is that still the case or has there been a shift?

Garlic, are you referring to my post? If so, no it wasn't in response to anything you said.

It is too easy to point the finger at and ridicule feminists when some say things like penetrative sex is a bad thing.

I'm just bemused by this.

Not so very long ago, before chemical contraception was readily available to women, it was perfectly obvious to us why penetrative sex was problematic for women.

In areas of the world where contraception is not available/expensive/frowned upon, it is obvious what the risks are for women when they engage in regular penetrative sex.

Same for areas where abortion is not available.

That is why reproductive rights have traditionally been a big focus for feminists.

Lots of people see chemical contraception (of which the long term health risks are not really known) and abortion as non-extreme solutions to the issue.

The suggestion that penetrative sex is problematic however is seen as ridiculous extremism that feminists should STFU about in case they scare the horses.

I despair.

Ok, liberal feminism belives in that we live in a patriachial society and that within that society, there are a set of rules that operate to disadvantage women. Those rules aren't intentionally set by men with an intent to dominate women but have evolved over time.

Whilst feminism exists to overcome the oppression that women experience simply by virtue of living with the patriachy, libs believe that this should be done by working with the current system and not against it. Once those changes have been implemented, the individual then can choose how to utilise them for their own benefit.

Liberals believe that gender differences are overstated.

Liberal feminism allows for prostitution to be a valid choice by an individual but with the expectation that this will be achieved only on a level playing field.

Liberal feminism looks not just at what is happening, but how and why and is there a validity to is. And that only by doing so, can you challenge and change the system

Liberal feminisim does believe in working with other groups, even those that oppress women.

Liberal feminism sometimes works to change the system for others whilst still putting the removal of oppression of women as its core belief

Liberal feminism often interlinks with other types of feminism and allows freedom to question - sometimes in areas where radfems think there is no question, that the answer is absolute and does not need to be analyzed.

Liberal feminism is multifaceted and can't be summed up in such an easy manner.

Liberal feminism doesn't tend to eliminate transgendered women as a group that can be fought for within feminism.

Activisim - can be as simple as correcting misunderstandings as and when you come and across them, working within private and public practice to help women's groups, being politically active and supporting policies that support women.

Liberal feminists can be active on an individual basis and achieve small victories that are valid.

Liberal feminism can be supportive of radical and all other feminism.

Can be seen as cold and analytical.

Liberal feminism has evolved over centuries and continues to do so.

Liberal feminism doesn't need to justify itself on this thread as better than, an alternative to or in opposition against radical or any other feminism.

Liberal feminsim is part of the feminist typology, it isn't the typology itself.

:) Thanks, Hester. I'm thinking I should stay away from intensely analytical threads, they make me paranoid!

PHEW! thanks, Glasgow!

even :)

BC, with respect I got shit for saying those exact words "I despair" on the subject of PIV a couple of weeks ago. I don't want that to happen again, so can we learn from what happened that time and we avoid having the same thing in reverse? We've both said the same thing now, so if the thread goes in this direction can we make best efforts to listen to each our and be civil about our differences?

My view:
PIV is bad where women do not have a choice. But that lack of choice is no longer a universal thing and I do think that needs to also be recognised.

PIV is not a wholly negative experience, and women are able to freely engage in it, without it being oppressed and controlled in many places in the world today. Women are not always passive in the act, and can lead it. They can get benefit from it under certain conditions.

PIV = Bad is a very simplistic and very narrow way of putting it, that isn't reflective of the experiences of many. Hence why it is controversial. Not everyone looks at it as a political statement or experience, they simply like it.

Saying that PIV is problematic and tied up with the various fights around reproductive rights isn't the same thing as saying PIV = bad, though Hmmm. That's a reductive interpretation of BC's point, which requires her to defend a perceived problem she hasn't created.

it is. but tbh most of the bickering between rads and liberals is exactly the same, entirely due to reductive points and it being demanded that libs defend points they have not made.

i broadly agree with glasgow's 'what is' post, with the personal disclaimer that i am anti-prostitution, and don't feel able to commit to an opinion on whether it would be acceptable in an equal society. context would be all important, and so much of that tied up in economics as well as gender. so, for the mo, i don't view prostitution as a valid choice.

but that's me, i'm not running a liberal election campaign.

Tiring isn't it when it's feminists having to justify their viewpoints to other feminists ? And we just keep going round and round

Re prostutition, I recognise that hence using 'allow' instead of 'believe'. I don't really think it was particularly productive to post any of it but it seemed to be requested.

Ironic that even as a lib fem, there are parts I disagree with or think are too glib.

Madwoman, I'd argue it's much of a muchness. To brush it off when it's BC yet see it as a problem if it's experienced by a liberal feminist won't close any gaps. If we all responded to the actual content of posts without filtering it through the 'side' of the poster I believe much of the upset would dissipate.

HmmThinkingAboutIt, with respect, I remember that thread.

You said 'I despair' in relation to another MNers post - you quoted the post.

My 'I despair' is not directed to any individual - it was a general comment about society's values.

I think there is quite a difference.

Well we'll agree to differ then.

Thank you glasgowwean that is a really helpful list. I just typed out a reply to you and it doesn't seem to have posted. Am in a bit of a rush but thank you for taking the time and I will comment properly later.

My question is not about asking Liberals to justify their politics. It is genuine interest. As I say I feel we have all taken a battering from the backlash and it recently occurred to me that I'm not informed about where Liberal feminism is at since. And so I'm interested.

I appreciate any responses but don't expect anyone to use their time to educate me. Links, quotes, book recommendations - it's all good. Not expecting anyone to write an essay for me.

Not particularly trying to switch it the other round, tbh, Hester. It's just exhausting to constantly see anyone's posts being dissected and a general opinion being drilled down to a very specific one that may be contentious, usually erroneously. By other feminists. It makes me (and probably others, although I don't claim to speak for them) less likely to post. Because I know what I mean, but frankly don't have the endless time and energy to defend what I didn't mean.

Totally aware that's my issue for not making sure that my posts are absolutely watertight, but conversation isn't like that. Stuff gets misread or proportionally misread on here all the time. Some of it is just Internet tone crapola, but a fair amount of it is absolutely deliberate, and a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous and put people down by making them out to be unreasonable for holding that view, when it wasn't actually what they said at all.

It isn't just me that's paranoid, if some of the posts like this aren't deliberately disingenuous. And that's not to say that posters don't have reason to be paranoid, with stalking and bollocksery going on, but to take that sort of attitude with other feminists just makes me go meh. It's completely counter productive, and alienating.

The basic tenets of all feminisms are the same. The infighting on here makes us look like a bunch of nutters. If we aren't careful, the reasonable image that feMNists have in certain quarters is going to disappear down the tubes and only be recognized by a very niche little band. We're just making ourselves look a bit daft.

Trying to educate people who don't identify as feminists is grand. I don't see the grand labeling exercise of 2012 as adding anything to the feminist cause, if I'm honest. If it attracts newbies, fine. All it's doing for the rest of us is forcing us to erect walls where we don't see them, or require them. Hardly a unifying force.

I'm all for clearing the air, but we're verging on the ridiculous.

X post. And aware I now sound extraordinarily petty.

Hey ho.

I agree, madwoman, with so much of your post. It's horribly depressing and leads nowhere good.

You don't sound petty. The issue may be petty, but we've had three concurrent threads about it active all week. That shows how much posters care about it.

Feminists don't want to be labelled, divided and forced into 'positions'. Especially not by other feminists. I've been really impressed by this week's FWR activity; I think there've been many useful discussions which, with luck, may have re-established common ground. The common ground is certainly what matters to all feminists and visitors to the board.

Good posts glasgowwean and madwoman

I have been busy the last couple of days - have just come back to say thank you for the participation but I'm off the thread now.

Clearly people think my aim in starting this thread was to point out that Liberal feminism is not as good as Radical feminism.

It wasn't.

That would be a rather weird and unpleasant thing to do. I do actually have a life and have better things to do than act like a dick on an internet forum.

I think 'labels' of political views can be a positive and empowering thing. For me, the point of political labels is to help people organise themselves as a movement. I have an interest in Liberal feminism and in particular how the movement organises in the current climate which is hostile to feminism.

There was a bunch of stuff that I would really liked to have explored with others in glasgowwean's list but TBH I read this bit; Liberal feminism doesn't need to justify itself on this thread as better than, an alternative to or in opposition against radical or any other feminism. as a bit of a 'piss off Beachcomber'.

So I shall.

I don't think that's what she meant. Do you really want to disappear based on one comment, when so many other people have taken the time to try to reply? Your choice of course but if you would genuinely like to explore things more, please stay and do so.

I scored as 100% liberal feminist on the feminism quiz (53% radical too, with quite high scores for womanism, socialist feminism and amazonian too) and really enjoyed this thread. I really liked the FWR board when it was first set up, got into a fight or two and drifted off and then found the invasion too hard going and stopped reading many threads. Being from a different time zone doesn't help either when things get heated (or are obviously finished when I read the end of a thread)

There was another quiz on political stance and I see that my general views have most in common with the Dalai Lama being quite libertarian and left wing in general. I don't think that the two can be considered in isolation. I see the world in shades of grey, with many competing agendas so the approach of the radicals (to me) seems simplistic - I suspect that they might see my views as compromised, and in truth we'd probably both be wrong/right.

Not one comment dreamingbohemain - several posts on the thread.

I already said twice on the thread that I was thinking of hiding it. I already said that I felt attacked on it.

That last comment came on top of several others.

I did actually take the time to specify that I didn't start the thread as a challenge to Liberal feminism.

I know this is MN and you can't control how a thread goes (and I don't wish to do this), but I just wanted to be clear that I didn't start this thread as a debate over the merits of Lib V Rad. Inevitably we will probably compare the two movements for purposes of clarity, but I really wanted this to be an exploration of where Liberal feminism is now.

I have thanked everyone more than once for their replies.

Your post has just confirmed that I should leave the thread.

Do you really want to disappear based on one comment, when so many other people have taken the time to try to reply?

This reads as - Beach you started the thread, got people to spend their time and now you are pissing off for no valid reason - you have intentionally wasted our time.

Your choice of course but if you would genuinely like to explore things more, please stay and do so.

This reads as - if you leave the thread it will be proof that you never really wished to genuinely engage.

I'm fairly certain that MN doesn't need Beachcomber in order to have discussions about Liberal Feminism and the thread will carry on just fine (if not better) without me.