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)?

Beach, as the poster who made that comment, let me explain.

It was absolutely not an attack on you and I've read it back now several times to see why it's been construed that way.

Firstly I don't think any post in here is read in isolation and the recent events on various posts have perhaps caused undercurrents, perceived or otherwise. Iritis mentioned somewhere on FWR about the severe limitations about this method of communication and I think there's merit to that. You'll have noticed that the thread I started on motherhood opens with a disclaimer about what I was hoping to achieve and why I was uncomfortable with my discussion. Posters have respected that and approached the topic with a great deal to add without attacking.

This thread has, on the other hand, had posters, including myself, feel like we're having to justify what appears at times to be considered a less worthwhile type of feminism. I appreciate that you started the thread of a genuine willingness to understand and I apologise if I have taken that as an opportunity to challenge what I perceived as attacks, not discussion, on a position that not only do I hold dear, but that underlies the ethos of how I live my life and treat others.

Turning to the actual comment, it was aimed at everyone - in stating that liberal feminism did not need to justify itself as better was a reference to it not being a competition, in referring to this thread, I was suggesting that this thread was not the place for the kind of tangents we had been going off on.

I am perfectly clear about making sure I direct a post at a particular poster by including their name. If I don't include a name then it isn't aimed at you. I don't think underhand digs are necessary or welcome and I don't make them.

I have no problem offering an apology to you Beach if you believe that I was having a go at you but I genuinely wasn't and actually feel bad that I posted something was construed that way. I have droned on enough about tone and use of language and should perhaps gone to greater lengths to make sure my post was in no way ambiguous.

I would hate to see you leave the thread as I think challenge to any way of thinking is positive be that radfem, libfem or any other flavour of feminism.

Iritsu ? FFS, should read Kritiq

Thanks for your response glasgowwean.

I think glasgowweans summary is pretty good, as to the focus of Liberal Feminists I'd say its on equal opportunity, income and outcome. I don't think they are as concerned about reproductive rights or rather, some elements of it eg PIV - as other groups - fighting for abortion rights is gain becoming a major issue though.

Well, I'm sorry you read it that way. I really did just mean it as: if you want to talk about this stuff, and plenty of people are talking about it with you, why let one comment put you off? I take your point that you feel it has been more than one comment, and I'm sorry you feel chased off your own thread, and the part I played in that (again, not my intention, sorry).

Thank you for your response dreamingbohemian.

Well, have been trying to catch up with the thread for a while now, and now I have...... . When first I saw it posted I was going to say I wasn't a libfem because of the basic liberal (in the political sense) thing about freedom of choice, but that got dealt with pretty robustly. So as a result of this thread I now know that liberal feminism is not about 'choicey choicey' feminism and am genuinely pleased and chastised, thank you (I've forgotten who) poster up thread.

Also thank you Beach, I didn't know the PIV thing was about reproductive rights, primarily, though feel slight embarrassment writing that, 'cos what did I think it was about? I suppose I had this vague notion that you might argue against any penetration in the context of patriarchy (along the lines you might argue against any prostitution) insofar as it happens in the context of society wide assumptions of access to female bodies, or whatever... Anyway, I so 'get' the PIV objection now, my mate and I were only just reeling over the fact she can't get her partner to worry about contraception, or schedule the vasectomy they agreed was the best choice for them (with two children and degenerative disease to cope with) and he can't understand why she views that as a feminist issue...

So, since I had to reformulate the 'I Am Not A Liberal' basis of my previous cultural/ materialist self label, I have really been thinking... . I recognise that many lib fems don't see the liberal choice thing as part of their feminism, and similarly where I'm naming things here, I also see they might not be the 'Liberal' position but more of a personal slant. But anyway, I find arguments against all women short lists, for example, named by a poster upthread, overlook the context in which actual women are working. Personal prejudice, which might not be particularly strident ('she should be at home looking after the children!') can still disable women in terms of selection (or promotion in other working environments) - people might worry about her having a family (and not able to commit) or not having one (equating that with being heartless, or cold, or ruthless, or whatever). Still less palpably, people might respond to male authority, or think she is too keen to please (not seeing that as part of female conditioning). So because you can't legislate directly against that, I support positive discrimination, even though I recognise that individual men might be disadvantaged by it, which is where I am definitely not 'Liberal'. It's not that I don't believe in meritocracy, it's that I think we don't have one, and we need to stack the cards for specifically disadvantaged groups in order that they can get equal volume of access to different positions in our culture. I think that people disadvantaged by such strategies need to take up the grievance with the cause of such measures (patriarchal society) rather than our solutions to them (positive discrimination). Having just written all that, I see that pos dis is a legislative strategy, so might be liberal in those terms . Anyway...

The second major place where I am not 'Liberal' is that while I am not into separatism, I think that the nuclear family model, where the household is built around what has been a male role, the breadwinner, is the central problem. I am for reconsidering 'family' and 'labour' in the context of feminism, rather than trying to fix that model so that men and women equally can be the breadwinner or housekeeper or can share those responsibilities between them. Broadly speaking, I think that that makes family life fit into a particular kind of economic model, much of it based on unpaid labour, which is particularly disabling where payment is such a key indice of status (power and agency) as it is in our culture. I think all the labour that goes into getting an adult to reproduce successfully, parent in a way that produces fully realised adults, and contribute to the economic well being of a community should be considered part of the economy and afforded (time, status and economic) reward accordingly. I think households should be built around what makes for good childrearing and family life, rather than what makes successful labour 'units'. It is my understanding, though that to be a liberal feminist, I would primarily be interested in 'fixing' the model so that men and women can have equal rights and access to the existing structure.

I have really been enjoying this thread, thanks to all.

Thanks for your post sparkly. There is a lot I would like to discuss with you.

Hi, Sparkly.

I find arguments against all women short lists, for example, named by a poster upthread, overlook the context in which actual women are working. - Exactly! This is why I am in favour of positive discrimination. Those with the power to redress the imbalances without legislation have failed, most likely due to the unconscious (?) prejudice you mention. The imbalance still needs redressing.

I am for reconsidering 'family' and 'labour' in the context of feminism, rather than trying to fix that model - So am I, though perhaps not in the same way you are. It's my pet subject.

FWIW, I'm 'liberal' by the standards of this board (I think) though the quiz said I'm radical, with liberal second. I carefully avoid labelling my feminism and disagree that feminism needs to be labelled.

Look forward to reading Beach's reply to you.

I'm afraid I won't be replying garlic.

I'm just popping on the thread to read posts and thank and acknowledge people as the OP.

[polite emoticon]

Since the other thread has now been deleted, I'd just like to repeat on here how much I've appreciated your contributions to my threads and other threads I've been passionately interested in, Beach. I have reason to be very grateful to you, and I am.

Thank you very much traffichalter. I saw your kind comment on the other thread and I'm really touched that you have taken the time to say that to me here.

It means a lot

I'm grateful to a lot of people on here too.

Aww traffichalter you'll have me greeting in a minute too.

The second major place where I am not 'Liberal' is that while I am not into separatism, I think that the nuclear family model, where the household is built around what has been a male role, the breadwinner, is the central problem. I am for reconsidering 'family' and 'labour' in the context of feminism, rather than trying to fix that model so that men and women equally can be the breadwinner or housekeeper or can share those responsibilities between them.

The family structure has adjusted a few times over history, typically due to major changes in the way society "works" - or more accurately splits labour (big changes being from hunter gatherer to agricultural to industrial etc). I think we are in the mioddle of a major shift as more women claim more economic and reproductive independence - but as is the nature of these things its confusing at the time, things move at different speeds etc. But if you look at the big picture - divorces, people lving alone, % women who are major breadwinners etc, avearge age of having children, it is clear a huge change is occurring. But its messy - someone said the future is all around you, just unevely distributed, and i think that is where we are.

My issue with some suggested "utopian improvements" though is that they neglect a human basic far far older than any of this - ie that males and females are co-dependant to breed, and that evolution has thus massively selected in favour of men and women who like to fuck each other. IMO any system that goes against this huge, basic human force is doomed to failure.

Broadly speaking, I think that that makes family life fit into a particular kind of economic model, much of it based on unpaid labour, which is particularly disabling where payment is such a key indice of status (power and agency) as it is in our culture

I think the point on the paid/unpaid labour one is very telling, the move to a mainly cash based system means some labour is tradeable, some is not, and stats follows (perceived) wealth. What I see happening is more is becoming part of the cash economy (using cleaners etc) or being re-distributed (both partners work and do chores).

My issue with some suggested "utopian improvements" though is that they neglect a human basic far far older than any of this - ie that males and females are co-dependant to breed, and that evolution has thus massively selected in favour of men and women who like to fuck each other. IMO any system that goes against this huge, basic human force is doomed to failure.

Well, I generally dislike discussing all things natural, or in terms of evolutionary imperatives etc. primarily because I find it implausible that we are able readily to separate what are cultural effects and discourse effects from what is an imperative of biology. Lest we forget, many people are happy to not have children, after all; even if you think that is purely cultural, you have to acknowledge it has a startling effect and is able to overcome the so-called biological imperative to procreate... Anyway, I take your point that having children entails male/female relationships, and should say that my 'utopian vision' is not, as I have said, a separatist one. I am not for separate female communities or whatever, but at the same time, I am not for separate, two-people-do-it-all households. IME, something has to give in those scenarios - someone or both have to make (relative) career sacrifices, someone, or both, have to make (relative) childrearing sacrifices and both often have to specialise within the domestic sphere to a degree which relatively disables them from active participation in all aspects of domestic life. I'm not all for turning my back on monogamy or two person only relationships, not just because I think they challenge us in enriching ways, but also because I am interested in mine continuing in that way. At the same time, I recognise that interest may be arising as a cultural imperative (rather than a transcendally meaningful way). So my utopian vision doesn't have a settled version of what 'the' relationship pattern has to be but it does involve as a necessity: 1. greater/ more facilitated involvement in childrearing by a community of adults as a parenting community with whom you parent your own and others' children and 2: more community involvement in general householding activities, probably as part of what is considered the economy.

Very much like the future all around but unevenly distributed - do you remember where that is from?

Should say, before this becomes a hi-jack, that the discussion of the family and how it will develop relates to me in terms of liberal feminism, primarily insofar as (so far as I am assuming) a liberal approach would be to make the current situation more equitable so your femaleness or maleness wouldn't affect your overall capacity, opportunity or conditioning for taking a particular role within the household. Whereas I think the two-person-and-kids household, where those two adults need to provide the majority of the parenting, do all the household maintenance and do so in an economically viable way (usually by producing at least one full-time worker) is the problem. Part of it, anyway.

marking place so I can read this later.

Whereas I think the two-person-and-kids household, where those two adults need to provide the majority of the parenting, do all the household maintenance and do so in an economically viable way (usually by producing at least one full-time worker) is the problem. Part of it, anyway.

It's been a very temporary setup, about 150 years old tops, I suspect it will switch again because its breaking apart with 2 adults working IMO.

Also, I think the revolution from women's control of their own contraception has hardly started to be felt.

I didn't come out very strongly on the Marxist side of the quiz, but it seems to me that how society is set up in terms of economic structure is as much of an influence on how individuals interact with the world as the patriarchy, although you could say that the patriarchy caused it to be that way.

I guess for me the major problem with all the 'isms' that they seek to find patterns that I'm not sure are always really there because life is and always has been much more messy than that. Certainly when I studied international politics at university I found the theoretical parts of the course the least engaging and interesting especially when they veered into conspiracy types of discourse as in general the evidence really didn't stack up (I veer toward the 'cock up' theory personally - lots of evidence there!) .

Having said that some of the theories used in strategic planning were certainly responsible for killing thousands of soldiers (and many more non combatants too no doubt) so I'm not for a minute saying that theories and intellectual movements don't change the world at times, I just don't think that they explain the world very well.

I also think it can be hard to move from the personal in these debates. I am lucky to be very privileged in that I am white, able bodied/minded, educated and relatively wealthy (plus born into a very privileged country/society) of course I have at times experienced discrimination for being a woman but it's been pretty minor stuff in context. My partner is a SAHD and I am the earner and that works for us. So it's easy enough for me not to be a radical in that context because my personal fights have been pretty successful and I see the world as being something I can change, and that change as being very possible. My personal belief that everyone is fundamentally good probably doesn't drive me to revolutionary type thoughts either. Plus I have a number of fairly masculine traits so one of the things I really embrace about feminism is the freedom to be myself and not be shut into stereotyped models, so I really really dislike discussions of male/female divides as being somehow fundamental rather than routed in culture and history.

Sparklyboots, great posts.
It's great to see such thoughtful analytic stuff on the family. It's a huge deal.

Thank you Vezzie, becoming a mother really added direction to my political interests. I can't get over how much I'm expected to exclude my son from the 'adult sphere' or just everyday participation in life. Or how much I'm not prepared to. I remember someone saying in the 1970s they demanded a creche and a laundrette s as part of every working environment.

I agree with most points made here, most strongly with the position that we can't afford to fall out with each other, and the recognition of the larger area where the Venn diagram overlaps.

I can't say I am either liberal or radical; I'm not sure the difference is crucial beyond recognition that the former comes from a more sunny and trusting vantage position, and the latter from a more gritty and often traumatised background. There are usually reasons for both.

I would say that I don't feel we are in a position to take any gains in the classical areas of feminism for granted, however - particularly reproductive rights and general female-specific healthcare, but also wage equality. My professional area is socio-political media debates, and there are a number of worrying trends afoot in the past 2-3 years that suggest the sunny uplands of complacency need shoring up.