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)?

Yes, Caramel, I do think it's partly a personality thing. I wasn't much of a feminist when I started working in this field - I didn't really think about it much - but it's become obvious to me that 'my life is a feminist issue' :) I do have to squash down a certain degree of bring offended, so that I can be seen to dealing with things in a calm and rational matter - someone whom I had literally just met, the other day made an outrageous comment so I made sure I sat next to him at lunch and gradually, gently unravelled why he had said that - this took time and personal dignity bit I think it was worth it. Other times I might consider that it's important for people to know how hurtful their words and attitudes are - but for me, that's normally after I've got to know them and they respect me for who I am and for my work. Not so much tearing down the patriarchy as stealthily removing one brick at a time! :)

ComradeJing - I've always understood 'choice' feminism to be another type of feminism entirely.

Both liberal and radical feminist analysis are about broad spectrums - radical finds the broad spectrum in the sex (male/female); in liberal terms, legislation isn't enacted for individuals, it's for groups. None of us can change anything without group action!

'Choice' feminism is the type that focuses on the individual and their own lone choices. I don't find that sort of thing helpful to women's organisation.

I'll ask my tear-down question in another thread

I do not label my feminism! But ...

Yes, working within a system to change that system can and does work. Compared to revolutionary plotting, it stands a better chance of getting further faster. Moreover, feminism is not an encompassing ideology (ie, doesn't have policies on economics, industrial & energy policies, judicial structure, etc, etc, etc) so is inadequately equipped to overthrow existing regimes.

It is thanks to feminists working within existing structures that you have: a vote; equal rights to education & pay; the right to get a mortgage, a divorce, a pension of your own, to stand for parliament; equal pay & opportunity rights; the right not to be raped, beaten or sexually harassed. Thanks to their campaigning and the legal changes they achieved, the society we live in accepts women's rights to live as they choose - certainly more than previous generations; it recognises the merits of gender equality in the home; it censures FGM, forced marriages, institutional rape, bride burning and kidnapping; it supports women as priests, journalists, judges, surgeons and presidents.

Without these achievements, feminist women would not be free to campaign against porn or to question the use of antidepressants, to push for better policing and greater respect or to debate the validity of SAHM life. We would not even be free to speak as we choose, go where we please and wear what we want. We would be voiceless.

All the above is only made possible by democracy. I'm currently worried that we're heading towards totalitarianism by stealth, but that's another discussion. I can't emphasise strongly enough that we must use it or lose it!

I'm not a radfem (except according to quiz Aye posted!) but am what used to be called a militant feminist. I no longer march, walk out and sit in, but campaign continually and promote equality in my daily life. I'm deeply concerned that today's women are losing sight of feminist reality, and fail to observe the fragility of our freshly-won rights.

This has taken a long time to write, so I'll have to catch up later. Thanks for asking, Beach :)

Not so much tearing down the patriarchy as stealthily removing one brick at a time! - Oooh, I do like this :)

Hullygully - I think we need both (though I personally would give the edge to more radical requests: but I don't know what would come after).

With the Suffragettes, even the 'liberal' bit of it was radical. Women asking for the vote is pretty liberal (working within a system that was, ultimately, established by men for men). But it was seen as shockingly radical. Real radicalism would have been the dismantling of the political system!

yes, that's why I think it's very difficult to separate it all out (and why I want to know what radical action rads would do, but have started a thread)

I would agree with this: 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?

(is that patriarchy? OK then....but I think it is a different conception of it than one which says it is necessarily based on feelings of hatred, desire to oppress women and violence. Sometimes it is (or was) and sometimes it is just customary and legal constraints....anyway don't want to dig up the whole patriarchy discussion again....either way it needs changing )

But patriarchy is the one thing we all have in common!

Either I have seriously misunderstood for all these years, or all feminists agree on patriarchy and that women have to negotiate a male-dominated system.

Thanks Victor and Caramel.

Hello all,
The Rosemary Tong book is much cheaper on ebay, if anyone is interested in reading it.
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Feminist-Thought-A-Comprehensive-Introduction-Rosemarie-Tong-Good-Book-/230816799635?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item35bdc0db93#ht_1172wt_1054

I ordered it just now from Amazon. damn.

Hully, you can probably cancel the order if you are quick - normally you can cancel as long as the item hasn't been dispatched/got ready for dispatching.

I understand the temptation to compare Liberal and Radical feminism but I'm afraid that in doing so we risk turning this conversation into one about Radical feminism, and I'm keen for that not to happen.

I think Liberal feminism and Radical feminism have a lot in common. And what they have in common, is what I think of in my head as Feminism.

As I said before, my understanding is that Liberals strive for gains for women in legislation and existing power structures (and are supported in doing so by their Radical sisters in many areas).

This is why one of my original questions (and I would love to hear from a Liberal feminist) is do we think Liberal feminism has been affected by the backlash plus a general feeling that 'women are equal now' because we have laws about equal pay/discrimination, etc.? (Obviously I'm talking about the UK here.)

Also does anyone know what is going on with Liberals in the US? Reproductive rights have traditionally been a priority for Liberal feminists, and they are constantly under attack in the US.

It's ok, just checked - amazon was cheaper by 23p!

I wonder how much this is to do with labels and semantics.

I always thought I was a liberal feminist with a big dash of libertarian feminism (because most successes against patriarchy, misogyny and the status quo I've had were done as an individual and prior to second wave feminism even starting, on the principle that moving bricks out of a wall piece by piece destabilises the structure without it being noticed and therefore rebuilt). But when I did that quiz I came out as 100% radical with libertarian second - 66% and liberal way down.

So maybe I have rad. views but prefer a more individualistic way of obtaining ends?

Is it not possible to have aspects of various types of feminism within your attitudes depending on what issue you are involved in?

Where I suspect I would be labelled a weak sister is because, while I have fought patriarchy as a system I cannot always defend women who won't or don't fight it, because we are all 'victims' of conditioning but that does not excuse us from personal responsibility for the way we allow ourselves to be treated.

I agree that there is an issue of both ideology and personality. But in the example of HH, I think she has a certain kind of strong character that can change things for herself through individual action, but she is also advocating a set of liberal feminist changes that would benefit women in general and supporting those through her actions.

I think that is rather different to choice feminism where somebody may be a strong character who is changing their own life through individual action, but the way they are changing their own life doesn't really bring about positive changes for women as a group, nor is that their intention.

Caramel - I see what you mean about individual action and not having a group in mind when you take an action, but I think groups are helped through collateral benefit. Once one person does something, then another, then more..etc. it becomes easier and then it becomes the norm. It's just a different way I think of achieving the same ends. Many revolutions start with one or two brave individuals.

Is it not possible to have aspects of various types of feminism within your attitudes depending on what issue you are involved in?

I think so. Or certainly on overlap.

I agree, but I was trying to make a distinction between what HH was describing, which could be considered similar to the contribution made by Florence Nightingale David:

www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/david.htm

Here somebody's individual actions for their own career end up benefitting women in general in their society.

And the kind of things generally discussed in 'choice feminism.' Feminism is about choice. It is my choice as a woman to wear a pink dress and shave my legs. And so on. That is not really doing a lot for women as a group, which isn't to say it isn't of some use to that individual.

himalaya no one was saying that patriarchy is based on feelings of hatred, desire to oppress and violence

To be fair, cani, I have seen that said on FWR.

For the sake of my blood pressure, I've concluded it's a bit like threads in Relationships that wander off into intensive discussion about whether an abusive H is that way because of an incurable disorder or by free & conscious choice. His motivation doesn't matter a tenth as much as the fact that he's hurting his wife and won't stop.

It matters in the tackling of it, though. I have a lot of respect for liberal feminists (like the Fawcett Society) who have dedicated time, effort and cash into legal analyses of government policy and budgets, revealing them to be anti-woman.

At the core of their actions, though, I think there is a basic faith that we - men and women - are all one under the law. That the law is a tool that will see us right, if we just keep on keeping on.

As a liberal feminist, I don't see the patriachy in the same way that radical feminists do. I see it more as a system that discriminates against various groups and that there is no point in fixing it for one group without ensuring that the needs of others are also met.

It's not that I'm ambivelent about it, it's just a different approach to dismantling it. I don't want to replace it with a system that favours women but with once that treats all as equals. I do think liberal feminism has achieved huge gains but there still remains a lot to be done.

Liberal feminists believe that you can work with the system to change it but that the individual also has certain responsibilities for themselves. The biggest area of discord with radical feminists in my view lies with how we perceive the rape culture and domestic violence. I don't think we can improve society unless we understand why rape and dv are still acceptable to some individuals. I don't just want to understand why a man rapes, I want to understand why most men don't rape. I don't think that the simply answer of it's a patriachy answers that so how do we determine the fix.

Liberals, to a large extent, also believe that prostitution can, in certain circumstances, be an individual choice but in order for that choice to be valid, there can be no coercion or pressure and we're no way near that yet.

As a liberal, I wonder why the majority of women don't face domestic violence and rape as an everyday part of their lives and yet others face repeated abuse with different men throughout their lives. This questioning seems to inflame some radfems but again, if you don't understand the underlying causes, how do you begin to address it. Liberal feminists do not blame the women but would seek to support them whilst trying to eliminate the problem by understanding why it happens. For me personally, I do think that Marxist feminism has a better understanding of the differences not just in gender but the socio-economic factors which seem to have a significant impact on the above.

As a liberal feminist I get accused of being anti feminist because I reject some of the radfem arguments and it may be that liberal feminism does not need to come from the same woman centred place - I would argue that it comes from a woman centered view but that it looks to achieve an equality for all.

Basically liberal feminist don't see the patriachy as something with evil intent but as a system that has evolved and is in dire need of fixing. For me, I think you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar whilst still seeing and argung against repugnant and repulsive practices like human trafficking, rape etc which are so extreme as to require a harder approach.

Just my tuppence worth.

I agree with everyone, it makes it terribly difficult

As a liberal feminist, I don't see the patriachy in the same way that radical feminists do. I see it more as a system that discriminates against various groups and that there is no point in fixing it for one group without ensuring that the needs of others are also met.

I think that's right, IMO this Patriarchy system is also puts various subgroups of men down, and we are better off finding common cause with everyone who does not prosper under it rather than fight all men.

Yes, working within a system to change that system can and does work. Compared to revolutionary plotting, it stands a better chance of getting further faster. Moreover, feminism is not an encompassing ideology (ie, doesn't have policies on economics, industrial & energy policies, judicial structure, etc, etc, etc) so is inadequately equipped to overthrow existing regimes.

Agree - isn't the most accepted analysis of the Suffragettes that the miltants got the headlines but the moderates got things changed? I suspect you need them both, as who would negotiate with the moderates unless the militants showed what the alternative was :)

I was quite interesed in my score on that Feminist test, I scored 100% Liberal and 86% Radical, and the one question which made me not 100% Rad was that I didn't believe that male sexual violence against women was the root cause of all the evils (or somesuch).