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)?

Sorry Beach. I perhaps worded that badly. I don't think radfems necessarily don't value women currently in prostitution but do feel perhaps they would be willing to sacrifice them on the altar of a perceived greater good to an extent.

Does that make sense?

Eg, if legalising prostitution would make if safer (and I am aware that is not definatly true) a radfem would make the choice to reject that short term improvement in the womans safety as they believe it would damage the goal of eradication which is of higher value.

Supporting animal rights is not any kind of feminism, but feminist can still be animal rights supporters

Same with feminism. You can want equality for all and even be prepared to fights mens battle where there is inequality whilst recognising that doing so is not part of any feminist movement.

The two are not mutually exclusive, nor does everything a lib fem (or any other kind) believe or does have to be part of their feminist ethos.

I am not saying that it is the Liberal view that 'women are equal now'.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was referring to the backlash with that. There are definitely lots of people who think that women have achieved equality because some legislation states that we must be treated equally (in the workplace for example).

My question was, do Liberal feminists think that such thinking is a challenge to Liberal feminism - in a kind of 'piss off feminists, your work is done' sort of way'. I think it is.

I have never really seen such thinking and whilst the gender pay gap is what it is (for example), it would not be difficult to sucessfully challenge it if I did.

So for me, no I don't see a challenge. Not at all.

Sorry Beach. I perhaps worded that badly. I don't think radfems necessarily don't value women currently in prostitution but do feel perhaps they would be willing to sacrifice them on the altar of a perceived greater good to an extent.

Does that make sense?

Eg, if legalising prostitution would make if safer (and I am aware that is not definatly true) a radfem would make the choice to reject that short term improvement in the womans safety as they believe it would damage the goal of eradication which is of higher value.

Nope. That isn't the position. There is no idea of 'sacrificing some women at the altar of radical feminist ideology'. Radicals don't support the legalization of prostitution because it harms women, encourages illegal prostitution, increases trafficking and doesn't actually work as a method to reduce harm for women. There are numerous studies on this - it isn't an ideological question, it is plain studied fact.

And we don't refuse to help women who are currently in prostitution whilst sitting in an ivory tower dreaming about the never never land where prostitution is eradicated. For example I volunteer in a drop in centre for prostitutes - there is no pressure on getting the women to leave the life and we try to help them protect themselves. Most of the volunteers identify as radical feminists.

Anyhoo enough about Radicals. Please can we talk about Liberal feminism and what is going on in it today.

Interesting thread.

Firstly, what unifies feminism, I think, is the belief that there are systematic injustices or inequalities in society which disadvantage women, and that all feminism wants to address that, albeit in different ways (though I am not sure if this applies to 'choice' feminism, but that is a different debate).

My understanding of liberal feminism is in the tradition of Liberal thought, dating from the Enlightenment, namely the belief that men were rational beings, and that if women gained equal rights to education and employment (i.e. also became rational beings disassociated from the body and nature, seen as feminine in the context of the time), then inequalities would be addressed. Given the emphasis in the liberal tradition on individuality, with the state taking a limited role, the success or failure of individual women within the system (i.e. to gain an education or a job, once barriers had been removed) was seen as a personal responsibility.

I think this comes unstuck when you consider the fact that despite equal pay legislation and more women in universities in certain areas, there is still a gender pay gap, this shows that it is not only a case of removing barriers and legislating for equality, something else is at play.

In terms of the backlash, I feel that is definitely happening now, though the OP may have meant third wave feminism. Take for example, the reductions in childcare tax credit, which will impact on working women, that is directly compromising gains made in the workplace enabling women (and it is mostly women) to juggle work and families. That is just one example. The problem for liberal feminism is defining this as a feminist issue, when there is the language of austerity defining public life, and hard fought rights are being rolled back generally (e.g. access to higher education - call me a cynic, but how long is it before families start making the decision to send sons to uni, but not daughters, given the bill?).

Sorry, posted huge response and Internet dropped out. Gah.

Clearly there is not equality. Feminists work is not done. Anyone who claims it is, is somewhat deluded about equality.

That was the concise answer. I waffled a lot more in the original.

I'm not sure why this is being asked as a liberal question? It seems a bit threatening. I don't know any liberal feminists who think we have equality...

But I see huge parallels with all sorts of other equality legislation, for example disability. It might be illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of equality, but they will try every way in the book to prove an able candidate is more suitable than a candidate with a disability. It's just paying lip service to legislation. The fact that legislation exists doesn't mean that people actually adhere to it. I mean, I'm not going to go down the trams route, but it is a case in point. Radfems pretty much refuse to comply with the legislation (for political reasons).

Legislation means nothing in and of itself, but it is a start.

I don't speak as a liberal though. I have no idea what a 'liberal' stance is. I am an individual. But I want equality. Yes, for all. I fully support catgirl's explanation of how and why feminists get involved in 'other' battles. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I think I see equality as a much wider political piece than just gender, which is why I struggle when radical feminists get so angry about liberals not putting women first. It's not that I see that pov as narrow minded, as such, just that I personally can't be that single minded. Equality is much bigger than sex, and although the vast majority of my concerns are due to gender, not al, of the, are, and I think it is often difficult to seek equality in isolation.

Am tittering away at the autocorrects. I must ask a man how to turn it off.

Loving the "tram route". I agree there are hardly any women drivers

I really do not seem to be making myself clear.

I do not think that Liberals think women have equality.

I'm asking how the view (that many people who don't identify as Liberal feminists hold) that women have made sufficient gains to be considered equal is dealt with by Liberal feminists.

Same way it is by Radical Feminists I expect.

By saying something along the lines of

"Really? You think feminism has achieved all it's goals? What about xxx?"

I'm with catgirl.

Either we don't understand the question, or you think there is a difference between a liberal and a radical view of the current state of equality...

I don't think there is one. I'm not sure if that's what you were expecting, or not, but I'm not going to apologize for having the same view as a radical. If that's what a radical view is?

What do radicals think, beach?

Don't know why anyone would ever think that liberal feminists think that we have achieved equality. Is there a tendency to equate liberal feminism with the attitude of many women that equality has been achieved ? In RL the majority of women consider me to be a FEMINIST in the bra burning anti man radical camp. Liberals have exactly the same uncomfortable conversations with their peers about celeb culture, dv, make up, SAHM and how all views are influenced heavily but unknowingly by living in a patriarchal society. Please don't equate liberal feminism with women who state that they're not feminist but believe in women's rights.

And yes, liberal feminism puts women first but wants to achieve equality for all. That doesn't mean putting men first, it means putting all currently disadvantaged groups on an equal footing. Men may or maynot fall into some of those categories.

Good point Louie. I'm very definitely a liberal on here, but have also been branded as a militant man hater in rl (at work. Natch). My favorite was 'nazi feminist' but I didn't see that on the quiz answers... I assume it has extermination connotations.

It's kinda odd that I have that reputation in rl, but on here I'm a wishy washy liberal. context is massively important.

MN is the only place my feminism has been defined by a prefix.

Ah I get you now on the equality thing.

I think I just meant that the stance that 'we are all equal now' seems to me a direct challenge to Liberal feminism in particular as Liberal feminism works hard for changes to legislature. It sounds to me like people are saying 'you got the law changed what more do you want'.

I'm not trying to imply that Liberals think law changes are enough to achieve equality. I just see the point of view that they are, as a direct challenge to Liberals.

It was a genuine question about how the Liberal movement reacts - nothing to do with comparing radicals and liberals. The answer that Liberals probably react in a pretty similar way to Radicals is fine by me.

As a Radical I would say that you cannot legislate against male sense of entitlement and the many of the manifestations of male privilege.

There is no difference to the average women who doesn't perceive herself as living in a patriarchy in radical and liberal or any other feminism. You just have to look at the threads about shaving, make up etc. I think all feminists agree that we might do it but we believ there to be underlying reasons rooted in the patriarchal system as to why we do it. No feminist would be happy with the answer ' I do it for myself' without recognising that that is secondary to the fact that we do it because we're conditioned to do it. And no woman likes to think that they've being dictated to by a hidden set of rules that they weren't aware of. It's easier to attck than to question your fundamental belief system. Hence the backlash against all feminism.

I have never heard anyone say "you got the law changed what more do you want"

If I did, to use the gender pay gap again as an example, I would say the "more" that I wanted was the reality of fair pay, rather than a law that was not implemented.

I honestly don't see this as a liberal thing.

As a liberal I want us to change the system from the inside. I do worry that we hurt ourselves by getting women only list for MPs. It sort of says we are not goo enough to do the job so we wont compete. There are many women who would make great MPs but if we appear to hide from competition I think in the long term it does us no good.

There are certainly not enough women in politics and I would really love to see parties provide support for things like child care to take some of the pressures off women who want to get into politics.

It is going to take a lot longer to get CEO roles because of the lack of support for child care and this discourages a lot of women from continue working. If we are really going to achieve anything the theme seems to be from my point of view we need to change childcare so women find it easier to continue their careers.

No, you can't. But you can use the framework of legitimacy as a backdrop for social change, and in individual instances seek to redress individual inequalities, all of which will serve to normalize equality in the longer term.

I must be a crap liberal, as I definitely don't own that sense of direct challenge.

Is it really just on tinternet that this bollocking lib/ rad thing rages? I see it on a lot of blogs, but have never heard the distinction discussed in rl. Feminist always used to be good enough to attract the stereotype. Here we seem to be hell bent on creating our own feminisms.

Which, I have to say, I blardy loathe. In true liberal fashion, I want everyone to fight together for equality, not splinter off into a million subgroups and diminish your overall power.

Back to those trams again.

I don't believe that men as a collective think they are entitled. I believe the system has evolved to provide men with higher rights through legislation, religion and the class society to an extent. So.... If we change the underlying structures and remove that entitlement, the imbalance is removed. There is always a reluctance to change and in giving up perceived entitlements. Tough, it's going to happen and I think we're getting there.

glasgowwean, I'm not sure I have understood your above post.

Are you saying that you don't think men as a group have a sense of entitlement?

Beach, an example of where I would argue for men relates to paternity pay and leave and in doing so, arguing their case, benefits women. I am sick of the burden of childcare arrangements falling on my female staff and get pissed off with alwYs having to accommodate them simply because their partners don't feel able to ask for the time off. If we make it more acceptable for men to share maternity and leave for childcare, we start to even out the playing field at work. And before I get jumped on, I have no problem with leave for childcare but have a problem with it all falling on the women.

Yep, agree with wean. Legislation alone won't provide equality in this instance, but it provides the framework for the 'real' social change that is needed to be fought for.