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, I don't think they, as a collective, have a sense of entitlement. Society currently confers on them higher rights, values their labour higher etc but having those entitlements is different, in my view, from having a sense of entitlement. We may be talking semantics here.

I think childcare is very problematic no matter which way you look at it really. The current working world isn't really set up for parenthood.

I am for men doing more childcare but I'm also for society being much more accepting and accommodating of the fact that women are the ones to carry, bear (and often feed) babies.

Perhaps semantics.

I think the fact that society affords higher status and privilege to men gives them a sense of entitlement (as well as actual entitlements).

I think part of the reason why this thread is referring to rad fems a lot, is because a lot of women don't necessarily self-identify as liberals but rather as not radical.

I tend to think of myself as just a feminist. But if I had to pick a label, I would say liberal because I really disagree with some of the rad fem positions.

I do tend to think in terms of equality for all. This is mostly because I spent most of my life in a city (Non-UK) where black, gay and trans men were massively disenfranchised and experienced high levels of violence, discrimination, etc etc. I've never found that thinking about them detracts from my feminist leanings, in fact it helps make new allies.

Personally, I think the biggest challenge to feminism today whether liberal or not is the austerity paradigm and right-wing governments. I would rather talk about that than the patriarchy (which yes, I believe exists, but is too amorphous and entrenched to shatter anytime soon).

I believe in male privilege (just as I believe in white privilege). I do not believe every man has a sense of entitlement. I think that's sort of an absolutist view that impedes analysis of why things are the way they are (in keeping with the 'working within the system' focus).

That's really interesting, dreaming. I mean, I remember the day that it was announced that Tony Blair had won the election (I was at a reading by a performance poet and she was wearing a bright scarlet suit in honor of the occasion) and it was supposed to be this huuuuuuuuuuge deal for equality. And we ended up with 'Blair's babes'. I rather took my eye off the whole political scene, with periods in and out of the country and various childbirth and trauma and whatnot, but I've been left with a whole sense of 'we were conned' really, which has left me highly disillusioned with most political parties. That isn't to say that there weren't huge and deeply meaningful changes, just that I may have missed them...

Fascinated by the austerity thing, too. I can see that in some ways it entrenches the make do and mend aspects of the domestic, potentially reinforcing gendered behaviors, but I would have thought that there may be instances where women find themselves the partner in work, and so the father becomes responsible for sahd as a default position?

Sausageeggbacon Wed 27-Jun-12 22:20:42
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.

See the interesting thing I see in that post is the presumption that child care is connected with women and not men. That in itself is problematic.

Which is why I find it difficult when discussion is limited to the problems women face alone. I think men are most definitely intertwined with the prospects for women so 'fighting' against something doesn't sit well with me, if that makes sense. (probably not). Its more about the opposite of achieving and fighting for things collectively rather than being in opposition as some sort of enemy.

I am definitely liberal in my views. Came up 100% liberal feminist in that test. But I'm not sure if I'm a liberal feminist or whether I would describe myself more as an egalitarian now. Discussion in this section has really rather put me off the label of feminist altogether for quite a lot of reasons.

I wonder how all this sits with other liberal feminists...

Thanks for the discussion folks. Am off to bed.

That's interesting madwoman (are you in the US? I know the domestic austerity goddess thing has really taken off there!)

I'm mostly interested in combatting austerity because it's a vehicle for politicians to push through loads of harmful policies, some of which have an outsize impact on women. Not to mention that it reinforces this crazy idea that the 'markets' should decide all. (Should I mention I scored as an anarcha-feminist? )

This is only me offering something for debate but I have heard someone say 'the legislation is in place, what more do you want?'. It was on Radio 4, it was perhaps a years ago, it was a female Tory of some kind (Commons or Lords, can't remember) and she was arguing that it was perfectly acceptable to reduce funding to all sorts of 'quangos' (the one being discussed was a charity that helped Pakistani women - I think - with various women's issues) because we have all the legislation and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Sorry it's so fuzzy but it definitely happened.

Oh I definitely agree that you run into these types of attitudes.

I think maybe they are more a symptom of a problem, than a problem themselves. The real problem is that people are pretty ignorant or just don't care about all the problems still confronting women. If people did care, they wouldn't make asinine statements like that.

Victor, I think that the woman you're quoting was far from a feminist and is evidence of the backlash. I think if we've agreed on nothing else, we all appear to agree that feminism, of all types, still has a lot to achieve. Some changes take a generation to really take effect and I think it's only when the current generation of children grow up that we'll see the difference in attitudes that the current legislation is trying to achieve.

Canada. Close enough.

Risky, though, isn't it? I'm too depressed to consider the abortion hoo-ha going on at the moment but that legislation is years old and it's under constant attack from fuckwits.

I agree totally that she was not a feminist.

That's the core point of BC's question, I think. That there are people who don't support feminism who use the legislation already passed to say that feminism is no longer needed. Given that Liberal Feminism aims to create change partly via legislation, what impact from the backlash from others saying 'it's done' and 'things have gone too far' has been seen by those who are Liberal Feminists?

Just marking my place so I can have a good read later.

Nowt here, I've never heard anyone say it, so can't comment other than above.

HesterBurnitall, that is exactly what I'm asking, thank you.

I'm extremely surprised that people say they have never come across the idea that women have made sufficient gains/have legal equality. People phrase it in various ways.

I have seen it several times on MN. Also when people talk about women choosing to be in prostitution/porn/lap dancing, I tend to assume that such people think women are making those choices from a position of equality - because otherwise the choice argument is fatally flawed.

"assume that such people think women are making those choices from a position of equality - because otherwise the choice argument is fatally flawed."

Not sure why you assume equality has to precede choice.

I don't think women are equal to men anywhere in today's world. However, women can and most do choose their professions.

Again, I have never come across anyone saying "feminisms done" and if I did it would be stupidly easy to counter the argument. I don't think a lib fem would respond to such a comment any differently to any other kind of feminist.

Lib fems might want laws changing, but only to form the legal framework for improvements to exist in, not as the only end goal.

Saying that women do not have equal status, highlights a basic flaw in the argument that women choosing prostitution is a justification of the existence of the institution of prostitution.

That doesn't mean that I think one has to have equality in order to make a choice. It means analysing the political and social context, hierarchies and powers structures within which those choices are made.

To slightly misquote Catherine MacKinnon;

"The assumption, is that women can be unequal to men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion, but the moment they have sexual interactions, they are free and equal."

IMO that assumption is flawed. Which is why I imagine that people making the choice argument as a justification for for the existence of prostitution, are coming from a stance of women having equality. Otherwise the argument doesn't make much sense.

'Has feminism gone too far?' has been fairly prevalent across mainstream and not-so-ms media and social/cultural discourse for years, I've seen variations on the phrase across MN besides. I'm surprised posters haven't come across it at all, not in the sense of someone saying it to you, but in media and commentary.

www.google.com.au/search?q=feminism+gone+too+far&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

"the argument that women choosing prostitution is a justification of the existence of the institution of prostitution"

I didn't talk about the justification of the existence of anything.

We were talking about choice and whether it is possible/valid when not done from a position of equality. (And that followed your statement that you assume people who say some women choose to be pole dancers/prostitutes/etc must think women are equal to men.)

Cote, it just seems logical to me that when people say 'but some women choose to be prostitutes' as an argument in support of the institution of prostitution, that that argument is based on a notion that women are not on the lower rung of a sex based gender binary hierarchy.

That is the only way such an argument has any logic to me. Otherwise it is just obtuse.

I was just using it as an example of the pervasive 'women have equality now' type thinking.

HesterBurnitall, I agree with you, and I'm surprised that posters here say they have never come across that type of thinking.

In my experience, people who say 'they chose to be prostitutes' are not necessarily thinking that women are equal, but that prostitution was not the only option they had. That even if you need the money, there are other options for doing so, as shown by the vast majority of poor women who get by without resorting to prostitution.

To be clear, I think this argument is too simplistic, but I think this is where people are coming from.