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 - I'm not saying that at all. Do you think it is at all possible that you are following the reasoning/arguments in the books you have read and assuming everyone else must think along the same lines?

My position is that we should be able to choose what we want to do, even if that path is likely to harm us in some way, and that the state should have no business telling us we can't choose it.

I know for a fact that some women choose to be escorts and prostitutes, generally for a short period in their lives. And not because terrible circumstances and/or oppression forced their hands. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to do it, they can.

There is an argument to be made re prostitution's harm to society, but a very similar argument is made for drugs and I'm for their legalisation as well. Just like alcohol clearly causes harm to society on several levels and it is legal, as it should be.

"a sex based gender binary hierarchy."

It's not binary.

I would be interested to talk about whether the hierarchy is actually based on gender or if it could be based on power - i.e. strong oppressing the weak rather than males' sex-based oppression of females.

(Strong vs weak in terms of money, influence, stereotyping etc)

Nothing to do with reading or following along, Cote.

It is my very own deduction. I like logic and certain arguments strike me as illogical or contradictory.

It is really summed up in the MacKinnon quote from upthread.

"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."

Either women are oppressed or they are not. Either that oppression is sex based or it is not.

The only way the argument that women freely choose prostitution works for me, is if women are free and equal in wider society.

Therefore I deduce that either the argument is that women are free and equal and have agency or our choices are made in a context of women having lower status and that status being sex based.

To argue that women make free and equal choices but they do not have equality is illogical.

I like logic, too, but don't see why would think it is illogical for women in an unequal society to be able to choose to work as an escort for a few months.

Women can and do choose to wait tables at a restaurant for a few months at a beach resort. And women can and do choose to be an escort for a few months. If one is logical, why isn't the other?

That quote doesn't seem to be referring to prostitution but to all hetero sex, so I'm not sure what you hope to illustrate with it for our purposes.

Are you trying to say is that women are pushed into sex work because they are not equal to men, or maybe that their choice doesn't count as real choice?

Either women are oppressed or they are not. Either that oppression is sex based or it is not.

No. Just no, really. It isn't that simple.

Sex is not the only basis for all of the oppression women are subjected to.

I mean sex based as in it is to do with our biological sex. In other words, the foundation of women's oppression is that they are women. They are biologically female.

That doesn't mean that that oppression only manifests in sexual (as in sexual intercourse) situations.

Cote, I think I've made it pretty clear what I am saying. I think the MacKinnon quote is highly relevant.

Yes, I know exactly what you meant - biological sex, not sexual intercouse. And I disagree.

It is NOT that simple. Women are oppressed for other reasons than the fact they are women. Not all women are oppressed. Some women are oppressed in some ways but not in others.

Either women are oppressed or they are not. Either that oppression is sex
based or it is not.

No, I don't hold this view. Women are, as a collective, oppressed but not every individual woman is.

I would argue that women should have the option of prostitution but recognise that for that to be a valid choice, this can only happen in the context of a society that values women equally and that choice is made in complete freedom. Going back to the above, it therefore follows that generally, women, as a a collective, do not enter prostitution freely but that woman, as an individual, may well be able to do so.

And to clarify, I don't think anyone has stated that we haven't heard the claim that women's lib has achieved its aim. What I said and some others is that liberal feminist don't believe this and would refute such a claim if encountered.

What are the other reasons behind female oppression/male dominance then?

What is female oppression if it is not being oppressed because you are a female in a male dominated society?

(Of course women also experience class based oppression and race based oppression - they are different to female oppression though.)

It's illogical to you, Beachcomber. I tried to show how someone else might make a logical argument that's different. You might disagree with that logic, it doesn't make it illogical.

Is this a Liberal Feminist view?

That some women escape female oppression in male dominated society? That only some women experience male dominated society?

Gosh.

So, Beach, what you are actually saying is that oppression faced by women due to them being women is based on them being women?

I would agree with that of course

But that isn't the same as saying

"Either women are oppressed or they are not. Either that oppression is sex based or it is not"

As I said, that is FAR too simplistic

I would say that all women live in a male-dominated society, but that not all women are equally oppressed by it.

I don't know what brand of feminism that is

Why is it simplistic to note that in male dominated society, women are oppressed and that oppression is related to them being women (i.e. based on their sex).

Simple. Yes.

Simplistic. How?

I agree that not all women are equally oppressed in male dominated society.

But that is not the same as saying that not all women are oppressed.

No, but admitting that oppression is unequal is inherently acknowledging that there are factors at play other than gender. And that some factors (e.g. wealth) may actually overcome the influence of gender.

"What is female oppression if it is not being oppressed because you are a female in a male dominated society? "

Strong oppresses the weak?

I know some wealthy women in positions of power and nobody is oppressing them.

The gosh was patronising and unnecessary.

At the risk of bringing personal experience into it, I am not oppressed as an individual woman. Doesn't make me a better or weaker feminist. Doesn't mean I can't see that we clearly do not have an equal footing but the legislation provides me with a basis on which I could challenge any bias that I encounter.

But I say that from a priviledged position because even as a woman you can be oppressed and still have advantages because of social class, economic wealth, education, family values etc etc.

Why is is it simplistic to point out a long way into a fairly nuanced debate about feminism, that in a male dominated society, women are oppressed and that oppression is based on them being women as a summation of the debate so far?

Gosh! I really couldn't say

I think where the debate was up to was that Beach was saying that if people are not equal than they cannot make free choices. Free choice can only ocme form equality.

I would disagree and ask if, for example, black people are not in equal in some societies, does that mean they do not have free choice and that any choices they do make are invalid?

How the actual fuck did we get back to this?

And why, yet again, is it people who identify as rad fems, going on and on, and attempting to coerce liberal fems into admitting they aren't good enough fems, because they must have suspect ideas about prostitution. This is not an interesting debate about feminism, it continues to be vying for supremacy.

I really thought that we had got past this ridiculous equation of liberal with choice. But apparently not.

After two days of discussion we are right back to making choices in a vacuum? This is completely puerile. I find it patronizing in the extreme, and I can't be arsed to discuss any more.

Gosh, indeed.

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.

I've come across that plenty and yes, it's very easy to counter. You don't need to label your feminism to see it's an inane statement.

people who identify as rad fems, going on and on, and attempting to coerce liberal fems into admitting they aren't good enough fems, because they must have suspect ideas about prostitution

I've been enjoying your participation in your thread, Beach, but sadly you do seem to be doing exactly what madwoman says today.

Re what you've posted about women choosing to be strippers and prostitutes: Firstly, I accept that there are women who would choose this work if they were as free as eagles and richer than Bill Gates. I have no right to criticise their choice. For the most part, women do choose the work reluctantly or labour under an abuse-related illusion of choice. The fact that men, in sufficient numbers to create a large market, see women's bodies as commodities for their use is a problem of patriarchy.

I don't see how this is materially different from your take on it?

Hang on, I'm a bit taken aback at posters saying that women are not oppressed because they're women. That's not part of any feminism I've encountered. I'm not surprised Beachcomber is questioning it. I don't see it as her trying to trick or trip up anybody, it's pretty fair to want clarification when such a counter-intuitive idea is put forward as being part of liberal feminism.

Garlicbutt, do you really believe that about free as eagles and richer than Bill Gates?

No one has said that.