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)?

And back we go again.

It really isn't the feminism itself that's the problem is it ? It's us arguing amongst ourselves.

Why is it so impossible for everyone to work together on the common ground and accept that we'll work in a different manner on the other stuff ? So we all support women but radfems approach the rape and dv issues with the justifed anger that they feel and talk of smashing the patriarcy and the liberal feminists get on with quietly working with the system to improve the Court process, the public perceptions, the rape myths. That way women are supported in every way and radfems don't need to accuse us of being rape apologists or antifeminists and we can take their analysis of a male abusive partriarchy etc as interesting but not something that we agree with, or might agree with but see it as a theory which is not going to come into mainstream practice.

Just please stop viewing any other form of feminisim as 'wrong' or less meaningful. Radfems feel attacked, we feel patronised. Please please let's stop this.

hester yes, I've known several sex addicts (both genders) become prostitutes as a means of containing their acting-out. Although there's a strong theme of childhood abuse amongst sex addicts - as with all addicts - only about half had abusive backgrounds (we were all in intensive therapy, it's unlikely to have remained hidden). On a historical note I give you Messalina.

"I'm a bit taken aback at posters saying that women are not oppressed because they're women"

Don't be taken aback. If you are talking about my post, I only asked (note the question mark) if it was possible that women are oppressed because men were and are stronger rather than because they have penises. That is, a question of strong oppressing the weak/poorer/less powerful rather than one sex opposing the other.

It is a genuine question - I don't claim to know the answer.

madwoman - I didn't think anyone was being patronising here. What exactly are you talking about?

Incidentally, I was thinking how free of bullying and patronising this thread is. You can question the RadFem line and even post opposing views and nobody calls you names and tells you that you don't belong here. It is very refreshing. It is how all of FWR should be.

Perhaps not, Catgirl, but that is how I read it. I understand that class, race and other factors come in to play, but they're layered on top IMO. At the heart of the matter is sex, it is the primary factor on which women as a whole are discriminated against and not interchangeable in importance or impact with the other issues, to me that's the basis of feminism.

Apols if that's not well expressed, it's after 2am here and I should definitely be sleeping.

Cote, I think it's the whole package, bigger, stronger and penises rather than just the latter (penises because of reproductive stuff as well as rape).

Cote, there is an undercurrent of being patronised. Various posters have taken the time to explain what liberal feminism means to them. There is a broad consensus and then there are individual areas we disagree on. There has been genuine curiosity and interest in the subject that was then met with a tone of incredulous 'is that really what libfems believe?" which went against the spirit of this discussion.

Again it seems to come down to perceptions that there is a right and a wrong approach to feminism. Actually, maybe I'll just concede that one and accept the accusations of MRA, rape apologist etc.

Perhaps not, Catgirl, but that is how I read it. I understand that class, race and other factors come in to play, but they're layered on top IMO. At the heart of the matter is sex, it is the primary factor on which women as a whole are discriminated against and not interchangeable in importance or impact with the other issues, to me that's the basis of feminism

And to me, it's the basis of some types of feminism but not others and not mine but I don't think you're wrong, I don't think I'm right, I just think we have a different view on it

Has this thread gone weird because I expressed my surprise that some posters said that not all women experience oppression under male supremacy?

My 'gosh' was only intended to express surprise. Nothing else. It was a 'gosh that really wasn't my understanding of liberal feminism'. I was surprised to learn that. Really surprised. So I said 'gosh'.

Nowt to do with 'I'm a better feminist than you' bullshit - which is something I don't like at all.

TBH I'm feeling a bit attacked now on this thread. Because I expressed surprise at a view I was completely unaware of being a Liberal feminist view, and tried to clarify for Cote what I meant about people claiming that women have equality. Now words like patronising, simplistic and puerile are being chucked about and I'm being spoken about in the third person as 'people who identify as radfems' and being accused in the third person of 'attempting to co-erce liberal feminists into admitting they aren't good enough'.

Normally I would type 'gosh' but I'm a bit nervous about the reaction it would cause so I'm at a bit of a loss.

I started this thread because I'm interested in Liberal feminist political activism/support for activism (which I understand to be one of the main premises of Liberal feminism) and because I was interested to explore how that activism/support is experiencing the backlash.

Oh well.

I used the third person because with the general perceived undercurrent on fwr your comment was not an isolated expression - it seemed to fit into a far bigger pattern of how liberals are treated. So, not a direct dig, more an expression of disbelief that that general air seemed to have invaded what had been a fairly up front discussion.

I'm aware that says more about my sense of paranoia than it does about your intent, beach, which is why I decided to call it a day. So no personal dig intended, despite the 'gosh', which sorta summed up how I felt/ feel. Frustrated that after two days, apparently my beliefs had been reduced to a wide eyed and naive choicey choicey anti feminism because I identify as a radical. And no, that's not what was said, but it was how I read it, and my persecution complex made the decision to step away.

I hope the discussion carries on, but it does seem to have changed over the last 12 hours or so, not sure why. Probably just me, so I need to take some time out and let it flourish without my paranoia. and that means I don't want to retread it to unpick it and work out why I felt got at, I need to regroup and then come back later.

I'm sorry that you feel attacked because I felt attacked by you (well, not specifically you, but your comment for me seemed to reflect the anti-liberal feeling) that wasn't my intention.

Glasgowwean, I have to admit I don't really understand that. I can't imagine a feminism that doesn't have countering female oppression as its guiding ethos. To me, if you took a man and a woman who both suffered discrimination based on their class, race and religion and you removed those factors, the woman would still face oppression based on her sex which the man would not.

Beach, no one was aiming anything at you other than the 'gosh' which contributed to a sense of being patronised.

What I would like to see is a recognition that all feminist views are valid. I cannot begin to fathom some radfem views but I wouldn't question their validity. Why can we all afford each other the same respect.

There also has to be the realisation that various posters are contributing to more than one ongoing thread at the moment and there does seem to be a return to the stance that if you accept or disagree with x y z then that's not feminism - btw this is not aimed at you, Beach

Ha. Liberal.

Although that wee slip is almost as good as my typo when I went off on chromosomes on a trans thread.

Although, of course, according to that damned survey I am 86% radical. Such a sliver of ideology separates libs and rads that I genuinely don't get the angst and rigorous intent to dissect the 14%.

Hester, you can't imagine it, I can't imagine your stance. It still doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I would't question your right to call yourself a feminist (not suggesting that you personally have done that)

Turning to your point, as a woman, I can accept that women are oppressed. As an individual woman who does not suffer from oppression, and sees others who don't, I am interested in the reasons for that. If class, race and religion have evened the playing field for me, it can for other women so I am interested in why it doesn't. I don't think you can consider oppression in isolation.

I don't see that I have argued that I don't want to end female oppression nor have I argued that it doesn't exist.

No you haven't argued that, Glasgowwean, but you do appear to be saying that women, their status and oppression are just an aspect of feminism rather than the raison d'être. That's the bit I'm struggling to understand.

I don't see how she said that? I read it as "I perceive some women not being oppressed, so I want to identify what gives them this advantage & how to replicate it for all women."

Fwiw, I think all women are oppressed - but some so slightly, it barely matters.

Apologies in advance if I've picked up anything wrong as I've done a bit of a skim through of the thread.

Hester, I think you've picked out perhaps one point of differentiation between Radical Feminists and at least Intersectional Feminists at least. I just wanted to catch it before the track slips away :)

You said above, "I understand that class, race and other factors come in to play, but they're layered on top IMO. At the heart of the matter is sex, it is the primary factor on which women as a whole are discriminated against and not interchangeable in importance or impact with the other issues."

As a white woman, I recognise I experience racial privilege, whether or not I want it, even where I strive to work against the mechanisms of racial privilege. I still benefit from it. I don't believe it is for me to say to a woman of colour that the oppression she experiences as a woman is greater than the oppression she experiences as a person of colour. Even if I acknowledge racial oppression exists for her, I would still be in my view asserting my own racial privilege in saying that sexual oppression by definition is a somehow greater and more pervasive form of oppression than all others.

Intersectionality is about recognising not just that there are multiple forms of oppression that one individual or one group can experience. It's also recognising that the experience of say a woman of colour not only shares the features of sexual oppression all women face and the features of racial oppression that all people of colour face. It acknowledges that there can be distinct experiences of oppression one faces from being at the "intersection" of two or more forms of oppression. It also acknowledges the complex web of privilege and oppression that all but those at the "top of the tree" experience.

I also believe there is more to gain by identifying the similarities in the political, social and economic mechanisms of oppression used to maintain hegemony of those "at the top," and collaborating where possible with other movements for justice where we can find common ground and shared goals.

Kritiq - that is what I was trying (but failing) to say earlier on

Thank you for articulating it

Yes, Kritiq, but that is intersectionality, as you point out. Feminism and intersectionality are not the same thing. Feminism is, surely, still the movement that fights for the rights of women.

Garlic, I see what you're saying but I said I can't imagine a feminism that doesn't have countering female oppression as its guiding ethos. Glasgow replied that she couldn't imagine having my stance. That seems fairly unambiguous.

I'm finding this really interesting, by the way, and appreciate those taking time to reply. If I do suddenly disappear, it will be a matter of timezone rather than anything else!

But you can be a feminist and a intersectionalist

You can fight for womens rights and know that women are oppressed because of thier sex whilst also recognising other types of oppression exist

To be a feminist does not mean you can only fight, oppose or recognise one kind of oppression

Hester, would it help if I explain that I don't deny that I experience oppression but that I don't suffer from it ? I wonder why that is and whether there is then merit to looking elsewhere for an explanation.

I don't see that as being incompatible with feminism

Yes, as catgirl says, you can be an Intersectional Feminist!

I know some have suggested here and elsewhere that this involves a "watering down" of the feminist perspective or diminishing the impact of institutional misogyny, but I disagree.

In my view, it acknowledges the lived experiences of all women - something certainly women of colour, working class women and other women who experience "intersectional oppression" have often criticised the feminist movement for failing to do. Although all women do have some shared experiences, especially of the outcomes of institutional misogyny, we are a diverse group and we don't always understand or even acknowledge the differing experiences of some of our sisters.

Perhaps there is a worry that by acknowledging the ways in which some of us are privileged will diminish the argument that women as a class, all women to some degree, suffer as the result of institutionalised sexism and misogyny. I don't believe that is the case though. And, saying that some women because of their situation are privileged in some ways is not being anti-feminist.

I believe more collaboration with other social justice movements can make our voices stronger, make better use of ours scarce resources and ensure we are always challenging ourselves on inclusivity.

I have positive experiences of working in a feminist organisation, collaborating with other organisations working for social justice on issues including racial equality, against LBGTQ discrimination, against disability discrimination, etc. A few of us would rock up to a decision-making body to challenge their plans and policies. When someone from an LBGTQ organisation spoke up about an issue of gender-based exclusion, then someone from an organisation for older people made a point about racism, it sent a clear message that "divide and rule" tactics wouldn't wash.

This kind of collaboration meant that all the organisations involved learned alot and challenged themselves on other forms of discrimination and exclusion that had been outside their immediate "sphere." It also meant there were other eyes, ears and mouths out there to tip me off about issues relevant to feminism or present a feminist perspective in situations where feminist organisations weren't represented.

I think in these uncertain economic times, the tendency may be to put the wagons in a circle and turn inwards, focussing on what impacts on "me and mine" first and foremost. I understand where that's coming from, but I think it can be self-defeating if we all become fragmented, our voices weaker and expending our energies as much on dukeing it out with groups who experience oppression (and even with other feminists, for pity's sake!)

That's an interesting insight, Glasgow.

Catsgirl, yes of course you can, and many of us do, myself included. Where I get lost, part ways, however you wish to put it, is how fighting other forms of oppression or being an intersectionalist changes whether or not fighting for women's rights lies at the heart of feminism.

No of course it doesn't. But I don't think anyone has suggested it does have they?

Kritiq, I really like your 18:43 post and thank you for expressing a complex issue so concisely :)

Hester, I think you and I were looking at different parts of glasgow's post! By "countering female oppression", you do mean "stopping" the oppression, rather than countering oppression with oppression?! Feminism is about gaining equality for women, on the basic premise that women demonstrably are unequal to men. I might differ with glasgowwean about whether every single woman is oppressed, but that doesn't alter the premise. Feminism is about women as a class, otherwise it's not feminism!

There seem to be varying takes on the matter of intersectionality. I'm not adopting any labels, so you can naff off with your "liberal intersectional capitalist feminism"

Of course I want level playing fields for all; of course I recognise that people at the intersections of prejudice get a worse deal.

I'm a white woman of ordinary appearance, intellect and education, born into a relatively wealthy society. I stick up for those who suffer prejudice due to lack of those advantages. Because I am an ageing, disabled woman - I feel more qualified to agitate (and pontificate) for feminism, elderly rights and disabled rights than for other equality campaigns. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Cross posted with you there, Kritiq. Collaboration is a very positive thing in many instances and I also believe that acknowledging other forms of privilege is important. In my experience, many of us have done and do do this in addition to any feminist activity. None of that, to me, dilutes feminism, but neither does it replace fighting for women's rights as the basic tenet and reason for and driving force of feminism.