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)?

because of growing up working class and living most of my life in majority-black cities - me too. Probably not majority in my day, but very very mixed. There's quite a lot I miss about that, tbh.

With apologies for thread intersectionality - The definition of patriarchy that most chimes with me is the one that's about "masculinity". That is, patriarchy holds the values of "masculinity" above all.

It rewards women who display prowess in its game, as it does non-whites and even (to an extent) disabled geeks as long as they make money. It is, basically, a win-lose game with fixed and complex rules. Women are default losers along with everybody else who isn't 'hegemonically masculine'. (Is that a word?!)

For a number of reasons, I think this is a particularly good time to bring about a change in the rules. Simultaneously, though, we're facing a massive upsurge in islamic and christian fundamentalism as well as smaller backlash movements like UKIPS or whatever they're called atm. I don't see this as an accident, I think it's patriarchy's more heavily invested adjudicators throwing their weight around. I really would like to elaborate & discuss all of this, but I'll wait and see if anyone else is interested.

xposted! Cheers, MMM, I'll read your stuff tomorrow :)

hey garlic, I used to live in Brixton too
I miss it!!

Hmmm... well. I'll come clean, although I'm a single parent who doesn't get out an awful lot, my next door enoguhbour has just been round so I'm a touch tipsy tonight....

I haven't read many of the posts in this topic (there's MILLIONS!!!)

So... my impression is that liberals are a bit rubbish because they don't like an awful lot of legistlation and would rather have a 'negative' government (although I think arguments on the distinction between -tive and +tive goverenments are rubbishio).

But I think feminists have a lot of work to do. People are AWFUL to women every day and no one bats an eye lid. I had to have a proper argument and get my manager and my manager's manager involved when I had an argument with the HR dept. OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY!!! And you'd have thought they were supposed to be good employers. Blimey. And I know I got off lightly from friends' stories.....

Dreaming, I don't think anybody has strayed anywhere near the who is or is not a feminist thing, the discussion has very much centered on what is feminism/liberal feminism/intersectional feminism. I do think that as a political movement fighting women's rights is the raison d'être of feminism. I don't think that campaigning for other causes means a person is not a feminist, though I guess if that's their sole area of active campaigning then they're not a feminist activist. Not being a feminist activist doesn't make someone not a feminist.

I don't think that to be a feminist that you have to put all other struggles last, but I do think feminism does.

Just a word on the 'labels' on MN thing.

When the FWR section first started it wasn't like that. We did have a couple of explorational threads with people saying 'I wonder what sort of feminist views I hold?' - 'what about you, what are your leanings?'

The point of the threads was self-discovery. Also lots of questions were asked in a non adversarial way.

Then we had the troll invasions. We then seemed to have a lot of attacks made on 'radfems' (as a non-named group, as non-named individuals and as name individuals).

And quite a few posters responded by saying 'oi, I'm a radfem and I haven't done what you are accusing me of'.

And I think that was really when the labelling started. It wasn't a divide between lib and rad (or not AFAIK). Up until that point everybody seemed to rub along pretty well together.

I know this is OT and I don't want the thread to become about the FWR section - I just think it is important to say these things.

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.

IMO there are 2 backlashes - anti-feminist and anti-liberal - going on today.

The anti-liberal one is more predictable, in economically tough times people reach fpr the comforts of conservatism first and - in the UK anyway - the "liberal" agenda has been seen to fail miserable under New Labour (mainly because it wasn't a liberal agenda, but ykwim).

The Feminist backlash IMO is a 2-pronged backlash.

Firstly, much of the early day agitation has been "achieved" - ie there is some statute or quango or whatever ostensibly doing X, so a lot of people tick the box and go "next", and its then embarrassing for said politicos/quangochiks etc to have to admit it (ie them) isn't working.

The second IMO is the very voluble extreme RadFem agenda, which by and large is distasteful to most women and potential allies elsewhere and thus alienates Feminism's natural allies, and - again IMO - because it is by and large very poorly thought out it delivers huge own goals to Feminism overall, and provides rods for opponents to beat Feminism's back with.

IMO the "back to conservative" backlash is cyclical, the first part of the backlash can be addressed with fact based pressure, the second part IMO requires Feminism to purge itself of its extremists.

I couldn't agree with you less on the second point, whatmeworry. As a non-aligned, non-invested, non-labelled long time lurker and sometime poster, the relentless attacks on rad-fems are much more alienating than any other aspect of the board.

I am so Mrs Average, non-hairy, took his name, stay at home, pay for highlights and help at tuck shop. I'm not scared of the big bad wolf rad-fems, I don't find them distasteful, I've even brought up some of their ideas at book club and nobody fainted. It's more than a little rude to speak for others in the way you just have. By all means tell us how you see them, but don't presume to speak for the silently offended majority. It's very noticeable that the many lurkers who have said the same as me are largely ignored as it doesnt fit with the claim that rad-fems are the bogeyman (ha) of the FWR board.

Just to add, the board is hardly a wasteland. If rad-fems are scaring people away they're not doing a great job. Active convos is full of FWR threads.

It's more than a little rude to speak for others in the way you just have.

I didn't. I said In My Opinion. I gave my reasons. I think you are quite within your rights to take issue with my opinion. I also think it is not rude to state an opinion.

Gosh, until I found MN I really didn't realise radical feminism existed any more. All the feminism I had encountered in the media was the fairly mainstream Naomi Wolf type, and apart from a couple of my friends I was almost the only person I knew who loathed gender stereotyping of children and 'women love shoes' type shit.

I love the rad fems for making the rest of us really think things through from first principles. I may not always 100% agree with the points raised but they are always, always worth listening to.

Just to add, the board is hardly a wasteland. If rad-fems are scaring people away they're not doing a great job. Active convos is full of FWR threads.

Actually, I think the FWR board has changed massively in tone in the last few months, for the better. Precisely because the MN RadFem clique is not so dominant you are getting a lot pf people who once would never have posted here (because they would have been insulted/attacked/called rude etc) for their views coming on board.

Again, I'm afraid I don't agree. It's the fading away of the awful f4j and sad graders that made posting rather than reading feel possible to me.

Thank you Whatmeworry for making these enlightening, pertinent, useful and PARDy contributions to this discussion on Liberal Feminism.

Good work!

Um, that would goaders not graders. Not many roads being built in here.

I agree that the label isn't helpful. In RL, it's not the radfems that cause the problem IMO, it's all of us. You just have to look at some of the threads across MN to see that.

The average woman seems to see feminisim in a negative light and I have tried to understand why that it. The closest I can come is that we're seen, all of us, as evangelical. It's almost like we're saying you're wrong, we're right, if you would only open your eyes and ears you would see the true path to enlightenment. The fact that you can't is because you're oppressed by a patriarchial system that is so ingrained is every day life that you can't see it.

The only time I've been spoken to like that in RL is by a very determined bord again Christian who thought it was his mission and his right to educate me into his way of thinking. I remember thinking bugger off because I felt patronised, belittled and that he was a zealot.

So it strikes me that the average woman ( and I know there is no such thing really) reacts the same way to being told something similar. They don't give a damn about the nuances of feminism because it's seen as a negative and we're all reviled to the same extent.

So it strikes me that the average woman ( and I know there is no such thing really) reacts the same way to being told something similar. They don't give a damn about the nuances of feminism because it's seen as a negative and we're all reviled to the same extent.

I agree. My view is that to break out of this, Liberal Feminism has to state not only what it believes, but more importantly what it does not believe.

I believe the majority of women, and quite a few men, would agree with the majority of the goals of Feminism, but there are some views that are toxic, and - in my opinion, note - they are largely in the camp of the extremist element of the RadFem movement.

My proposed solution is to do what Socialism had to do to become relevant again, ie a "clause IV" approach - where Feminism overall (or at least Liberal Feminism) clearly dissasociates itself from those illiberal beliefs that - again, IMO - alienate most women and natural supporters.

Thank you Whatmeworry for making these enlightening, pertinent, useful and PARDy contributions to this discussion on Liberal Feminism.

PARD means debating the points, not attacking the poster.

hth :)

I really don't see how it's helpful for libfems to attack radfems on this board. Wasn't that the accusation levelled at the radfems that started this ? How does reversing it help anyone ?

My point was in trying to explain that there is a distinction between libfem and antifeminism and I think the majority of radfems were making the effort to listen and understand why we get pissed off at the MRA, rape apologist arguments.

I thought we had made progress but the last few posts appear to show otherwise.

I don't have an issue with any of the views of radfems or their approach other than the quickness to condemn libfeminism without trying to understand where the libfem view came from.

Great posts, Glasgowwean. I agree with so much of what you have to say, in particular about fostering understanding.

In terms of what puts women off, I really think you have to look outside feminism as well. There has been a sustained attack on feminism for years and it's detractors have done a pretty good job. When I was a young thing, back in the day, the girls who said 'ew, no, I'm not a feminist' had barely even met one, they certainly hadn't been preached to by one, but they had imbibed the negative image of feminists as hairy, man hating, strident, braless lesbians, all of which they definitely were not. I know that because that was me and my friends.

I think all feminists need to stand together in acknowledging what unites us rather than allowing the differences to rule and, therefore, be easily exploited. I look at the posts in this thread and the split the board thread and what I see is agendas being slotted neatly into the gaps opened up by conflict. There is no 'win' for any branch of feminism in splitting and fighting.

Been lurking on this thread.

Glasgowwean, I like your evangelical analogy. As a lurker and very average woman, that is how I have felt too in the feminist context. The only difference is that, for me, it's not so much the ideas themselves that are the issue, but the tone of engagement - the 'I'm right, you're wrong' - that I found off putting. I'd find it easier to listen to the ideas if there was room for real debate to question, probe and even disagree with some aspects. I agree though that this issue isn't necessarily limited to one particular group.

Sorry, glasgowwean, just retread your post and realized you were also referring to tone, rather than specific ideas.

I disagree with Whatme's last point, too. Even though I find the majority of feminist extremist opinion barmy (and some of it completely insane), every movement needs its extremists. They counterbalance the weight of conservatism at the other end.

Glasgow, I was also nodding vigorously to your post: It's almost like we're saying you're wrong, we're right, if you would only open your eyes. People hardly ever listen to someone barging in with a load of criticism. It's important to address their issue from their point of view. Why would a woman embrace feminism if it doesn't make her life better in some way?

It's sad to hear "I'm not a feminist but ..." It's GOOD to hear the "but ..."! Most women these days do hold feminist views, as do many men. 50 years of telling women they're doing femininity wrong hasn't exactly endeared the word 'feminist' to them. But 50 years of discussing the problems in women's lives, and making improvements to them, has got the idea across. I'm not sure I care whether people are averse to calling themselves feminists, as long as they abhor oppression and support equality.

Glasgowwean, I think you may be on to something in your post of Fri 29-Jun-12 10:03:11 about some perceptions of feminists in general (and for that matter, other social and political movements, too,) as being "evangelical." I think it can be really useful to think about that analogy when trying to make sense of why there may be opposition to differing views and possibly a "gut" resistance to some feminist beliefs.

If you're not a Christian, not interested in Christianity, you may have the view that all Christians are pretty well the same - things they say aren't relevant to you, you may believe they've done more harm than good, you don't like it when they try and engage you in discussion and seek to convert you to their beliefs. Even if you think there is some merit in some things they say, you don't think it's enough to get "on side" with them, and perhaps you think there are other ways of achieving the "good things" that you have identified in Christianity.

If you are a Christian, what denomination you are could be really important to you. Growing up in a very conservative community in America, many of the more fundamentalist Christian churches didn't believe that some denominations, like Roman Catholics and Unitarian Universalists were "genuine" Christians. Things sometimes these internecine "discussions" got quite heated between individuals, in community meetings, in the local paper, etc.

It just dawned on me that the dynamics of what was happening on the message boards were in some way similar to those "what is a Christian?" arguments from my childhood.

Apologies to all if this seems a tangent. Not sure if my observations are helpful or not!