What do liberal feminists believe?

[AnnieLobeseder]

I was involved in a conversation today that has left me slightly baffled. It was about this map which supposedly shows the global state of women's equality. A fair number of us thought it wasn't very good since countries with appalling women's rights records seemed to be doing well. Such as South Africa, which has the highest incidence of rape in the world, the US, where there is still no mandatory maternity leave or pay equality, or Ireland, where abortion is still illegal.

Someone made the comment that the reason was inaccurate was that it was based on "libfem notions of women's equality".

I blinked a bit and asked what that meant. First, I was told that libfems only want legislated equality, not real equality. That they don't oppose institutionalised violence, and that liberals of any stripe believe in individual's right to choose to conduct their lives the way they want, which fails to look at structures of power shaping people's lives.

When I questioned this, I was told that my definition of liberal is wrong.

This person then posted a link to a video where a radfem was explaining that libfems believe that people who are oppressed stay oppressed because they choose to.

In my understanding, liberal means that you feel that people don't have full control over their lives, that when you see someone who has fallen on hard times you understand that "there but for the grace of god go I". That people are trapped by circumstances, often insurmountable, that they cannot be expected to escape without help. But it does NOT mean believing that people choose or deserve their station in life. It seems to me that it's far more of a right-wing notion that people can somehow "choose" to transcend the oppressive conditions into which they were born.

I call myself a libfem, because a) I'm not a radfem and b) while a revolution to get women out of oppression would be lovely, I don't see how it could ever work in practicality unless every single women in the world stood up at the same time. I believe that social change of any kind generally happens by evolution rather than revolution, and that while we are constrained by societal conventions and expectations these can (and do) change over time.

So, have I grossly misunderstood the meaning of liberalism? Do libfems really believe women are oppressed because they "want" to be? Surely not?

"Liberal in their personal views" in as much as live and let live - not the political definition.

Blistory - it feels like you need to add an apology simply for disagreeing because you are a woman, and as such have been socialised not to cause conflict or disagree with men people. Or have an opinion.

Ok........I can go with that. So what's the alternative approach and how does it ensure that those without a voice are heard ?

I believe in smaller government, FWIW, as I believe that it's more accessible. It was almost the case that in Scotland, we had a First Minister and 2 Leaders of the main opposition parties who were women and there was a sense that progress was being made. That, combined with the fact that Scottish MPs don't have the same elitist background that is prevalent in Westminster, I think led many to believe that there was more opportunity for different parts of the community to be heard and understood. I don't know whether those views were realistic but what it does is give people a sense of involvement.

I have no idea where I'm going with this so it seems an appropriate time to just stop typing.

Buffy - was it Carole Pateman's critique of Rawls you were thinking of? I've read some of her papers but haven't yet read The Sexual Contract

Reading this thread with interest.

I know it's quibbling rather than the main gist of the thread but I massively disagree with this:

"Social norms are incredibly difficult to change and are usually preceded by legislative change"

(sorry on phone so can't quote properly)

I'd say legislative change more often happens when it's racing to keep up with the changes in sentiment among the general population. Isn't that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?

Flora I think patriarchy is a "real thing" just like capitalism but aren't they both social constructs? That doesn't make them not real (as Buffy made me realize on an earlier thread).

I'm not saying patriarchy is not real, but it has no substance, no structure outside of the the laws and societal norms it seeks to describe. It has no apparatus so can't be overthrown.

Capitalism is sort of a social construct, it's fundamentals of ownership and free trade are constructed via legal and social norms, however unlike patriarchy, it also has a solid reality that patriarchy doesn't.

Patriarchy only exists as a way of understanding the myriad of laws and social norms that form our society - it doesn't have the same structural underpinnings that capitalism does. You can say "I am a capitalist because I believe in free trade", but patriarchy has no ..ist. You can't be a patriarchalist (arguably you could say that sexist is the patriarchal "ist" but that would be unfair as a large proportion of the population do not make a choice to be sexist and do not agree, when asked, that women are inferior to men, yet uphold the systems and laws that go into constructing patriarchy).

It is not inconceivable that Capitalism could be brought down overnight, or at the very least radically and irrevocably changed, by a realtively small group of people - a computer hack which destroys bank or property records, the collapse of the stock market, would all reduce capitalism, as we know it to ashes and would force us to re-think the concept. There is no equivalent for patriarchy - the only way it could be changed / destroyed overnight would be some kind of political coup, which would need to be world wide and simultaneous. To undertake such a coup would require immense military and political power, which women don't have, because we live in a society framed by a patriarchal construct.

If women began to develop that level of influence and power en masse, to the level that would be required to overturn patriarchy, then patriarchy would no longer exist, so there would be no need to overturn it, a new social construct would naturally replace it as a way of understanding society. It's circular.

There's a role for both types of feminism - I see radical feminism as making a noise, bringing attention to the issues. The introduction of some of the more extreme concepts by radical feminists helps to highlight the ridiculousness of some situations and allows people to identify more realistic, workable solutions.

Liberal feminists work, behind that background of noise, to change things slowly but surely, making those small changes to laws and ideas that actually impact on people's day to day lives - slowly moving society towards a point where a new construct will be created. Eventually the two will meet in the middle in what will hopefully be an egalitarian society where there is a good balance between personal freedom and societal responsibility.

In reality, most conscious feminists are probably a combination of both - either way, the basic aim is the same even if the methods and detail detail differ - which is why it is sad when they attack eachother - it is not a surprise though because Western society sets us up to be combative and arguementative - we are conditioned that way.

I don't think legislation races to keep up with anything

I agree with it being the legal changes that then affect the social norms. I think that what drives the legal changes is a smaller but more extreme voice, that voice is then moderated by consultation, discussion etc , legal instruments are put in place and then it slowly becomes the social norm.

Going back to parental leave - I don't think the social norm did drive that at all - and I think there will be significant resistance but it will slowly filter down to become the social norm.

If you look at the Gender Recognition Act - there really wasn't a large social movement for it at the time - it was much smaller than that but it was very persistent and successful at lobbying and was way ahead of where the general population was comfortable in their views on transgenderism.

Just - I'd say legislative change more often happens when it's racing to keep up with the changes in sentiment among the general population. Isn't that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?

Really? Women, the disabled and people from different races have equality, in the UK at least, within legislation via the Eqaulity Act. In law, they are equal. Has society got rid of sexism, disabilism and racism? I'd say we still have a long way to go before equality within society comes anywhere near to matching the equality which is enshrined in law.

Ooops - that last post was me, but forgot to name change - don't want it to look like I'm sock puppeting!

Just (snap!) - you're conflating one legislative step with the achievement of the removal of all sexism (for eg).
The question is, how did that particular Act come about? What Acts are passed without the support and lobbying of wider society? Why would they be passed, whose interests do they serve?

Does radical feminism believe that the oppression of women arises entirely from biology ? Any radfems ? I think I know that feminists who base their theory on Marxism believe it's based on capitalism.

I'm trying to understand whether the root of oppression, as believed by the different feminist theories, gives rise to why one believes the patriarchy has to be dismantled wholly and forcibly and why the other believes is slower, structural changes. And obviously other strands have different views.

I guess I'm wondering why I'm a liberal feminist and whether it stems from other political beliefs and life experiences or whether it's because I'm not entirely persuaded that oppression stems entirely from biology.

Sorry Dreaming, I disappeared out for the evening before I got a chance to answer your question about public vs. private realms, but I see Buffy got in there with a much more articulate answer than I could have managed.

Buffy, I know it's tempting to look at modern liberalism (especially in its latest Clegg incarnation) as me-me-me individualism, but if you look at the roots of it, in say, John Locke back in the 17th century, it's actually a radical and totally revolutionary doctrine - a reaction to the immense and deeply repressive power wielded by the monarch and the aristocracy. Set against that background the idea that individuals had the right to do their own thing, free from state intervention and state persecution is an amazing idea. For me it's tragic that this deeply revolutionary idea has somehow been corrupted into this shallow libertarian individualism. And I think in terms of the counterbalance it provides to intrusive, authoritarian regimes, it's a political philosophy in need of reviving. And I also think it could do liberal feminism a power of good to rediscover the political/philosophical roots of liberalism, rather than simply caricaturing itself as choicy-choicy, anything goes so long as I'm alright Jaqueline feminism.

But I totally agree about the notion of watching liberal academic pontificate and wondering who's at home making the kids' packed lunches. Once upon a time I was an academic, and it's a very noticeable phenomenon - men who sail through their careers unfettered by having made the choice to have a family, while female academics are either very young or very exhausted. I generalise wildly, of course and there are exceptions to this... but in a lot of cases! (Also totally agree that surely everyone thinks the patriarchy is a social construct doing explanatory work rather than a literal thing - I mean, even in St. Trinians II, it's clear that the point of the joke behind David Tenant's character is that he couldn't really exist in the real world).

"But I am not a political scientist or political philosopher. So, here's Wikipedia."

Lovely turn of phrase.

I 'be never thought of liberalism as Thatcherite, more along the lines Lurcio describes.

BloominNora - your overthrowing capitalism/patriarchy comparison is really interesting, will have to mull over that one.

The main problem with these -isms is that they are constantly evolving and hybridising, making them difficult to pin down. I wouldn't say Thatcher was a liberal, for example; instead I would say her and Reagan pushed a neoliberal programme which married right wing politics with a liberal economic policy (i.e. limiting state intervention in markets, in the hope that free market economics and dynamic capitalism would generate growth that would magically trickle down so all would eventually benefit).

The crux of the matter, as someone said upthread, is personal freedom. Excuse me while a get a bit theoretical here (and I hope I've remembered correctly!!): when Rawls wrote about liberalism he was drawing on Kant's idea that people shouldn't ever be used as a means to an end - the achievement of a "greater good" isn't sufficient justification for overriding the right to personal freedom. Liberalism supports the idea of community, of reasoned debate in a neutral public sphere and/or market forces generally producing desired results but will allow state intervention for some things.

I always conflate radical and socialist feminism but see that this is not right - e.g. radfem anarchism would work, right?

Ah Lurcio I didn't see your post, now I feel like a sixth-former trying to impress the teacher

Yes Buffy the packaging of liberalism is really important imo.

I went to a lecture last year given by Michael Freeden who writes extensively about political ideologies. IIRC he said that one way to think about "-isms" like liberalism is to imagine each of the key components of the "-ism" written on a piece of slightly see-through paper. For liberalism, there might be a page for the distinction between a private and public sphere, a page for the right to private property, a page for the need to limit state power through some sort of constitutional protection for individual rights etc.

The individual pages are collated and placed in a pile, with each additional page slightly obscuring the written words on the page underneath. In different contexts (e.g. maybe different political systems) the pages might be collated and placed in a different order in the pile, meaning greater emphasis is placed on those pages higher up and more concealment of those lower down.

On an individual basis, if I can stretch his analogy a bit, I think we all take “pages” from a range of –isms to construct our own position or values or beliefs etc. So thinking about that questionnaire on another thread that explores different feminisms, I might have a few pages from radfem, some from libfem etc. I might also have a few pages from socialism, Catholicism, environmentalism or whatever. I then arrange them in an order that works for me. Some people might have their “pages” just loosely paper-clipped together so they can be rearranged or some pages discarded pretty easily. Some might have their pages tightly bound, so changing the order or prioritisation means tearing some of the pages or just throwing them away and starting again – a bit trickier.

The problem with this comes when trying to organise politically. I think effective political engagement requires a sense of community and common purpose between activists. It is sometimes difficult to achieve this when we have a prevailing (liberal) culture that is suspicious of totalising ideologies and prioritises individual freedom.

Having just read all that I can see there are some problems with what I’ve written but don’t want to overcomplicate matters so will leave it at that for now!

Bloomin thanks for that interesting post. I agree with some of what you say but not all. I think capitalism's material reality is property of which the really valuable stuff is intangible. Without a huge change in people's views, if there was a catastrophic event such as you described, we would recreate the same or similar capitalist structures. Anyway, that's for another thread but very interesting.

There are differences in libfem and radfem goals which put them on opposite sides of some pushes for change, particularly on prostitution and the legal status of women. I'm not sure we'd end up at the same place by carrying on as we are.

Demis I agree that the -isms are constantly evolving and changing. I think the same can be said about broader goals like personal freedom. I don't agree with that as a goal in and of itself because that means anarchy or libertarianism, neither of which would benefit women, in my view. I think personal freedom would be a desirable goal in a state where there is no personal freedom or very little or the freedom allowed is not beneficial to me. However I don't see it as an ultimate goal.

Totally agree Flora about differences relating to concepts such as personal freedom - one of the problems of me trying not to overcomplicate things upthread

But yes, of course, different ideologies will have different conceptions of what something like "freedom" means e.g. freedom = freedom from state intervention vs. an idea of freedom that necessitates the removal of structural barriers (through access to healthcare, education, work etc.) that requires state intervention.

Clumsily put but hopefully you see what I mean