Liberal Feminism

[Doobigetta]

I'm confused. When I studied feminism 20 years ago, liberal feminism meant fighting for equality without changing the basic structure of society. So equal pay, the right to financial independence, not having access to certain occupations blocked because of your sex, etc. And radical feminism, on the other hand, believed true equality could only be achieved by fundamentally restructuring so that, for example, the state paid a wage for being a SAHP. But the definitions seem to have changed- "liberal feminism" seems to be shorthand for the "sex positive" stuff that started to appear in the 90s and is frequently not feminist at all, and "radical" feminism is just, well, normal feminism. Am I missing something? And if not, where did the proper hardcore separatists go and what is that called now?
I am NOT trying to be goady by asking this, please don't take it that way.

The dichotomy is that other feminists are "sex negative". I think that implication is inescapable.

Devi, that's a really interesting interpretation I hadn't really thought of.

I have honestly never heard a man use the term sex positivity let alone used it about themselves.

For a man to acknowledge he is 'kinky' and BDSM is to acknowledge his sexual preferences are not mainstream and therefore it is going to prove difficult to find a sexual partner.

In practice a lot of men feel entitled to perform non-consensual degrading sexual acts on new partners without any prior discussion. They would rarely label themselves BDSM.

I don't think their behaviour is because of sex positivity, as that might involve thinking sexuality through. It is due to their entitlement because of the patriarchy.

Venus, no, I think the sex negativity is reserved for slut shaming etc. I have rarely heard sex negativity being applied to people, and more to attitudes in my own experience.

The dichotomy is that other feminists are "sex negative". I think that implication is inescapable.

Yeah. Once one puts "sex positive" as a descriptor on "feminism", that's a given.

Thank you! I'm glad you got what I meant.

I'm having a nice chat on Twitter at the moment with someone - libfem or transactivist, not sure which - who is telling me how transphobic lesbians are for not wanting penises up their chuffs. We are literally doing violence to transwomen by not letting them in there, apparently.

Tough shit.

And everyone says, "no one actually thinks that lesbians should be pressured into sex with transwomen, it's a totally extreme view which doesn't reflect reality". Yes they do. Fucking rapey idiot.

In practice a lot of men feel entitled to perform non-consensual degrading sexual acts on new partners without any prior discussion. They would rarely label themselves BDSM.

I don't think their behaviour is because of sex positivity, as that might involve thinking sexuality through. It is due to their entitlement because of the patriarchy.

Yes agree. But their partner being willing to accept this stuff is driven by sex positivity/slut shaming because they feel they "should" be doing kinky stuff and enjoying it. The focus as always is not on the woman's pleasure.

Here is the sort of attitude I mean. All about what a sex pozzie can do for their partner, with quotes like this:
"A sex-positive woman isn't going to shame or judge you for the kind of sex you're into. Dominant, submissive, conventional, or exploratory; it's all in good fun, and it's all for the betterment of our health and happiness."

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.romper.com/p/8-reasons-sex-positive-women-are-better-in-bed-8074/amp

Just a massive load of stereotypes about these women that encourage men to think they are all about sex, all the time, anything goes.

Yes, Devi - it is interesting how the woman's desires (or instinctive feelings of "no, that's not for me") are nowhere in that list. It's very much "women, service your men, and do it with a smile on your face". Horrifying that there are women out there being brainwashed into thinking this in the name of feminism.

I hate the phrase "sex-positive" with a passion because of the false dichotomy mentioned up thread (it paints the rest of us as sex-negative), and because it is basically same-old-same-old - "cool girls put out, if you don't put out (in the way I, the man, want you to), you're not cool".

"You would if you loved me" re-written for the 21st century. (Yes, I get that men for the most part aren't the ones using the phrase, but when the phrase is being used to prop up a patriarchal structure as old as time, the good 'ole madonna/whore complex, possibly with the new twist that you aren't allowed to opt "madonna" any more because that would be an "anti-feminist" act in this brave new world, you have to ask what exactly is this ideology doing, and who benefits?)

I also hate the way "slut shaming" has been replaced with "prude shaming"/ "vanilla shaming" - as if orgasms with whips and leather and a hefty dose of female submission are somehow better than ones from straightforward sex which celebrates the equality and mutuality of the participants.

I have honestly never heard a man use the term sex positivity let alone used it about themselves

I have heard this a few times from men, by the way, although they were describing women, not themselves. Knowing that I am critical of the sex industry one remarked to me that I was a 'sex negative feminist'. I invited him to explore that phrase and to think about some of the power relations involved in him calling me that given that it is not a term that radical or other feminists critical of the sex industry use themselves and certainly not one that I apply to myself. I told him that 'sex positive' feminists and others had no right to create a binary where the only alternative to their 'positivity' was 'negativity', with all its connotations. I asked him under exactly what circumstances we can be justified in labelling others, especially when these labels are pejorative. I also asked exactly what was meant by 'sex', and what did it mean to be 'positive' about it. Did it mean all sex? Some sex? Bestiality? Paedophilia? Who says where what is considered as 'sex' and what we can be positive about stops and starts. Further, 'sex negative' tends to imply that someone is against all sex, which may be the case in some cases, but not in others. Frankly, I suggested that the terms are pretty much meaningless, non-sensical and not at all useful and I stand by that opinion!

Most of that list, at least the first half was an assurance that women who know what they want in sex must feel confident and emboldened to ask for it.

So if I want sex once a week, missionary stylee, on a Sunday morning, between 8am and ten past, that's what they're talking about, yes? What I want.

Quite a lot of that piece(not all, as noted), I'm puzzled why it would need any particular label in a 21st century western context. If that is what 'sex positive' is really about, what it seems totally at odds with is the power relationships of the sex industry. True 'positivity' must be based on mutuality and equality.

Sex-positive seems to mean "being up for anything a man may suggest, and look like you're enjoying it."

Yes, it's pretty weird (and telling) that any sexual activity that gets a nod from the 'sex positive' crew seems to look like old-fashioned male-fantasy wrapped up in a hefty dose of porn.

I think I've just had my faith in BTL comments restored.

Annoyingly fulsome article in the Washington Post about "sexual mentorship" by a self-described "sex-positive" woman in her forties, banging on (pun intended) about how the combination of an older, confident woman and a younger man with a "short refractory period" can result in mind-blowing sex.

Comment no 1: "Crap, my refractory period is 6 months."

So if I want sex once a week, missionary stylee, on a Sunday morning, between 8am and ten past, that's what they're talking about, yes? What I want.

"When I studied feminism 20 years ago, liberal feminism meant fighting for equality without changing the basic structure of society. So equal pay, the right to financial independence, not having access to certain occupations blocked because of your sex, etc. "

Same here. I read about 20 years ago that liberal feminism mainly meant challenging the laws that discriminated against women, but not necessarily going any further than that so the type of feminism that brought women the vote, but probably wouldn't look into why women are less politically active than men.

I think we need a new name for the 'everything is empowering' type of feminism.

The difficulty is that the everything is empowering type doesn't appear to be feminist at all, Gwen. It's all about being sexy and pleasing men, however those men may identify.

Online I've seen them described as libfems, funfems - there doesn't appear to be what you might call a respectful term. But then the philosophy they espouse.doesn't appear to be worthy of respect, nor does it qualify as feminism.