Just wanted to answer a couple of points Blistery brought up: Yes, I think radical feminists have come up with the correct analysis about the roots of women's oppression, in the same way that I think Marx is right about the way capitalism functions.
Although radical feminism is a western school of thought developed by mostly white women, IMO the analysis they've developed to explain how and why men oppress women is largely correct, and is applicable to the specific mechanics of women's oppression across time and cultures. Which is not the same as saying that radical feminism explains all issues pertinent to all women everywhere - of course cultures vary and sex is not the only axis on which women are oppressed, and in many respects women from different countries or races or social classes may have little in common and/or be directly antagonistic to another woman's liberation. But this ancient and widespread control, brutalisation and denigration of human females by human males, does deserve its own specific analysis, and does, on the evidence, have the same root (as well as often remarkably similar expression) across time and cultures. Believing this isn't the same thing as homogenising women or saying that other forces like racism or capitalism aren't relevant to women's lives or deserving of their own female-specific analysis.
WRT liberal feminism, I agree with Catharine MacKinnon that it is basically liberalism applied to women. You mention that:
as for gender, liberal feminism was founded on the premise that women's oppression arose from the construction of gender roles and that these roles were largely created rather than innate.
but you don't say how or why these gender roles came about, or who benefits from them. As one radical feminist blogger put it, simply saying that gender is a social construct doesn't get us very far:
But there are several questions left unanswered: why did men have more of a say than women in the first place? Why has male domination happened across almost every culture on Earth? Why do these cultural stereotypes have the universal features of violent men and nurturing women? Is it innate? How can it be innate when so many people, especially women, are disaffected with gender? If it’s not innate, what do these universals mean? It is all well and good to say these social constructs exist, and that ideas accumulate over time – but where did they come from? How does the transmission chain start? In other words: what is the root? Leaving an analysis of social constructs to the realm of ideas alone does not answer any of these questions. These social constructions still need to be grounded in material reality. This is the domain of materialism and radical feminism.
www.aroomofourown.org/gender-is-socially-constructed-upon-material-reality-by-umlolidunno-2/
Liberalism applied to women is insufficient, IMO, for our liberation, partly because its basic unit of analysis is the individual rather than the group, but also because liberal principles as formulated by men are unable to encompass women's lives and the specific vulnerabilities and powers that come with having a female body.
For instance, women have been unable to secure abortion rights by appealing to liberal principles of individual autonomy or privacy, because when men talk about these things they are not talking about people capable of gestating another human being in their bodies. As soon as women try to claim the same rights to our bodies, the fact of our female reproductive capacity - being the only way human beings come into this world - comes bang up against this liberal idea of the sovereign male individual. Liberal feminists have tried to skirt this with the euphemism 'pro choice', as if abortion were a private matter akin to any number of personal choices a person might make. When in fact it is the biggest and most socially significant matter in the world. The power to decide when and whether to gestate and give birth is not just a matter of 'choice' - it is the power to control the reproduction of the human race.
The plain fact is that if women had full reproductive autonomy, this would mean that we alone decide who comes into this world and who doesn't. That is something men can't abide. 'Choice' doesn't begin to cover this awesome power for which there is no analogue in the male experience, and IMO women are always going to be treading water at best on abortion rights while we pretend it is something that can be secured by appeals to privacy or male conceptions of bodily autonomy.
I'm not dismissing the gains that liberal feminists have achieved for women, nor am I dismissing all liberal principles (I agree, for instance, on the importance of free speech as both an individual right and an essential mechanism for ensuring a healthy, functioning society).
And while I agree with you and other posters that today's third wavers are not the same as second-wave liberal feminists, and it may not even be appropriate to refer to them as liberals anymore (they are anti free speech, for a start), I do see a direct line between the liberal equality feminism of the 70s and the third-wave anti-feminists of today, specifically in their denial of the deep, material roots of patriarchy and in their avowed commitment to a vague 'equality for all' instead of a bold female-centric stance for the liberation of women and girls.