Can we talk about liberal feminism?

[JigglyTuff]

It's late and I've had wine and so this is probably a bit disjointed. BUT liberal feminism seems like a complete clusterfuck to me. It's all about 'reflecting on things' and apologising. God, so much apologising. I don't think white heterosexual lefty men spend their lives saying 'mea culpa' do they? But white het women seem to be on a mission to self-abase. It's really fucking odd and quite disturbing.

Is anyone else seeing this or do I need to start wearing a tinfoil hat or something?

BertrandRussell

If you really want, when I have time, I will search the boards for a wining quote, and someone will have said something somewhere. I will come back and claim victory and do a dance.

Or we could just accept my apology for that misquote and move on.

I said "People who aren't putting women first, to me are not feminists."
You will note that's aimed at all people, not women or lib fems sspecifically.

DJBaggySmalls

If that is what she said she is wrong. I don't think anyone has proposed or defended that point of view.

Sorry mousse- I don't quite understand. Are you agreeing that when you said ".... stop with the "you said this so you are not a feminist" or "only women who think this can feminists". you were mistaken and nobody has actually said that? That's great if you are.

Are those 3 things not the epitome of patriarchy? The very definition of it

For me, no. They are important, but they are not the epitome. They are maybe the seedy side, but I'd also add patriarchal marriage and male/state control over reproduction and women's bodies generally (for example, FGM).

I completely agree that those things epitomise the patriarchy too. But they are less contentious, are they not? Porn, prostitution and trans are regularly included in feminism.

Sorry Datun, I don't understand your last sentence.

BertrandRussell

"Sorry mousse- I don't quite understand. Are you agreeing that when you said ".... stop with the "you said this so you are not a feminist" or "only women who think this can feminists". you were mistaken and nobody has actually said that? That's great if you are"

Big sigh. My original point stands. It was a generic point about discussion in general and not specific to this thread. There are discussions where fingers are pointed and women told they can't be feminists.

After a shakey start the debate on this thread has been very good. I misremembered ( me and Hilary Clinton) a comment on this thread. I apologise. Quentin did the search I couldn't be arsed to do and found the correct quote. I'll apologise again.

My other point was that if I tried I could search FWR to find a quote to prove me right. This however would be a) time consuming and b) a childish way to 'win' a discussion. Point scoring can be satisfying but it really gets us no where.

Many feminists support porn, prostitution and the trans-ideology.

Whether one considers them feminists or not, that is how they consider themselves. And they will argue in favour of those three things.

Every day Feminism, for instance, vehemently supports the trans ideology. And yet, at the same time, they talk a lot about other aspects of feminism which are far more laudable.

I'm not talking about transactivists who insist they are feminists, when clearly they are as anti women as anyone could be.

Some feminists will support a woman's choice to be a prostitute. And argue against the damage it does to others, purely on the basis of the fact that it's an individual choice.

Datum
"Some feminists will support a woman's choice to be a prostitute. And argue against the damage it does to others, purely on the basis of the fact that it's an individual choice"

Personally, I would support a woman's choice as an individual choice while still arguing that prostitution is damaging to society.

Personally, I would support a woman's choice as an individual choice while still arguing that prostitution is damaging to society.

How does that work if you're actually talking to a prostitute? Would you say I support your choice, but it's damaging nonetheless?

In which case how can you support something you know is damaging? Genuine question.

No worries mousse. I got unreasonably annoyed last night so I totally appreciate things can get misremembered/taken out of context. I can also see how the OP was taken amiss by people who identify as lib fems although it's really obvious to me it was clumsy wine fuelled wording rather than intent. all round.
I don't know what the answer is. All the splintering serves no-one yet we are all sceptical of different approaches to some degree.

In which case how can you support something you know is damaging? Genuine question

I feel the same way. I wouldn't criticise or judge a woman for being a prostitute. Either she's had shitty life chances or she is genuinely able to sleep with anyone with no emotional attachment which is a rare thing so who can blame her for profiting from It?

I do however judge the punters, massively. And the pro-prostitution lobby bullying ex prostitutes who don't want full decriminalisation. Yet we never get to talk about the punters, only the women involved. It's the ultimate in misdirection imo

Datun - I'm not sure i see the connection between 'epitome of patriarchy' and what feminists do or do not accept ... I think that's where I lost track of your argument.

YetAnotherSpartacus

Sorry, I'm probably not explaining it very well. It wasn't a huge point, in the first place!

As I understand it, radical feminism is about overthrowing the patriarchy through radical means. (Instead of navigating it to reduce women's disadvantage).

So porn, prostitution and trans ideology being almost exclusively for the benefit of men, and disadvantageous to women represent what the patriarchy means.

So it's very difficult to understand how anyone who claims to be a feminist can support it.

In which case how can you support something you know is damaging? Genuine question

I feel the same way. I wouldn't criticise or judge a woman for being a prostitute

I would in certain circumstances. If any of the happy hooker brigade who turn up here (including last week's one with her appalling views on consent and underage children) are real, then I very much will criticise their choices.

I am not sure about "supporting an individual woman's choice to be a prostitute" either. If someone is making a choice that it damaging to themselves and to other people, then surely it is wrong to support it?

Hmmm. It's really hard. If a woman genuinely is consenting to exchange sex for money, totally happy to do that and not coerced in any way then I feel it's none of my business.
Not sure if any such women truly exist however. I know we get some on here but many don't seem entirely genuine.
I would rather talk about prostitution as a whole and societies response to it. The Nordic model for example, I genuinely can't understand people's objections to It, especially in light of what happens in countries white sex work is full decriminalised

But I am a liberal politically so partial to a bit of fence sitting

Well, obviously as a radical feminist, I think that we should be refusing to accept the view that men are entitled to buy woman's bodies,.....

Oh Ok Datun I understand now. Thanks.

I think we should all agree that it is not valid to support every decision a woman makes just by virtue of her being a woman making a decision.

If a woman decides to get a job in an arms firm selling weapons to a dictator, then that might be a success in terms of a woman breaking into a male dominated industry, but it still is a bad decision morally. There are literally endless choices a woman could make that she should not have done. The question is not whether she should be judged negatively for those choices, but that she should be held to the same standards as men.

Men and women should be judged for the decisions they make, but by exactly the same standards.

E.g. If you're a man and you sleep with a fifteen year old girl, you're not a bit of a lad, you're an old perv. If you're a woman and sleep with a fifteen year old boy, you're no worse than the man, but you're no less an old perv.

I don't support something I know is damaging. I support a woman's right to do something damaging.

It relates to the classic small 'l' liberalism and the Voltaire quote "I'm may not agree with what you say but would defend to my death your right to say it" - an approximation of the actual quote.

Lots of people make damaging choices - smoking - but it is legal and they can choose to do it. Society puts limits on those choices to ameliorate the impact on others, but the choice remains. That is what I think defines classic liberalism.

To ameliorate the impact the onus needs to be on the punters to guarantee free consent.

"Big sigh. My original point stands. It was a generic point about discussion in general and not specific to this thread. There are discussions where fingers are pointed and women told they can't be feminists."

A bit strange to make whole individual post telling people not to say something that is such a rare event you would have to "search FWR" to find an example of.

I am sorry to labour r this point, but it's something that happens to feminists a lot. And every time it happens, it lodges in people's brains that "women are being told they can't be feminists because..." or "feminists don't want equality, they want superiority" or "feminists shout at men who hold doors open" or whatever the canard de jour is.