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

OK do you know what. You are right and I am wrong. You are in fact the Queen of Right and I was,and am, wrong. I am a bad, bad feminist who made a mistake.

Now can we get on with the rest of the debate please?

You support people's right to do damaging, immoral things? I don't.

Perhaps you could take Bertrand's point on board. It's quite accurate.

"Surely the whole point of social justice is that it is an ideological purity movement. There is no space for dissent whatsoever.

It goes dissenter identified, dissenter called out and shamed, dissenter apologises profusely, dissenter accuses others to show they have been educated."

SylviaPoe so does that make social justice anti-rational? If there isn't some wriggle room to debate then where does this ideological "purity" even come from in the first place?

You have to accept dissent when hashing out an idea and when deciding how to implement that idea.

Taking this prostitution thread by way of example my guess is that nobody is content with the status quo i.e. the substantive risks accrued to those who do it. This point is as far as I know incontrovertible. Just by being a prostitute puts you at a statistically higher risk of being assaulted/murdered. Just look at gov statistics.

We seem to bottleneck around the discussion of happy hookers who by some mechanism seem to be able to sniff out and thus avoid the men who assault/murder other prostitutes. Personally I wish they'd all consider careers in law enforcement/ security as their ability to identify murderous/violent men based on a few moments interaction would be very well served in airports, and public events to stop terrorism.

However as important as agency is (and it is important) why is it more important than the general background violence this activity seems to attract?

I know this argument runs that by changing the law to allow women to work together to increase safety, fair enough but how to do that without opening the doors to those German style brothels?

I'm sorry but I have more questions than answers which is why hearing from those who feel strongly one way or another is so important.

As such my view on this has been informed by mumsnet feminism threads, and so far the radfems have had the better arguments. That's not to say there isn't some merit in what the libfems say, but the radfem position seems pretty well fleshed out and they have a plan to implement it (the Nordic model), so why not give that a go and see how it goes after a few years?

Won't happen, Ereskigal. Bit of misdirection. Bit of mockery. And so the myths become entrenched.

Ereshkigal

Yes I could take the point on board, or i could go on another thread and source a few quotes. I am confident I could source quotes. However, to go on another thread and then quote people on this thread to prove a point is not a reasonable way to behave.

To find a quote and then use it when that person may have name changed or may not be involved in this thread is not reasonable or fair.

I am making generic points that other posters have agreed with and recognised because to make a specific point relating to posts on other threads is not fair to other posters. We could end up discussing what they posted without their involvement. You might think that is OK but I really don't.

In terms of "won't happen" comment i assume you mean i wont take your point on board I understand your point and explained mine. I have apologised for my misquote and explained why I choose not to source quotes unless I am certain that poster is on this thread. Have you taken my point on board.

I can only apologise to everyone else who is trying to get on with the discussion.

I agree with Dervel.

For any social justice movement to have any significant efficacy, there has to be a consensus on what the values of the movement are(opposition to prostitution); how those values can be realised in concrete goals (the Nordic model) and the political will to enforce it along with a degree of intolerance of any dissent from those tenets/values. You have to be a bit hard ass about it.

In order to change things there has to be will, consensus and force. A woolly liberal attempt to accommodate every individuals sensibilities and views did not get women the right to vote or repeal Jim Crow laws.

Gentlemanjohn

You support people's right to do damaging, immoral things? I don't

The essence of liberalism is to allow people to do stupid shit.

Gentlemanjohn

Sorry to get historical but it was peaceful protest and working within the system and getting the laws that existed enforced that defeated (?) Jim Crow.

Most suffragettes protested peacefully and within the law.

Woolly liberalism brought in the Abortion Act in 1967.

Liberalism has its uses.

Well I'm not a liberal, but even if I was one I'd dispute that conclusion.

The idea that people should be able to do what they like because..hey...we should all be...like...free and shit...is not worthy of debate.

People laid down their lives to change those things. I'm not advocating physical violence, I'm advocating a strategised, organised force or pressure (which does not have to be violent - think of Gandhi) being brought to bear on a system of power. In order to that happen an uncompromising vision is required. You can't have lots of people all believing their own thing. It would be a mess.

Interesting that you don't get liberal anti racists. "well, I think he shouldn't discriminate against black people when he's renting his flat out, but hey, it's a free country- it's his decision"

Moussemoose
So now you want to suggest that people may be name changing to post on different threads, and that other people are not peaceful when they protest.
Thats pretty nasty propaganda.

There is nothing inherently peaceful about liberalism. Did you miss the US university riots? Or the Dykes March where the trans crowd had blood spattered t-shirts with threats printed on them, pick axe handles and baseball bats?

Liberalism (small l) you can do what you want until it impacts directly on other people. Racism impacts directly on others as does sexism and disability discrimination hence the legislation to stop this form of discrimination.

If people 'choose' to be prostitutes this does not directly impact on the liberty of another person. On a societal level it does have negative effects but not specifically on another individual.

Gentlemanjohn yes people did lay down their lives but NAACP and MLK Jr very deliberately worked within the law. They initially belived changing the law would improve their lives. When the Civil Rights Act did not change their lives much more radical movements developed - Black Power - and it was from the radical black power movement radical feminism took shape.

Ghandi was much more about breaking unjust laws.

DJBaggySmalls

What I am saying is I will not quote from another thread on this one.

Not quiet sure what you mean in relation to peaceful protest and why you think I am being nasty. I was pointing out woolly liberals have made some very important legislative changes like the 1967 Abortion Act.

I'm happy to clarify anything else if I can.

Gentlemanjohn well here's thing I am quite liberal, but also quite anti-social justice (in it's contemporary incarnation at least). However the shadow that hovers over the discussion for me is the violence and murder that hovers over this discussion like a specter.

It's male violence as well, so if we're naming the problem I cannot in good conscience proceed with my usual live and let live, or horses for courses attitude until that is addressed and corrected.

So I don't think you have to be 100% uncompromising to reach the same place. Fact is the situation as is is not tenable. The liberal position is to completely deregulate which I cannot see doing anything but making matters worse, so for now I break with my usual center right liberal position. The Nordic model may not be ideal, but I'm fully committed to giving it a try, and see where we are further down the line.

The idea of men treating women as comodities to be bought and sold is repugnant. The idea that any sort of feminist would collude with it is repugnant.

It is extraordinary that we are even discussing which is the best -or least worst- system for men to buy women.

The Nordic model allows women the choice to continue acting as prostitutes.

The essence of liberalism.

It's like needle exchange. If someone is going to do it do you try to make it as safe as possible or stand there telling them to stop.

"The Nordic model allows women the choice to continue acting as prostitutes"

And allows men to continue to treat women as commodities.

Mousemoose I am not advocating breaking the law (although sometimes it is arguably necessary). Even if some people are attempting to bring about change within the existing legal framework, the same focused pressure has to be exerted.

I'm not talking Molotov cocktails here. Peaceful mass protests can do trick, but only if a specific demands or set of demands are made. SJW's of late have shown a tendency to protest against attitudinal generalities (racism, the patriarchy) rather than for anything in particular. While I'm not 100% sure about the ramifications of the Nordic law, it is the one radical, achievable concrete goal that I can think of to have been advanced by feminists of late. Not everyone will like it, including some women, but hey, there were a few black slave owners who were against abolition. The thing with fighting for these changes is that there will always be lots of people who don't like them. There would be no need to fight otherwise.

Liberalism is flawed because it advances the rights and opinions of the individual over all shared values. A functioning society or a social movement has to be dominated by a set of shared values. Complete incoherence would be the only alternative.

Liberalism is indeed flawed as are all systems and ideologies, you pick the least worst.

The thing with the Nordic model is the Nordic bit. Swedish society is coherent and committed to social democracy and rejects the worst excesses of capitalism. Sweden has those shared values you talk about.

If we attempted it in the UK not enough people would support it wholeheartedly. It needs genuine commitment from the police and sufficient funding of wrap around care.

I mainly lurk on here

I am not very well read when it comes to feminism, dont know any of the the clever stuff

But i have never seen this

There are discussions where fingers are pointed and women told they can't be feminists

It does not hapoen on the feminism threads

Happy to say it may be in AIBU and chat but i will also put money on it thats its not said by feminists...in the same way that meat eaters seem to delight in telling vegetarians that they are doing it wrong

It is NEVER backed up by a link to a FWR thread.....NEVER

I would add that it would be lovely if it could be backed up

It happens on many threads throughout mumsnet

The impact of newspapers has hugely reduced because so much influence comes from online. Mail online is the most read publication online and in print in the uk. It has over 200m clicks a month. They still do have influence.

The problem Ed is that they are selling false information to those who might want to explore feminism. These are people who are purposely willing to look for that extra information on feminism.