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?

I assumed that was a typo. But I still don't understand.

'Wage and liberation are obviously not synonyms, but it's hard to be liberated without money.'

Yes, I agree. I am saying they are not synonyms, because this from Vesuvia suggested they are:

'Isn't "something to keep the wolves from the door" just another way of saying "security" or "liberation"?'

As for the second part, any suggestion that fathers and mothers share care of children ties women to men in organising domestic care. And many women (particularly radical feminists) have no interest in entering into any kind of domestic relationship with a man.

We did share them, Spartacus. It's just I had naughty fantasies of a salaryman commuting on the train and me in an apron, baby in one arm and mixing bowl in the other, with my whites blowing on the line.

I've never shared that fantasy Eyes. I guess that was how I was brought up and I had an instinct of it, even as a child, as a gilded cage :). Having said that, if independently wealthy I'd give up work in a heartbeat, except for bits that I could do on my own terms, and I'd get fat(ter) from the contents of mixing bowls and such like :).

"And many women (particularly radical feminists) have no interest in entering into any kind of domestic relationship with a man."

Not sure about the "particularly radical feminists" bit, but yes, many women don't But we 're talking about SAHM, aren't we? Do you mean single parent SAHM?

Bert and other radical feminists on this thread, you repeatedly say that your feminism "prioritises women". What exactly do you mean by that and how does it manifest in your RL?

What do you think it means, Dione?

I mean women with dependent children who do not work outside of the home. That's what SAHM means.

There has been plenty of radical feminist writing on separatism, single motherhood and women only households.

One of the greatest changes feminism has brought is that many women can live independently of men and have children, despite poverty, youth or race. Something that has only really been possible for many women within the last fifty years.

I'meant not sure Bert, otherwise I would not have asked the question.

Surely it's possible to be a mixture of various feminist ideologies and still be feminists? Or possibly not.
I think of RadFem as being the purest form of feminism. Like strict vegans. I'm a vegetarian...

^ Heh Eyes ... see socialist feminists think this of socialist feminism because it takes 'other oppressions' into account and was intersectional before this was trendy :)

I would consider someone to be a feminist if they recognise:

1. the need to reduce the massive problem of male violence.

1. the right of women to autonomy, including bodily autonomy.

I am not asking for proof, nor am I only asking Bert. I am asking what "prioritising women" means in the RL of the radical feminists here. I don't think it is a difficult or inappropriate question Morningrunner.

I can tell you what it meant in the old language Dione - it meant prioritising patriarchy as the original oppression and the one that feminists should be most concerned with. It also mean that where the personal is political that women should always believe women over men and prioritise fighting for women's liberation where there might be a choice between oppressions. For example, they might have argued that middle class and working class women have more in common as women than they do as being members of different social classes so rather than focussing on ending capitalism we should focus on ending patriarchy and look for common targets of activism (i.e. porn). This is not to say that they didn't recognise that different issues affected women differently - they just saw more commonality than difference. I'm not sure what RF means now, so I can't answer for the present day.

YetAnotherSpartacus

So rad fems focus on the patriarchy while socialist fems believe it capitalism that oppresses most.

Eyes it is essential we have a variety of views. As I have discussed on other threads all movements have a variety of members all of whom are important to the cause.

A political movement has active members, people who do stuff.
A political movement often (not always) has an intellectual base that posits new ideas and pushes the debate forward.
A political movement has people who are interested but non aligned.
A political movement has supporters who do little. They might vote in elections or drop money in a collecting tin.

All are vitally important. By pointing at the supporter group and saying you are not 'real feminists' feminism is denying itself the base layer of support it needs to make real and radical changes. By alienating women who make real life choices we are only hurting ourselves.

I am a feminist who sometimes makes non feminist decisions but I am still a feminist.

So rad fems focus on the patriarchy while socialist fems believe it capitalism that oppresses most

Nope. That was Marxist feminism. Socialist feminism is more of a hybrid (or was) between socialism and radical feminism with a dose of anti-racism thrown in.

YetAnotherSpartacus

Wow I must be more of a Marxist than I thought!

"I am feminist who sometimes makes non feminist decisions but I am still a feminist."
There was a lot of discussion on this very subject downthread.

Mousse - I would not know. I'm stuck in the 80s/90s. Postmodern feminism and the third wave changed it all. All I can suggest is that you go back to basics and read the historical texts - Rowbotham, Mitchell, Oakley, Greer, Friedan, Notes from the First/Second/Third Years, Brownmiller, Firestone, etc. and try to make sense of it for yourself.

It's nice to have company.

Eyes - yes this newfangled, mangled malarkey is way beyond me sometimes. I hanker for the old days :)

I think a lot of revolutions turn out like that. Time to let DD lead the charge!

There's nothing really wrong with the wikipedia explanations of what radical and liberal feminism are.

After that came post modernism, and then the current social justice movement. The current social movement was able to emerge because post modernism had removed the material basis from class analysis. That is what puts it at odds with radical feminism. Perhaps what puts liberal feminism at odds with radical feminism is its lack of any kind of class analysis and its focus on the individual.

Much of what was complained about in the OP is the contemporary social justice movement, rather than liberal feminism particularly.