Can we talk about liberal feminism?

[BertrandRussell]

Can I say what liberal feminism means to me, then can others tell me whether I am understanding it properly?
My understanding is that liberal feminists believe

1. There are no-or very few structural or societal barriers in the way of women's progress. There were, but since the passing of equality legistation they have been almost-if not completely removed
2. That any choice a woman makes is by definition a feminist choice.
3. That women hold the keys of their own empowerment in their own hands- they have nothing to fear but fear itself, to coin a phrase- and realising this is the touchstone to progress.

Is that broadly it? Or am I madly wide of the mark......

• can hold = can’t hold

“I have seen people dismissed as handmaidens before though“

I wouldn’t: dismiss a woman as a handmaiden. But there are women who collude and enable male entitlement. All the way from supporting rapists and demonizing their victims to the tiresome litany of “men can’t cook/clean/look after children/find things/put cups in the dishwasher/mop up their own piss/buy Christmas present/haveemotional intelligence etc etc etc” And I have no hesitation on calling women out on this. And for anyone who is about to acccuse me of using gendered insults, then yes, I am! And I suspect that for the people who get so angry about the “handmaiden” word , it is a case of the truth hurting.

I think there's a lot in that Angry. It's not as simple as saying "if you could cast aside your prisms you'd feel like I do" because I don't feel that way. I can 100% see how you could and how you would, I just don't.

To me there are several good explanations on here as to why one would take a libfem stance and the only thing libfems can't explain is why, if they understand all the arguments for radical feminism, they still think liberal feminism is the way to go. So it's an impasse. But I don't think it's one that needs to be overcome. ...but then again I'm a liberal feminist, so I wouldn't.

Given that the discussion is framed in very very loose concepts about 'radfem' (very broad umbrella term) and 'libfem' (very broad umbrella term) - I don't think what I said was demonising radfems, any more than any of the very hazy loose definitions being used about libfems are unfairly demonisng certain perspectives about individual choice. However I am sorry if that is how you it impacted you.

I think it would help to recognise that there are very many nuanced feminist theories and theologies, and if we are going to examine some of the differences (and reasons for the differences) between those theories and disciplines, perhaps looking at specific different feminist theories in isolation (in order to have a working knowledge of it) would be more useful?

Sort of like online workshops for different disciplines?

“Interesting Bertrand that there are elements of radical feminism that you can “fail to recognise” but you can hold that same thought for women who chose liberal feminism?”

Effic- I fail to recognize it because it is something that no feminist, radical or otherwise, has ever said! It is the sort of thing that non feminists say all the time, though- the men just can’t help themselves, it’s up to women to police their sexuality.

You say you’re quite new to feminism- can I ask what you’ve been reading?

I like the sound of that ALuner!

Efficient, assuming you actually want to engage, can we at least agree on some facts - namely that 90% of violent crime and 98% of sexual crime is committed by men, and that the victims are overwhelmingly female (approx 85000 female rape victims a year against 12000 male victims for instance, with - because of the legal definition of rape in the UK - all the perpetrators being male).

I'm interested in what you think is the reason for this imbalance. Is it purely coincidental; we could have had a society just like ours in all respects except those figures could have been the other way round? Or is it an observation about our society which is calling out for some sort of explanation?

Shifting from violence to other areas, why are Tesco shop staff (predominantly female) paid three pounds an hour less than their warehouse staff (predominantly male) for jobs which require similar skill levels and physical lifting (in fact arguably the shop staff require an extra level of skill in dealing with awkward customers). Is this just a historical accident? If so how come it's an accident that's repeated all over the world in different cultures?

I think you know very well that suggesting that any feminist doesn't think men are fully responsible for any acts of rape that they commit is going to come across as deeply offensive, Lunar.

@Rat, prisms comment wasn't mine.

I know Angry, I was just taking a wander back to it after you saying many radfems start out as libfems. Which I think is really pertinent to understanding the tensions between the two.

Apologies for the confusion.

I know this thread has gone a bit off kilter, but I just want to correct the second post on this thread.

That states that a RadFem would want 24 hour childcare and compulsory creches. I think that idea phenomenally misses the point.

A RadFem would want reproductive labour to be suitably rewarded, making it unnecessary for a woman to have to go 'back to work' if she didn't want to.

This will require such a systematic dismantling of the patriarchy and capitalism as we know it that it would be 'radical', rather than begging for piecemeal reformation of a system that simply doesn't suit the vast majority of women (and workers for that matter).

I think that a lot of the disagreement between 'liberal' and rad fems is due to the fact that you can infact agree with both approaches, but a lot of RadFems have the caveat that you need to go further.

i.e. I am broadly very supportive of legislation that has supported shared parental leave. There is significant evidence that the outcomes are better, for all and promote equality of opportunity (and therefore the narrowing of social disparities) in many areas where it is already in place. However, I also think women should be rewarded in such a way for childrearing that these breadcrumbs of legislation change should never have been necessary in the first place.

Of course radnical feminists know its men who commit rape. Do you think we imagine singular penises strutting down the street choosing women at random to attack? Thats got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here. And thats saying something.

the idea that person with penis = possible rapist

But the way you put it was obviously meant to be goady. There is no possible other way to read it tbh.

I, Male Feminist, totally support your right to suck my cock! Wait, you don't want to do that? Obviously you don't understand feminism, let me explain.

Yup, thats about the jist of it.

Not All Male Feminists Are Like That

Do I need to keep doing the disclaimers or it it ok to drop them now?

My point was that the typical libfem way of looking at the world isn't unfamiliar to most radfems because many of us used to see things that way too. It's not that we're unfamiliar with the arguments that you're making, we just don't agree with them.

I don't think it's possible to have any sort of useful discussion about liberal versus radical feminism without considering the impact of sex positivism on the way modern liberal feminists frame "choice" issues and how very differently that whole framework looks from a radical perspective, but honestly don't feel that that's likely to be a productive discussion in this space given some of the comments that have already been made.

Do you think we imagine singular penises strutting down the street choosing women at random to attack?

Like this short story, but with a cock instead of a nose!

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/gogol/nikolai/g61n/

I'm completely agreeing with your point Angry and I think this - It's not that we're unfamiliar with the arguments that you're making, we just don't agree with them. - can go both ways.

WazFlim I found your post really interesting, thanks.

Based on what's been said in this thread the people who're coming from a more liberal perspective aren't familiar with radical arguments, though. As in, not just slightly off, 180 degrees off we have entered the Twilight Zone wrong.

That has also been shown to go both ways, has it not?

It's not that we're unfamiliar with the arguments that you're making, we just don't agree with them. - can go both ways.

Of course :)

I really am not understanding why libfems and radfems need to be pitted against each other anyway? AFAIK, we all have the same goals, just different ways to go about them.

I have been repetitive on here but I think a huge problem in this whole thing, is people just saying they are feminist as an excuse to abuse women and get away with it. By this I mean the 'modern day liberal feminists' (who are, mostly male) who will yell SWERF and start (often) misogynistic abuse at anyone who disagrees with their sex positive stuff..not actual libfems. Seems very, divide and conquer to me. Which is extremely suspicious as who would benefit from feminists infighting and 'taking their eye off the ball' so to speak?

To the extent of thinking that radfems don't hold men responsible for committing rape? I mean, unless someone has suggested that liberal feminists think women shouldn't be allowed to have jobs or vote...

One thing I would like to see is a distinction between "liberal" on the one hand in the sense of synonym for "let it all hang out" (right wing hard-of-thinking types) and as a synonym for "we're on the right side of history" (left wing hard-of-thinking types), and on the other hand "liberal" as a political theory.

A liberal feminism rooted in liberal political theory is a good thing, IMO, and as a practical, pragmatic strategy would have a lot to offer.

An emphasis on equality - great idea!

So a defence of individual rights and freedom of choice against an interfering establishment? That's a basis on which to fight against stopping women going into certain careers, or being expected to adhere to ridiculous dress codes.

JS Mills distinction between positive and negative rights (the "your right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose" position) - great idea, and could usefully be applied to situations like TIMs in health care offering to do a woman's smear test - her "no" would trump their "yes".

Even some of the tenets of rule-based utilitarianism could be useful. Even most political liberals don't argue that it's okay to sell kidneys, because the benefit to a single individual in an extremely unusual situation where that individual can be shown to be free from all social and economic pressure is outweighed by the needs of the very many more people who would only be doing it out of dire financial need - now there's an argument which could be applied to prostitution as well.

The limitation of liberal theory (specially of Rawlsian "initial position" thought experiments) is that, as a very wise friend of mine put it, "we come into the game part way through." We're born into a society with such massive economic and power imbalances that simply saying "you all have equal rights on paper" rarely helps the people at the bottom of the pile. It's a necessary condition, a belief a society must have to be considered civilized, but it's not a sufficient condition - in and of itself, it won't remove inequality.

Which for me is where radical feminism comes in - analysing the sources of inequality has to be a first step to addressing them.

Yeah that was part of what I was getting at with male feminists and sex positivism, Goals. A lot of men have figured out that they can use the language of sex positivism to manipulate women into doing things that the women may not actually want to do. Where the radfem versus libfem divide comes in on that particular issue is that it's pretty hard for a male predator to embed himself in radfem circles because we don't think men can be feminists anyway and certainly aren't interested in anything they have to say about sex work being empowering etc. There have been multiple male predators and assorted creeps who've embedded themselves in libfem groups and proceeded to use sex positivism against the women in those spaces, though.

I'm sure there's a radfems out there who thinks liberal feminism is tantamount to chaining women to the kitchen sink, and if they posted as much on mumsnet i still wouldn't use it to say "radfems don't understand the libfem position".

Undoubtedly they'd even say they think that because they do understand the libfem position, so really there's no winning!

Radical feminist = I am a victim, i have no choice or power because of men and I can’t change things. It’s up to men to do that for me.

Er no. We try to change things every day.

I think classical liberal feminism has been hijacked by neoliberalism/sex positive/choice movements. Originally liberal feminism was about women gaining the vote and fighting for equality through political representation. Liberal feminists were fundamental to the suffrage movement.

For me liberal feminism believes that equality can be achieved via political and legal change but within society as it exists currently (right to vote, reproductive rights enshrined in law, right to education and equally paid work enshrined in law, sexual violence and harassement recognised as political issues). And in many ways, classical liberal feminists are right and much good has been done. That liberal feminism has been defanged by 3rd wave stuff is not the fault of classical liberal feminists IMO. It does however show that the original theory has only been able to get us so far.

I think liberal feminism has done an extraordinary amount for women but liberal feminism only works when it coexists with radical feminism, with the radicals pushing for radical action and moving the Overton Window and the liberals working within the law and mainstream politics as attitudes shift. At the moment what passes for liberal feminism has turned its back on radical feminism and it has lost its focus. Which is a shame.

I'm sure there's a radfems out there who thinks liberal feminism is tantamount to chaining women to the kitchen sink

Feel free to let us know when you find one, eh? We can introduce her to Lunar's radfem who doesn't think men are responsible for their decision to rape and they can be each other's imaginary friends.

(Fellow radfems, feel free to let me know if my inbuilt snark level is a bit too much for this thread and you'd prefer that I bow out and leave the discussion to those who're a bit more patient.)