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......

@LangCleg I understand your position, but want to know, not theoretically but practically what do you say to these women?

I dont use phrases like “the happy hooker’ about actual people. Someone always pops up with a friend who has a fabulous apartment and a luxurious lifestyle from turning a couple of tricks a day. They are as fictional as Belle de Jour- or The Happy Hooker.or as the women paying tfor their PhDs by working as escorts. They are smoke screens to take people’s minds off what is happening to real women in the meat market thT is the modern sex industry.

The phrase was used earlier on this thread and I was the only poster to question its use.

Mousse, upthread I made the comparison between prostitution and selling organs. There may well be people who think "I have a kidney, I fancy a new car, I don't actually need the car but it would be nice" and genuinely would be prepared to sell an organ, uncoerced by outside circumstances. However, typically as a society we recognise that the right of that person to sell a kidney is not worth the hit to hundreds of poor and desperate people, so we outlaw the sale of organs for everyone.

I tend to view prostitution the same way - all the evidence (Germany for instance, or Nevada) suggests that decriminalisation sends rates of trafficking sky high because legitimising demand leads to a situation where far more women are needed to "service" the men than can be supplied by women voluntarily going into the business.

It also has knock on effects on the lives of all women, in terms of increasing kerb-crawling and harassment.

I think (IIRC) you described yourself as a classical liberal. Now, in my experience, classical liberalism doesn't defend everything on the grounds of free choice on the part of the individual - it is accepted that some actions have such serious knock-on consequences that society as a whole shouldn't tolerate them, even if that requires some infringement of the rights of the individual.

It's like magic! Mouseemoose, if you agree that it's a minority who are actively choosing to work in the sex industry then why do all conversations about the sex industry need to center that minority?

@HairyBallTheorem ok so my rights end where they impinge on yours. A woman working as a prostitute impacts negatively on all women. I get that.

But we don't criminalise that woman do we under the Nordic model, we just let her continue in a grey area of legality. As feminists do we work to convince her to change or ignore her choice because it makes us uncomfortable?

Re the Weetabix box thread, why do so many people think it's cute and funny that their husbands do that? Mine would be out on his ear if he just left things for me to do that he could have easily done himself.

Moussemoose

The radfem solution for the 97-99% of women working in the sex industry who wish to leave it is to provide exit and support services to include trauma therapy, drug services if needed, accommodation support, retraining and help into employment.

The radfem solution for the 1-3% of women working in the sex industry who are happy is to decriminalise them and - respectfully - point out that the damage the industry does to the vast majority of women working in it, the links it has to organised crime and damage it does to wider society, means that we will be criminalising buyers, pimps and traffickers in the hopes of shutting it down.

I don't think you have to choose. I can hold two beliefs in my mind at once. The 1000 trafficked women need help and support through the law and changing societal attitudes. AND at the same time I can wonder about the position of the minority.

The reason the discussion focuses on the minority is because it is not as clear cut, that is where the confusion and possibility for disagreement is, so that is where the discussion centres.

@LangCleg respectfully the radfems don't own that position many people share it.

The reason the discussion focuses on the minority is because it is not as clear cut, that is where the confusion and possibility for disagreement is, so that is where the discussion centres.

That explanation might make sense if the existence of the minority wasn't being used to shut down any attempt to discuss the majority and decry attempts to help them as a "rescue industry" just because the minority don't want to be rescued.

respectfully the radfems don't own that position many people share it

Nobody said they did. You asked. I answered.

And again, you reframed what I had said to the level of the individual. Which is the very point I have made several times on this thread. The current iteration of libfem thought cannot understand radfem thought because it cannot/will not reconceptualise an issue from its individualist default to a structural/class analysis starting point.

But what Lang is describing is the Nordic model (and I agree, it's not exclusive to radfems to hold that view). It provides support with exit strategies, a social security network, decriminalises the women completely, while criminalising the behaviour of the male punters and pimps.

I've seen at least one prostitute on here (at the high-end escort end of the market) say she actually prefers working in countries with criminalization of punters, because (a) it keeps prices up (in Germany I believe the price for a blow job on the back streets of Hamburg from a trafficked woman won't buy her a big Mac) and (b) it makes the men behave themselves, because they, and not you, are doing something illegal, so they can't risk being reported to the police.

Like, there are some women working in the sex industry willingly? Yes, we all know that. What does that have to do with the discussion that was happening about trafficking, say, before someone jumped in to point out something that everyone already knows?

It's whataboutery, basically.

The minority are used to refocus the discussion so dismissing them and ignoring them isn't working to promote anything or change the law.

Decriminalisation of prostitution but prosecuting punters allows the minority to carry on working, and allows for individual choice, so a libfem solution....

What you're describing is the Nordic model, though, Mousse. Off the top of my head the only western nation I can think of which criminalises prostitutes themselves is the USA. (Canada, France, Ireland as well as Sweden and Norway all have the Nordic model. In the UK prostitution is not illegal, nor is the buying of sex, but soliciting and kerb-crawling, along with brothel keeping are illegal).

Refocus the discussion for what purpose? Why is it so important that we not focus on the majority?

No choices for you, say us evil radfems! Literally none. You will no longer choose the breakfast cereal that you prefer, the central committee will make that choice for you because that's totally how this works.

@LangCleg and as has been said previously posters can understand class analysis they just may not agree with it. Don't confuse disagreement with lack of understanding.

I am fully aware of class analysis but study it more from a Marxist perspective. It could be argued that radfems are using feminism as a form of opiate to distract themselves from the real issue of capitalism. While fighting a hopeless case against men capitalism is dividing the poor allowing the rich to continue to exploit. Women are merely dividing the working class, fragmentation helps the capitalist elite.

I understand class analysis, in relation to feminism and capitalism however practically i like solution based ideas. Real, practical in the next 5 years type solutions.

It could be argued

And often is by misogynistic men on the left. Doesn't sound any more convincing coming from you.

I get you on the "in the next 5 years" thing. But consider this - the equal pay act was back in 1972, 46 years ago.

Nowhere near as long ago as that, I had to take my then employer to court for equal pay. I won. The women working in Tescos and Sainsburys (and several other supermarkets) are taking their employers to court even now.

The fact that the liberal solution was put in place 46 years ago (and all power to those who forced it through, particularly Barbara Castle - a liberal hero if ever there was one), yet we are still fighting the same battles nearly 50 years later - and then only with trade union backing to supply the legal fees (women in small companies who aren't unionised are stuffed) I think says that liberalism on its own isn't doing the job.

@AngryAttackKittens I used the expression "it could be argued" to distance myself from the argument. I don't agree with that point. I was merely pointing out I understand class analysis and reject it practically from both Marxists and radfems.

Love the theory, but find it practically frustrating. I can write a lovey essay discussing the issues but want to work at practical solutions and a feminism I can live.

Still waiting on the reason why it's important to recenter the discussion about the sex industry away from the majority who want out and towards the minority who don't.

Yes, it’s interesting that there is a belief that radical feminists look down on and despise prostitutes and women in porn. I have no idea where that comes from

Me neither.

I read a Paris Lees tweet the other day about "if your feminism doesn't include.... it's not feminism". As well as the predictable transwomen, the list included WoC [hello veiled "white middle-class feminist" insult], working class women [ditto] and sex workers.

And I thought, but but but but it's those nasty rad fems who want to do something about sex workers, not the lib fems who think that it's an empowering choice for about three women a year some, and to hell with those who are coerced into it or prevented from leaving

You need both legal and cultural changes to make a change in status for a given group stick. There are multiple countries where on paper women are legally equal to men but in practice they're at the bottom of the OECD list on "gender" equality every year. Changing the law is important, but by itself it isn't enough.