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......

Much like the trans debate it seems to be a case of "listen to sex workers...no, not those sex workers".

@HairyBallTheorem liberalism alone isn't doing the job. I am a trade unionist and it is the practicality of the movement that appeals. Unison are doing brilliant work trying to unionise care workers. 80s liberal feminism at it's best.

I support the radfem theorists I think it is important. I have explained on previous threads how every movement needs radical thinkers and practical activists both are vital to the survival and growth of a movement. They are not mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'm interested in the theory but want a more practical, realistic (realistic for me) form of feminism.

@AngryAttackKittens I don't think we need to move the discussion away from the majority. The plight of trafficked women and women forced into prostitution is the big issue. However, the discussion can be diverted so a clear response is needed so the focus can be moved back where it is needed.

Simply saying, that isn't the point or don't worry about them, allows the diversion to continue.

A response - yes you have a choice you can work as a prostitute if you want, it is not illegal. You can work in small groups to maintain personal safety but pimps will be prosecuted.

This allows for personal choice and so shuts the debate down. Now let's focus on the women who need our help.

Out of interest, do we want to live in a society where it’s OK to treat women as commodities to b bought and sold? Even if the woman concerned is willing and has made a completely free choice to be bought and sold?

Unfortunately, BertrandRussell yes we do live in such a society.

Yes and i have met some of these women who have made a 'free choice' dig a little deeper and there is usually a backstory of some abuse/trauma/low self worth

No, I'm not willing to live in a society like that and that's why I want to change society to not be like that any more.

Before anyone jumps in all "aha!" the focus in terms of making that change happen obviously needs to be on men, not the small number of women willingly working in the sex industry. A small amount of willing supply isn't the cause of the problem, demand is.

“Unfortunately, BertrandRussell yes we do live in such a society.”

I know we do. But when we are considering our next moves as a society is it important that we allow the buying and selling of women’s consent to continue? Or should we be moving towards trying to stop it.

Should we move to stop the buying and selling of consent? That is a Marxist argument. In a capitalist society can we stop the buying and selling of anything?

We choose the rules we want for our society. We have decided that buying and selling kidneys isn’t a good idea. Why not make the same decision about consent?

I understand class analysis

Then why do you reframe a post about a structural analysis asking what would you say to those women?

Radfem uses a structural lens to view the sex industry as a social harm: it brutalises a majority of the women working in it; it increases the levels of organised crime, human trafficking and modern slavery; it entrenches a harmful view of women by men for women to be seen as commodities to purchase.

That a few of the women working in this industry that constitutes a structural social harm enjoy working in it, does not impact the radfem analysis because the radfem focus is on the structural social harm, not any particular individual.

Some people enjoy taking drugs. Doesn't mean that drug-taking isn't an overall social harm when looked at from a structural standpoint. Same thing.

"In a capitalist society can we stop the buying and selling of anything?"

We can and do stop (or at least legislate) against the buying and selling of lots of things - recreational drugs, ivory, conflict diamonds, toys with lead paint on them, cosmetics that will damage people's skin, meat not fit for human consumption.

Capitalism is rarely, if ever, a complete free-for-all. (An economist I know once said the nearest we'd ever seen to the completely unregulated, neo-liberal, no-holds barred capitalism that is the wet dream of the Friedmanites was post-Soviet Russia, which damn near collapsed into a morass of chaos and organised crime, the aftershocks of which still continue with Putin's kleptocracy. The neoliberal "solution" the west imposed on Russia by making them deregulate everything in sight was not actually a form of capitalism the US or other western democracies practiced themselves).

In a capitalist society can we stop the buying and selling of anything?

Child porn - no on banning it because capitalism and it's just too hard/ideologically unacceptable?

Then why do you reframe a post about a structural analysis asking what would you say to those women?
Because this is a thread about liberal feminism.

We make it illegal but capitalism trumps legality.

I guess we just stop trying then. Defeatism for the win!

I wish I could say that I was sure nobody would suggest that there might be children willingly working in the sex industry too, but if you look at what's been happening in Canada that would no longer be a safe bet, and some of the people making that argument will call themselves feminists.

Not to get all tinfoil hat-ish but reading up on COINTELPRO might be an eye opener for some of our more naive commenters. Leftist movements are infiltrated all the time.

Because this is a thread about liberal feminism.

And how it differs from radical feminism. So I pointed out the main reason that libfems don't understand the radfem position is because they reframe that position into an individual framework. You then reframed my post into an individual framework, thus proving my point. Which is my point!

I'll leave it now, because it's just brick walls and head bangings.

"We make it illegal but capitalism trumps legality."

I'm no longer sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you believe capitalism=the pursuit of profit at all costs and without limits, and that therefore organised crime will always happen, so ... (throws up hands and gives up at this point...)

Because that's not what most defenders of capitalism think of as capitalism. Most capitalists (the economics and business writers on the Telegraph, for instance, who I read most days) would argue that capitalism includes regulations to ensure fair trade. Criminal activity is not part of capitalism, it is... well, criminal.

If you're arguing that all capitalism is ultimately a form of crime when taken far enough, then you're starting to sound way more like an extreme form of Marxist than a liberal! Which is a bit ironic, given your rejection of class analysis.

(On a totally unrelated note, why do Marxist drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft).

Would a liberal feminist support a form of slavery if it were entirely voluntary? If out of poverty, the slave sold themselves in return for the basics of living?

Hadn't really expected to see the libertarian approach to capitalism pop up on a British blog! It's much more common in the US.

In general my approach to regulations failing to control crime is not to throw up my hands and go "oh well I guess there's no point trying to regulate this". Then again, background in evil scary Marxism.

"Hadn't really expected to see the libertarian approach to capitalism pop up on a British blog!"

Well quite. And (as I pointed out a few posts back) the ironic thing is that the US has never practised unregulated free market capitalism (though Trump does fancy re-modelling the US along the lines of Putin's kleptocracy.)

I blame it on Ayn Rand, apparently reading The Fountainhead at an impressionable age ruins a young man for life.

Every time I hear "Ayn Rand" I think of the episode of the Simpsons where Maggie gets sent to the "Ayn Rand Kindergarten." Sorry, random train of thought late night.

That actually sounds kind of promising.

@UpstartCrow Would a liberal feminist support a form of slavery

Well marriage might be a good example. Most people support it,many women engage enthusiastically with it, demand the right to change their name and yet they end up as an unpaid drudge. I suppose most libfems support marriage so the answer to your question might well be yes. I don't though.

When I said capitalism trumps illegality I wasn't supporting capitalism far from it. I think the impact of capitalism is such feminism is not possible within an overly capitalist society. Socialist feminism.

@LangCleg will you stop with the "don't understand" I understand I just don't agree with you. I'm not going to argue on your terms because I don't agree with you. I'm not arguing how you want because I'm not going to put myself on your turf, classic debating trap I'm not falling in to.

You state libfems don't understand a simple class analysis, nonsense. Is patronising other women part of the radfem agenda?