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......

I have taken a thing about local feminists addressing period poverty and have pointed out that such local activism can be used in other ways to help.

That's a very good point, Angry. The radical feminist, being aware of herself as a subject ascribed meaning via her legs, knowing that she is signalling her assent to the codes which state female legs must be shaven but being unwilling for various reasons to be a site of meaning the opposite.... should get her girlfriends to help her feel comfortable with her little hang-up and have a nice swim.

Thanks bertrand. Sorry angry if that was to me I didn't understand, I'm in way over my head here!

No worries, hollow, not meant for you!

Explains why I didn't understand it then! Thanks for clarifying!

It can't possibly be true that any choice a woman makes is by definition a feminist choice.

Firstly, there are plenty of women who are sexists. eg who will prevent their daughters (but not their sons) from participating in active kinds of play that might damage their pretty dress. Who discourage their daughters (but not their sons) from bothering with maths and science. Who actively choose gender-marketed toys only for their dc of the target gender. I have seen all these and more too many times to count. It cannot be a feminist choice to actively choose to perpetuate sexism in the next generation.

Secondly any choice a woman makes is constrained by the options she feels are open to her. Even if the law says that all choices are open to her, it is unlikely that many women would be completely free from all learned societal expectations that push her more towards some choices than others. Not all women will be sufficiently self-aware to recognise these pressures and so many will make their choices from among a more limited range rather than the full range of legally viable options. The choice cannot therefore be guaranteed to have been made freely, or be by definition feminist, for as long as there are gender-related expectations in society.

Obviously many women can and do make feminist choices very regularly. In order for a woman to be able to make a feminist choice she must be sufficiently aware of her own learned biases and social expectations and have made a conscious choice to reject the sexist ones. She must also be sufficiently empowered and free from the control or expectations of others that she need not be concerned about any consequences of the choice she makes from others who may not yet have thrown off the shackles of sexism.

It will be a very very long time before that applies to all women.

The Onion got a certain kind of pseudo-feminism spot on.

www.theonion.com/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does-1819566746

I don't see it as a personal failing or a weakness. I am seeing it as a problem that Bert has. And not only her, I think I commented to another poster a little while back on the same issue and her negative feelings about shaving and her worries about what she was conveying to her DD.

Viewed through this libfem's lens, women with this problem have a number of choices.

1. Don't go swimming, so that you don't have to feel bad about shaving.
2. Shave, go swimming and feel bad about it.
3. Shave, go swimming and feel good.
4. Don't shave, go swimming and feel good about it.

Whatever the individual decides is down to them and comes with understanding and no criticism.

For Bert, who has given her personal experience, solution 4 would appear to be the one that is the best fit. So then we look at the barriers she faces in making that choice and how they can be overcome.

Getting together and doing it with other women can help.

Dione seriously, seriously, seriously, S-T-O-P. This is now making for deeply unpleasant reading. You've been asked several times to stop making your posts about another MNer. Respect that. S-T-O-P.

“choices aren’t free because of societal expectations/customisation/culture, that applies to men too right?”

Absolutely it does. That’s why feminism is good for men too!

Champion That's a good point, men who don't conform to male expectations, for example showing emotions other than anger will have to deal with the social stigma and be told to "man up". As a result men are conditioned to respond to stress/sadness/embarrassment with anger.

The radfem position is that this is due to the gender system, and removing that would benefit men (in that they'd be less conditioned) and also women (who are often the victims of the anger).

I completely agree.

I speak as a mother of a DS who loved Ballet at preschool and in reception - and then was bullied out of it in year 1 by his female classmates who didn't believe it was reasonable for a boy to do ballet.

I’m not trying to do a WATM, my view is working to get rid of gender will help women AND men to be free to behave/live in the way they want.*

Abso-fucking-lutely.

You don't have to be a girl to wear a dress. Be a boy in a dress. Hell, be a boy with pigtails, nail varnish and a dress. You're still a boy.

Shag men. Shag men and sometimes women. Shag women. Shag no-one. If you've a penis, you're a man, and you've as much claim to that title as anyone else.

You don't have to be a mum to take time off work to care for children. You don't have to be a woman to take leave to run your elderly parent to a hospital appointment.

But socialisation makes it so - being a loving, sensitive or caring man is always commented on. Either negatively ("man up", "big boys don't cry") or positively ("well-trained", "aren't you good?")

This is why transgenderism is not progressive at all. It plays into gender stereotypes and is often homophobic. Ever stopped to think why you rarely hear "transmen are men", or why there are specific clauses in the dogma to exclude trans-identifying women from inheriting ahead of a younger brother (primogeniture) or going topless in a pool? Transmen and transwomen are both seen as a subset of women and it's because any person who doesn't rigidly fit a strict code for men (the elite, #1 thing to be in this world) is kicked out and othered.

Arguably it is easier for a girl to be gender-non-conforming ("tomboy") up until a certain age: it's natural to aspire to be the best, and men are the best!

Once she gets to womenhood, though, it becomes more important to keep men on side by being a sexual plaything or attractive to look at. If you're not those things, aspire to be "helpful" or "kind", there's a good girl.

Oh right, thank you Lang, now I get what you're saying.

The most practical feminist encounter I have had recently is with a man who is a regional organiser for Unison. He is taking practical, actual steps that might make it possible for a large number of female staff working in crap conditions to organise.

He is offering ( hopefully) a way for these ( mainly) women to improve their pay and conditions. He is working with others to help women join together to empower themselves.

No theory, no class analysis, no angst about leg shaving just practical, actual actions that some brave women might take that will have a big impact on their lives and the lives of others.

That is what I would call traditional 1980s liberal feminism. Using legal organisations to change lives. It might not be ideologically pure, it might have a man involved, but it might, it just might allow these women to have some kind of collective bargaining power.

Enough with the theory, join a picket line.

Impossible to do both, right? No radical feminist has ever stood in a picket line. This is a 100% true statement and not in any way Mousemoose posturing in an attempt to shore up a rather weak position.

I have advocated having a strong theoretical base on this and other threads. I have suggested on this thread no one owns opinions or law changes radfems and libfems can both support the same law changes. I have mentioned on this and other threads I can support more than one opinion, theoretical, practical and individual.

I have never said, it is impossible to do both. In fact I would strongly encourage people to theorise and act. But the over emphasis on the theoretical purity of radical feminism is off putting, especially when very few of us can hope to achieve it in our real lives.

Theory is lovely, but it is theory, a vanguard to follow not a recipe for life. In the mean time get practical and sign petitions and join picket lines.

I'm sorry if you feel that is a weak position. I was inspired by Unisons attempt to fight back. Criticise me all you like but if go and contribute to Unisons Dignity in Care campaign I will be happy.

If you don't think that theory and activism have an oppositional relationship then don't present your activism as an alternate to other people's supposed theory only position. It was a petty snipe at radfems and deserves to be called out as such.

"Enough with the theory"

Not - stop the theory - or - no theory - or - abandon the theory - or - the theorising is wrong - nope - enough with the theory.

Yes it was a swipe because I feel too much time is spent theorising and examining the details when, traditional liberal feminist that I am, I think practical action and changes to laws do have an impact and do make a difference.

Have you had a look at the Unison website yet? All you lurkers off you go google 'Dignity in Care' and donate. Don't care if you hate me these people deserve our support.

You have the right to state your opinion but you do not have the right to prevent other women from pushing back. Nor to give us instructions as to which particular causes we must donate to. This is not a cult and you are not our glorious leader.

(This would be the case regardless of which cause you were demanding that we donate to, before you head off down that route.)

Theory is lovely, but it is theory, a vanguard to follow not a recipe for life. In the mean time get practical and sign petitions and join picket lines.

Or you know, use theory to look for root causes and methods used to oppress women so that you can then focus on the improvements and changes that will make the most difference.

I think some people put feminist theory in the same camp as film studies and literature studies, which it can definitely involve - but it's way more than that. You would expect (or at least hope) economists, politicians, psychologists and social scientists to research and understand a subject matter so that they know what needs fixing and how.