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......

Yet again, I think theory has a vital part to play. Theory is important in spearheading change. If we are to push the envelope of ideas we need abstract thinkers and theory. Theory is useful when looking at societal issues.

Take Marxism imo brilliant theory but when it has been applied ( I know there are many issues with that statement) the lack of acknowledgment of the individual has brought it down - oversimplification I know. Lenin had to introduce changes to address issues of individualism very early on.

Theory = lovely, brilliant, well done.

However, it is not practical for most people, it is an ideal I certainly can't achieve. I want practical solutions, things I can do a feminism I can live. I admire radfems, especially those who live their beliefs. I can't.

Therefore I look for practical outlets. What I must now refer to as Traditional 1980s Liberal Feminism or T1980LF, is about changing laws and making small incremental improvements in the lives of women. Not glorious or dramatic but hard graft that changes lives.

I honestly don’t understand why people think radical feminists are sitting around navel gazing while liberal feminists do all the work!

And still you are separating theory from practical, when the two are intrinsically linked.

@AngryAttackKittens

I don't mean to "give instructions" just point people in a direction. Hate me all you like but please spread the word about this brilliant campaign by Unison Dignity in Care.

Workers being cheated out of minimum wages, while caring for the elderly. Workers buying basic supplies for their patients because they are not supplied with enough. Working buying their own plastic gloves - basic PPE - because employers provide one set per patient. These workers are mostly women and being exploited because the care.

As I said this campaign is feminism in action because it will improve the lives and working conditions of women. Hopefully.

I honestly don’t understand why people think radical feminists are sitting around navel gazing while liberal feminists do all the work!

Well, quite. Even though I am more radfem adjacent than actual radfem, radfem analysis is the very reason I've spent the last seven years campaigning, donating and volunteering in gendered areas affected by austerity. Radfem structural analysis enabled me to see, for instance, the links between cuts to benefits, legal aid and DV services that would result in poor women being unable to meet their statutory obligations under the Children Act and this would result in a rise in care applications. And lo, it came to pass.

All the while, those in the current iteration of libfem were still busy saying "Not all women are breeders: it's a choice" and are now only just beginning to catch up with the horrors that have happened. If they'd ever seen anything out of that individual/choice prism, they'd have been more on the ball.

I can't speak for other people. I have not said all radfems are theorising and not acting. What I've said is a radfem stance is too theoretical for me.

I can't stick to a radfem agenda, so I won't use the term. You make whatever accommodations you feel comfortable with.

What I will say is it seems posters are looking for a point of division. It feels like barriers are being erected and even sought out. Division serves nobody but the opposition.

@GoodyMog
And still you are separating theory from practical, when the two are intrinsically linked

I gave an example of Bolshevik Russia where the theory and practicality of implementing communism was a real issue faced by Lenin. Not separating theory from practice but suggesting implementing theory in a practical way can cause issues.

I can't speak for other people. I have not said all radfems are theorising and not acting. What I've said is a radfem stance is too theoretical for me.

You're just talking absolute nonsense. In terms of current iterations...

Libfem has a theoretical analysis that starts at the point of the individual.

Radfem has a theoretical analysis that starts at the point of the class.

Neither side is more or less theoretical than the other.

As I have said repeatedly. The current libfem iteration is not for me. As I have said repeatedly I consider myself classic libfem. The type of libfem who got women the vote and fought for the equal pay act.

On the whole I don't want a label. Division between marginalised groups is one of the main reasons progress is not made. I find your People's Front of Judia is the only way to rid us of the Romans view unhelpful. And on that note.

You're just talking absolute nonsense

A bit aggressive for a Saturday morning don't you think?

I find your People's Front of Judia is the only way to rid us of the Romans view unhelpful. And on that note.

And you don't think people who consider themselves liberal feminists do that? TERF and SWERF anyone?

On the cleaner thing - I dont think it is intrinsically anti-radical feminist to have a cleaner. On the contrary - done in the right way it is radical, breaking with the notion that people live in nuclear families that come equipped with a mother / wife who does all the cleaning for free and unnoticed.

While of course it is perfectly possible to have a cleaner and be reactionary and / or exploitative, what I like about having a cleaner (from a political as opposed to a practical stand point :) ) is that the work of cleaning is named, acknowledged, and de-invisibilised. It will never be possible again for a man to live with me and pretend that cleaning happens automatically as far as he is concerned - it's a named item on the budget. we can reaollocate that time / money but we can't do the most reactionary and exploitative thing of all of pretending that it just happens, while the woman in the house does it while the man has leisure time.

The fact is that within capitalism all workers are exploited. I earn a living while being exploited by the owners of means of production and that is how money comes into my house - I don't have a choice, I can't get it any other way except by stealing I guess, which is difficult and high risk. Sadly when I pay someone it's within the same corrupt system and I'm sorry about that. But till the revolution, that's how it is, and I'm not going to make the revolution come any sooner by cleaning my house myself when I should be asleep before going to work again tomorrow (and pretending that it takes no time and is effortless)

@AntiGrinch But till the revolution, that's how it is, and I'm not going to make the revolution come any sooner by cleaning my house myself

A sentiment I can wholeheartedly agree with.

@Ereshkigal And you don't think people who consider themselves liberal feminists do that? TERF and SWERF anyone?

Yes they do, and that is not good. Like I said I don't want a label, but I can use them if I have to. I was replying specifically to posts on this thread that seemed to be seeking points of division. Generally name calling, or using labels people don't like is a bad thing that detracts from the whole cause.

I have issues with the division, by dividing us they conquer us. Together we stand - basic trade unionism.

No, apparently women who have cleaners and nannies are basically evil, according to a Telegraph opinion piece today: www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/todays-alpha-women-owe-liberation-poorly-paid-cleaners-nannies/

I don't see anything wrong with employing a cleaner in principle. It all depends on a) how much you pay them and b) whether you treat them as a servant or a contractor.

DionetheDiabolist this is for you.

One of the issues about employing a cleaner, from a rad fem point of view, is that it is problematic if you argue that women are a class, with a unified class interest. The problem (if you are so minded) is that you immediately have a fracture in the class relationship - the two women are quite clearly not in an identical relationship (one is the employer, the other is the employed, and you can argue that it is slightly different to some other work situations because the work is gendered work, 'woman's work; one woman is able to buy her way out of this gendered work and part of the negative aspects of being female by employing another woman to do it).

So, in order to talk about that relationship meaningfully, you have to start calling on the tools of intersectionality (or fall back on the rather inadequate - from a feminist point of view - tools of Marxism).

Personally, I think Anti-Grinch has the right of it - it doesn't have to be an exploitative relationship and can be quite empowering for everyone. Paying a woman (or man - but there are v few male domestic cleaners) a proper wage for a properly recognised job is, I suspect, quite a good thing. Having said that, much like child-care, pay for cleaning is often experienced as something that feels like a lot to pay out but not nearly enough to earn.

Bert - WTF is that??

the cat "much like child-care, pay for cleaning is often experienced as something that feels like a lot to pay out but not nearly enough to earn" - perfect summary

"I'm not giving you instructions, but here are some instructions"

Authoritarians are a trip. Also, all those radfems who set up battered women's shelters and rape crisis lines were lazy slackers who did nothing but sit around talking theory, they really ought to have signed more MoveOn petitions.

What I find most amusing about this conversation, Moose, is that you keep going on and on about how radfems are all theory and liberal feminism is more practical (nonsense, as LangCleg said - both schools of feminism have both theoretical and practical elements) and then attempt to sum up with a speech about how divisions are bad and we should all work together? Pot, meet kettle.

@AngryAttackKittens you claim I said "that you keep going on and on about how radfems are all theory and liberal feminism is more practical"

I will simply repeat what I have already posted.
I can't speak for other people. I have not said all radfems are theorising and not acting. What I've said is a radfem stance is too theoretical for me

It would be nice if you read my posts before attacking me.

I think the cleaner issue sums up my problems. From a theoretical radfem and Marxist stance employing a member of the oppressed class goes against the unified nature of class interest this is especially relevant to cleaning as it is gendered work. Thank you Cat for your very clear explanation it has helped me clarify my issues.

I understand the issue on a class level, but as an individual, I want a cleaner! . I will sit in my clean house and wait for the revolution.

It's interesting that you're focusing on my objections when I'm not the only one who has them, Mousse. Attempting to personalize this won't make the fact that radical feminists aren't having your mischaracterizations of their political beliefs go away.

Foot stamping impresses no-one.

I think that liberal and radical feminism are equally theoretical.

Any political philosophy without a theoretical basis wouldn't get very far. Which again for the eleventy billionth time doesn't mean that you don't take that theory use it to influence your activism.

Unless, as some people seem to do, you are using radical to mean “very” feminist and liberal to mean “a bit” feminist.

Also, whether people who preferred the version of liberal feminism that existed up till maybe the end of the 80s like it or not (and I vastly preferred it to what's going on now too), current liberal feminism is deeply influenced by postmodernism, and regardless of what your overall take on pomo is (I think it's a pile of crap, personally) what it most definitely is not is easy to read/easy going theoretically. Even the people most deeply invested in pomo will admit that Butler, for example, is such a hard slog for the reader that it's caused them to throw the book across the room in frustration. The most "difficult" radfem writer is probably Mary Daly, and her books are easy reading compared to Butler's.

Also, whether people who preferred the version of liberal feminism that existed up till maybe the end of the 80s like it or not (and I vastly preferred it to what's going on now too), current liberal feminism is deeply influenced by postmodernism, and regardless of what your overall take on pomo is (I think it's a pile of crap, personally) what it most definitely is not is easy to read/easy going theoretically. Even the people most deeply invested in pomo will admit that Butler, for example, is such a hard slog for the reader that it's caused them to throw the book across the room in frustration. The most "difficult" radfem writer is probably Mary Daly, and her books are easy reading compared to Butler's.

YES! I know which current iteration has the word salads and which does not!