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'm not attempting to attack or mischaracterise anyone. If anything I am looking at my own personal failings. I can not adhere to the stringent principles of a radfem agenda. When I say too theoretical perhaps I would be better saying theory that is too hard to realistically adhere to. Yes Bertrand perhaps 'real feminism' is too hard for me.

I'm sure you all don't wax, shave, wear make up because you are aware of the way these activities are shaped by societal oppression of women. I am not strong enough to fight that battle every day. I'm sure you would not employ a cleaner. I'm sure you are unmarried and didn't change your name. I feel certain you all work independently and do not rely on a man. I can do some of this but not all of it.

Radfem, if you do it properly is a hard line to follow. I'm not prepared to spout on about something that I don't live. I won't call myself a radfem and then act like a 1980s lipstick feminist.

It is interesting reading on the 'are you a feminist' thread the amount of women who are turned off from calling themselves feminists because they feel attacked by 'radical feminists' ( I'm using the term in relation to common usage not as a political label).

In relation to theories you win, I lose. I appreciate a theory as much as the next person, but I'm not obsessed by them. I'm happy to cede the argument. They are both theoretical.

You are better feminists than me. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to point out the error of my ways sisters.

I'm sorry I can't leave this point

@AngryAttackKittens would you read my posts ffs.

Any political philosophy without a theoretical basis wouldn't get very far

Yes that's right which is why I characterised radfems as the vanguard and made several allusions to Marxism, Bolshevism and the issues Lenin faced on gaining power after the revolution. I made it clear several times theory is vital.

What I don't understand is why you say being a radical feminist is too hard- so you call yourself a liberal feminist. Being a radical feminist is hard- but surely that makes you (not you personally, you as in "one") a radical feminist who is struggling with some of it? For example, there is no way I could take on board the liberal feminist stance on porn and prostitution, however hard I find it to lead a radical feminist life. That makes me a crap radical feminist-but never a liberal one.

A human, imperfect radical feminist is still a radical feminist. Nobody expects perfection, not sure where that idea is coming from.

You are better feminists than me. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to point out the error of my ways sisters.

Christ almighty, you're doing it AGAIN.

It's not about YOU.

Radical feminism isn't some cult that you sign up to and dedicate your every thought, deed and action to on pain of excommunication. It's a structural framework from which to look at things. That's it.

You're projecting.

A human, imperfect radical feminist is still a radical feminist

Or a hypocrite.

If I put my name (yes I am talking about me) then I have to mean it. Other people can call themselves something and not follow through, they are 'working towards'. That's between them and their conscience.

I am very put your money where your mouth is (Still talking about me). For me, others can do what they want, for me ( yep - still my opinion) if you claim to be a radical feminist then you have to act like one.

You might consider it a 'structural framework' and it does exist as a framework. I however am looking for feminism I can live. I don't just want theory, a structural framework, as a prism on society that I can discuss and analyse. I want something I can implement.

I want to live feminism not just talk about it. Lots of radical feminists do and I admire them greatly. I'm not willing to put that much effort in - I am brutally honest with myself (still me I'm talking about).

So I do what I can, with an approximate label, but it doesn't keep me awake worrying about rampant hypocrisy.

“A human, imperfect radical feminist is still a radical feminist

Or a hypocrite”

Well possibly. (But surely only if they are pretending to be something they aren’t?)
But NOT a liberal feminist.

Feminist Current is critical of Liberal Feminism.

It's an odd, everybody's equal, let's fight for everybody sort of movement, when the fight for equal rights for women clearly hasn't been won yet.

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/12/18/liberal-feminism-refuse-center-fight-male-violence-women/

@BertrandRussell imo, and other people draw their lines differently, if you want to say 'I am a radical feminist' then you have to act like one. Not just talk about it and post about it but live it.

Although, having had a quick look at the article posted below I might just call myself a feminist and spend my time criticising other forms of feminism. Oh look the horror, they are only egalitarian and not feminist! Bastard sell outs!

That's any feminist laying into any other form of feminism. It was an equal opportunity snark. Or perhaps it was only egalitarian.

I however am looking for feminism I can live.

Be sure to tell us when you find it. Then we, too, can post endlessly interrogating you and casting you out when you fail to live up to it during any particular nanosecond.

@LangCleg This is bizarrely personal for you isn't it?

I am explaining my thinking as to why I would call myself a 1980s style liberal feminist. I haven't interrogated anyone. To interrogate one must ask questions. As you have pointed out I am talking about myself and my relationship with feminism. You have been critical of my focus on the individual ie me.

And now you accuse me of "endlessly interrogating you".

Or perhaps you feel I am concerned about the opinions of others, let me assure you I spend little time worrying what others think about me. I do however set standards for myself that I strive to achieve. I will not be a hypocrite and give myself a label I can not live up to. I have nothing but admiration for those who do.

I think from reading other threads many women feel they can not be 'good' feminists so they reject the whole term. I am not alone in looking for a practical way to navigate what can be a complex emotional issue for many women.

Moussemoose I don't think you are endlessly interrogating me. I think you are endlessly misrepresenting everything said by everyone on this thread and projecting some very strange preconceptions of your own onto perfectly clear statements by others. I find it tiresome.

Feminism is really simple. It is the mechanism by which women discuss the inequality they live. That discussion sometimes takes in conversations about which is the best framework from which to view that inequality.

When you say you are looking for a feminism you can live like some kind of disciple, and when you rush about branding everyone else hypocrites for not being able to live within the feminist framework they think makes the most sense every second of every day, it sounds to me much more like you're looking for a religion than any kind of feminism.

Marx suggested religion is an opiate but most political thinkers and sociologists do link adherence to a political belief as similar to religion. So perhaps you are right. Same desire for kinship, a basis in theory or theology and a strong dislike for those who don't believe in your particular faction. Very similar to religion.

I didn't mean to imply others were hypocrites - have I touched a nerve? I apologise if I did. Rather ironically I was referring to myself as the potential hypocrite. You have taken issue with me individualising the discussion but choose to take the comment about hypocrisy as referring to yourself.

I did say other people draw the line in different places and that is up to them and their conscience. I have said that numerous times.

As I have said many times I want a feminism I can live practically. A feminism I can act upon to change and improve the lives of women and thus the rest of society. I would like it be much more than "the mechanism by which women discuss the inequality they live". Perhaps that is where we differ.

Mousse undoubtedly this notion of a "feminism I can live" is one we (and others) often share as liberals. It's not a judgement on others, it really is as simple as it sounds. To me feminism is not the mechanism by which women discuss the inequality they live, but I don't mind if it is for someone else. To me it's a way of life, a way to be guided in your actions and activities, and it's a thing to fight for. It's a commitment. I don't think that makes "my" feminism any better than anybody else's, that's just "mine".

My feminism is a always of life too. I would rather aspire to something I believe in but can’t always achieve than give up my principles and make do with something that doesn’t match my beliefs but is easier to live with.

Has this been posted yet?

That makes perfect sense to me Bertrand

It's not a competition. One size does not fit all. We can all be feminists in our own way.

I was reading the "Are you a feminist" thread and there were lots of posters who clearly were feminists but they reject the label because of perceived in fighting over theory. That's such a shame.

Aspirational or practical both are ways to live your feminism and both are valid. Do we have to criticise others feminism to prove ours is correct? You make your own accommodations and live with them.

Clearly some women are not feminists but most women seem to be muddling along trying to act in a feminist way, sometimes you succeed and sometimes you fail. Standing and sneezing at other forms of feminism may make you feel better but it does so much damage to the cause.

This seems to me to be a classic liberal compromise ( not neoliberal, or Liberal, or any other kind of liberal) - liberal in the classic political definition. If I had to have a label I would use that, but I fear the meaning of the term has shifted while I have stood still.

Sneezing 🤧?

I meant sneering but I think sneezing at people might be worse...

I don't think it's a competiton. It's just that there are things liberal feminists believe and I don't. Things I disagree with so fundamentally that I could never change my mind about them. So I am going to disagree, and say that I think liberal feminists are wrong because I think they are. And I am not going to do a live and let live-because I think what they believe is dangerous and damaging to women (and to men). I don't think it's sneering to say that.

I disagree with some aspects of neo liberal feminism. However, on the whole at least they call themselves feminists and we agree on other points. We may disagree on how to get there but at least we are on the same bus.

The "are you a feminist" thread made is crystal clear how alienating lots of posters (extrapolate to all women) find the divisions, arguments and finger pointing. Women who will no longer use the term as they associate it with bickering and extremism.

We need to seek common ground not widen division. Explore what binds us rather than what divides us.

I’m happy to seek what binds us. But liberal feminism’s attitude to prostitution and pornography is a bridge too far.

And in my opinion, many of the people who say they are put off feminism are not being put off by feminists. They are being put off by the way feminists are represented by a misogynist media and by groups like MRA, who have a vested interest. And it wouldn’t matter what feminists did, those views would not change

God Bertrand you could have just said from the start, "I don't like liberal feminists and I don't want their beliefs to be heard". I can't believe you resisted saying it for so long.

"I don't like liberal feminists and I don't want their beliefs to be heard"

And I said this exactly where?

I don't like liberal feminists and I don't want their beliefs to be heard

Not quite.. if anything I've heard this more from liberal feminists.

What Bertrand said is that she feels (as do I) that some of the libfem beliefs are dangerous and damaging to women.

Now I know, if you've been a fan or follower of liberal feminism (as it is now) this is automatically the same as saying you want the beliefs silenced. This is not, IME, a radfem meaning.