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......

'Liberal' feminists are not one homogeneous group.

We can't even decide what 'liberal' means, I think it means something very different to me than to me.

In reference to this "And in my opinion, many of the people who say they are put off feminism are not being put off by feminists". Posters are telling you why they dislike feminists but you are telling them what they really think. Be careful sounds like mansplaining to me. "You say this but you really mean that".

I find this idea that if you don't like someone's views that means you don't want them to be heard very strange. Like when people equate disagreeing with silencing. It's alien to me-but I am very old........

@GoodyMog where are these libfems who want to silence people? They may well be out there but they are not on MN. You are attacking people who are not here. If anyone wanted to silence you I would object strenuously, but I've not seen any posts like that.

"Posters are telling you why they dislike feminists but you are telling them what they really think. Be careful sounds like mansplaining to me."
Well, yes, with your selective quotation I absolutely agree with you. If you read the rest of my post it reads rather differently.

@BertrandRussell I am not going to do a live and let live

Not silencing but not very positive.

And liberal feminists are by definition pro porn. And against the criminalisation of men who use prostitutes. And I am against porn and pro the criminalisation of men who use prostutures. Which means, according to liberal feminists that I am a prude who despises sex workers. Neither of which I am.

Dione That's an interesting article.

It appears I’m a radical feminist too.

Mousse You are reading things into posts that simply aren't there.

where are these libfems who want to silence people? They may well be out there but they are not on MN

I didn't say they were on MN. Also, you answered your own question.

You are attacking people who are not here.

Attacking? Stating someone holds a view that they do hold is attacking?

Also wouldn't it be difficult to discuss what views are held by liberal feminists if I'm not allowed to discuss views held by people who are not on MN?

So no. No live and let live on this partucular topic. On loads of others-but not on this.

Not silencing but not very positive

Well if you think someone's views are damaging and dangerous I'm not sure exactly how positive you can be?

I don't feel positive about porn and prostitution to be honest.

I would criminalise men or women who use prostitutes
and put the onus on them, to check that those with whom they have sex are of legal age and not rendered incapable by alcohol or drugs to give informed assent
i.e. to check that they are not committing more serious offences.

Being a prostitute, whether male or female, is not currently illegal and should not be made so.

Penalise the punters, not the prostitutes.

“Penalise the punters, not the prostitutes“

Absolutely.

Liberal feminists do not agree with this.

I wonder why ?
That would be supporting the more powerful - often wealthier - party, rather than the more vulnerable one.

Liberal is a very broad term. Some liberal feminists support the Nordic model some don't. To imply every one who uses the term holds particular views is simplistic. The term 'liberal' is just too vague and the meaning has shifted significantly in the last 20 years.

I think it was clear I was not suggesting you be positive about porn or prostitution. I was saying what binds us is stronger than what divides us. If you continue to reject women who hold different opinions on the way women can achieve true equality you will further weaken the movement making your end goal more distant. A positive attitude towards working with other feminists was what I was suggesting.

You will not have sullied your principals but sometimes half of something is better than the whole of nothing. Compromise legislation may not get everything you want but you might get something. Or you can campaign as an isolated group and get nowhere.

It depends on whether we are gaining half a loaf
or giving up half of the whole loaf we currently have

Liberal feminists do not agree with this

That's a very sweeping statement. What kind of liberal? Liberal? Neo liberal? Traditional liberal? Alt right liberal? Libertarian liberal? Classic liberal? Lipstick liberal?

Some do, some don't. And even within parties some people don't toe the party line.

As with a political party, it makes sense to compromise on minor issues to get into power to carry out the majority of their policies.
However, going against core principles can damage an organisation for decades

@BigChocFrenzy good point about the loaf

Social change is often one step forward, two back and then a big jump.

In 1914 women were a long way from getting the vote then WW 1 gave the big push. During the war some suffragettes wanted to continue protesting but others focused on the war effort putting the protest to one side. On balance the sacrifice of giving up the protest and helping the war effort benefited the movement as whole.

Some suffragettes argued supporting the war was damaging to women - they were probably right. But it was the 'collaborating' women who pushed the decision and changed the law.

It is not always black and white when pressing for societal changes.

There’s a lot of inertia in society - sometimes working within structures and incremental changes are the best way forward. Change builds on change - society sees the change, accepts it, is willing to accept more change. Radical change is unsettling and leads to pushbacks which can defeat the very aim you’re going for.

None of that means you don’t find the structure itself fundamentally misogynistic. If I was designing the world from scratch it’d look very different.

I do t know if you e been following recent developments in KSA? There seems to be a grand plan to moderate society - the new chap in charge has clearly realised that oil, only a tiny fraction of the population working and climate change is a bad mix. He shows signs of ruthlessness (imprisoning half the elite to get back billions in lost state cash) but the reforms that affect women are interesting. Let’s hope they bear fruit

Imagine if he’d tried to do it all at once. He’s have been swiftly deposed. Sometimes slowly is best.

@Backenette really interesting points.

I would imagine I have some serious ideological differences with new chap ( name?) in charge of KSA. However, his reforms (?) will hopefully, in the long run, benefit women significantly. Do you point out how much you still object to or welcome the reforms?

No matter how much you or I want radical change is it going to actually happen? Should we keep that half loaf we already have?

Choice Feminism is the one that really boils my piss.

Any time someone says "feminism is about choice" - almost always when talking about women objectifying themselves or prostituting themselves or droning on about their cool girl porn habits - I fall into a deep and scathing loathing of their smug stupidity.

It's usually followed by some halfwitted shit about being empowered by gyrating around half naked on a stage.

Ugh.

@ Moussemoose
The half loaf we must keep:

1. Safe spaces for women only in vulnerable situations, because biology matters :
   toilets, changing rooms, refuges, hospital wards, prisons

2. Awards & scholarships that are for women only, as we have for people of colour, because millennia of structural disadvantage have not been fully overcome within a few decades of reform

3. Reasonable measures / consideration to take account of what only happens to women:
   menstruation, childbirth and possible lifelong physical changes, menopause, because biology matters

4. Sports for women only, where biology matters,
   not just for women to be able to win, but in contact sports to stay safe

There is no upside for women to give up any of that half-loaf to men.

Longterm, of course we wish to change society so that men are no longer a danger and no longer privileged
However, until those faroff days when we can possinly drop 1) and 2) , we must deal with rl for women living now.
That is where I would compromise - on what helps women now, not just in the distant future.

Biology means that 3) and 4) must always remain

It makes sense to cooperate with those fighting poverty and excessive inequality for all society,
to cooperate with those fighting racism
because poor women on average suffer worse consequences of deprivation than poor men

Also not to reject genuine feminist allies merely because they are conservative or privileged
Work together on topics where those feminists agree and don't put political party before feminism and womens' rights

@BigChocFrenzy I like your agenda

Especially in relation to fighting poverty. When women are educated and supported it has benefits for wider society: infant mortality decreases, literacy improves etc

All still relevant in the UK unfortunately.