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 am definitely a RadFem though; we come in all forms

moose oh I have ideological differences up to the armpits with him (Mohammed bin Salman) He’s still the pinnacle of a deeply repressive regime based on a particularly unpleasant strain of Wahhabism. He’s clearly utterly ruthless. But smart. And things look set to change. The project is called 2030 something or other. Here a link to the abaya article. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/11/saudi-cleric-says-women-need-not-wear-abaya-robe-in-public

But yes, what realistically do you do? He’s just gotten a tame cleric to pronounce that abaya isn’t necessarily needed. That’s huge. Really huge. So he then builds on that and slowly, slowly, things change. Is it ideal? No, the ideal is that KSA gets dragged out of the 16th century tomorrow, but it is realistic.
Sometimes that’s the best we can hope for.

Yes gacapa I agree on the choice issue. Everyone’s choices are made within a framework of their life circumstances - when that framework is so biased, and anti women, and when so many women are constrained by economic/social factors, that choice is rarely a free one.

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with.

There are actions and activities that I dislike and won't engage in but I will absolutely fight for your right to pole dance.

It's like the Voltaire quote " I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it"

@Backenette KSA as you say deeply unpleasant regime but by supporting the new chap we make small steps forward. Although, he does strongly object to both porn and prostitution.......

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with.

Yes, a good point. I’m trying to think about why the ‘pole dancing is empowering’ thing bothers me and I think it’s not so much the choice itself (people can do what they want) it’s two things:

1. No acknowledgement that no choice is made is a vacuum.
2. Implied judgement on those who do NOT want to do such things that they are prudish etc. Which kind of feeds the ‘cool girl’ culture and disallows discussion on why we don’t want to.

So it’s not so much the choice that bothers me but the implied judgement.

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with

No it doesn't! What a pointless movement that would be! And so passive and stereotypically female - socialism doesn't mean fighting for poor people to do stuff you disagree with. Being an activist in race doesn't mean fighting for black people to do stuff you disagree with. Why should feminism mean you just have to generally support women doing that stuff?

“Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with”

And that, my sisters, is the crux of the issue.

I am not going to fight for women’s right to subjugate themselves, or to do things that are personally and globally damaging. I am not going to fight for women’s right to cut off their daughters’ labia and clitoris. I am not gong to fight for a woman’s right to watch another woman being raped on video.

What Bertrand and Seek said.

I'd rather fight for a world where women are truly free.

I was not aware that being a feminist meant being as vapid as humanly possible and helping other women to hurt themselves/me/other humans. That's me told!

I mean, really, I posted that article from The Onion as a joke. It wasn't meant to be a how to guide!

AngryAttackKittens if you would only lean in, you'd truly understand.

Exactly bernard

I won't fight for the right of women to actively harm other women or girls,
such as mutilating, or marrying off, dependent children

or to exploit women trapped in abusive situations

Every choice a woman makes is a good choice and we must support it!

When I was in high school I had one close friend who chose to make herself vomit after every meal because she thought she needed to be thinner, and another who was in the process of choosing to attempt suicide when I realized what she was about to do and intervened. Should I have let her go ahead because it was her choice? Even though she was 16 and had recently been raped and that was why she was making that choice? Was I disrespecting her agency?

Not all choices are good choices. Some choices harm other people.

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with

Under the rule of law rather self evidently. I didn't think I needed to add that caveat, but clearly I do. So no to genital mutilation, forced marriage and other illegal acts. Clearly.

It is one of the basic truths of all liberation movements. You free enslaved people, but some still choose to live and work for their former owners. You give women the vote and some choose to vote for Asquith or Churchill, who opposed women's suffrage. You fight for women to be able to keep their own name on marriage but most women still choose to change their name.

The Nordic model does not criminalise prostitution so you are proposing a system where women can still choose to be prostitutes. Clearly that doesn't mean you support or encourage prostitution but you are fighting for a model that allows women to do something you think is harmful.

And I'm sorry but socialism does mean fighting for a society where people might make choices you don't like. We can redistribute wealth but some people may spend that money on drugs and prostitutes.

The issues are really not as simple and clear cut as you would like them to be.

"The right to pole dance" is surely not something feminism should be expected to fight for. I mean, feminists fight for your right to do what you want in terms of not being physically prevented from exercising a choice and have bodily autonomy as a person but there is no reason to expect that feminism will prop up erotic dancing clubs or the sex trade as a whole so that you can personally indulge your sovereign "right to pole dance".

@Ereshkigal you wouldn't fight for the right to pole dance.

But you would fight for women to be able to dress and act how they want. You would fight for freedom of expression. You would fight for proper employment rights, a wage and not living off tips. You would fight for women to be able to travel safely to and from their place of employment.

And some women will use these hard won rights to pole dance.

Yes. But feminists are fighting for universal rights. That's the point. They're not fighting on behalf of pole dancing.

And I'm sorry but socialism does mean fighting for a society where people might make choices you don't like. We can redistribute wealth but some people may spend that money on drugs and prostitutes

There is a difference between fighting for a society where people might make bad choices, and fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with. A socialist would accept that in a free society the poor will have those options - but the aim of socialism isn't to enable the poor to make bad choices.

Nobody would say to a socialist 'oh, so you're judging that working class man for profiteering, and I thought socialism was all about supporting poor people, no wonder people are put off socialism'!

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with

You are fighting for women's freedom to choose. Some of the choices are uncomfortable. Arguing for the Nordic model is arguing for women to be able to legally work as prostitutes. It doesn't mean you support prostitution.

If you were being really pedantic perhaps my point would be being a feminist means fighting for rights that women can use to do stuff you don't agree with and not just the stuff you want them to.

I kind of thought that was implied as well as the stuff about actions under the rule of law.

The aim of feminism isn't to encourage pole dancing but it is certainly a side effect.

Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with

I am opposed to fox hunting. If I were a feminist should I support female fox hunters but not male?

I can think of plenty of things women (and men) do which I am opposed to on ethical grounds.

And to be clear I do not support women being legally able to work as prostitutes. I support the absence of criminal sanctions being applied to individual women. It may have little practical difference but the emphasis is different.

I would not extend that exclusion to any prostitute or ex prostitute who encouraged another woman (or man for that matter) to engage in prostitution.

Lass- you have been missed.

I'm slightly puzzled by the problems people are having with this statement. The political theory of supporting a cause but not being comfortable with all the results is quite basic. The idea of unexpected consequences.

The Voltaire quote is a prime example.I support free speech but accept it may be used by people with whom I disagree profoundly. Therefore I will continue to support the cause even though it may be used in a way I don't like.

Lass I stand corrected on this statement:
Arguing for the Nordic model is arguing for women to be able to legally work as prostitutes

And would change it to: Arguing for the Nordic model is arguing for women to be able to work as prostitutes without criminal sanctions.

My point still stands. You would ideally like prostitution to stop but the Nordic model makes it easier for women to work as prostitutes. However, these women can be helped and supported and encouraged to stop. A short term consequence that is not ideal in the hope of a long term win.

The aim of feminism isn't to encourage pole dancing but it is certainly a side effect

That is nonsense. Means by which women could be viewed in sexually provocative poses in exchange for money existed long before anything resembling feminism/ women's rights/ women's liberation movements existed.

It is just nonsense to say this is a side effect of feminism. Society censors far less than 50 years or a 100 years ago and as a consequence of that it is easier for a women to be open about earning money in this way.

The only side effect feminism might have is that some people , both men and women, will not be judgemental about the individual woman ( ie not calling her a slut etc) Although I doubt if the paying customers are non judgemental.

Hi Bert, I was taking a short break.

Lass pole dancing wasn't my example I was using the example given. My examples were as follows:

It is one of the basic truths of all liberation movements. You free enslaved people, but some still choose to live and work for their former owners. You give women the vote and some choose to vote for Asquith or Churchill, who opposed women's suffrage. You fight for women to be able to keep their own name on marriage but most women still choose to change their name

When you free people, empower them or increase their income they do not always behave as you wish they would. Women are significantly more equal than they were 50 years ago but there is a definite backlash against feminism, the " but we are all equal now" posters. The rush towards pinkification and people who believe (incorrectly imo) that we live in a post feminist society.

By supporting women's suffrage and encouraging outspoken opinions - you get them! Whether you like them or not.

I am not advocating these behaviours. I'm not saying feminists should actively support them. However, when women become more equal some will display behaviour and act in ways that are not feminist. Women falling down drunk in the street, a rarity 50 years ago, common place in every town across the country. Women are free to act like men.

If you fight for freedom, free people will do what they want and that might be uncomfortable but, and this is the important bit, it doesn't stop you fighting for freedom.

But what has all that fighting for freedom got to do with anything?

I and others are saying this thing you are doing , whether you freely choose it or not , harms society.

I made a passing comment: Being a feminist means fighting for women to choose to do stuff you disagree with and it appears to have enraged people. It is a fairly pedestrian, liberal argument assuming it all happens under the rule of law. I didn't realise I need to put in quite so much context. We got massively derailed.

Classic liberal thinking - fight for freedom and human rights but be aware there may be unexpected consequences and it might make you unpopular. Classic liberal feminism you fight for rights but individuals may use them in a way you dislike but you fight anyway. Human Rights are only popular when applied to sympathetic cases, no one wants terrorists to have human rights.

Within the rule of law, if your actions are legal and do not directly harm others, you are free to do them and I will defend your right to do it even if I dislike what you are doing. See freedom of speech and Voltaire.

Back to pole dancing, it's legal it causes no direct harm, but it does harm wider society in the way it objectifies women. However, each individual has the absolute right to do this. I don't like it, I can see the wider harm it causes but the individual has the right to do it if they want ( define freedom of choice in a patriarchy - leaving this for now). I'm not going to campaign specifically for the right to pole dance but I would defend their (free) choice to dance.

Caveat - Massive oversimplification I know, but the post would become a book if I added every nuance.

It's not a derailment: that statement is at the heart of liberal feminism and (coincidentally?) often used by antifeminists to bash feminists (I've seen feminists harangued on Twitter for criticising Theresa May, for example - 'though you were supposed to support women, feminazi?'). The fact that you think we're fighting for choice including harmful choices is important. It's one of the reasons I'm no longer a liberal feminist.