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......

What Seek said.

The statement is at the heart of liberalism.

I'm puzzled by: coincidentally?) often used by antifeminists to bash feminists lots of arguments are used against feminists but that does make it a conspiracy or the arguments incorrect. Just because someone uses an argument against you doesn't mean you automatically cede the argument. Far from it you control the argument fight your corner.

Radfems support the Nordic model. This model includes giving women choices you may not agree with. It allows women to continue working as prostitutes without criminal sanctions ( thank you Lass for the correct wording). Under this model the structures around the women will support their activities in the short term while seeking to change behaviours in the long term. This seems to be to be a liberal compromise . Allowing women a choice while working to improve conditions and change behaviours.

Liberalism and compromise.

And again I am using the term to indicate classical, political liberalism and not alt liberal or neo liberal thinking.

Generally, I would be interested to know which choices ( within the rule of law) you disagree with and would you take sanctions to stop them.

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.

Do you mean soliciting by that ?

Change of name too, Lass ?

LassWiADelicateAir

Lass??!

Yay.

LassWiTheDelicateAir ?

Lass is back on another thread in her old name- so good to see her. It's like bringing up the Big Batalions on porn/prostitution threads.

I don't support the Nordic model, incidentally.

Mousse, seriously, the horse is dead, we've already had its funeral and the memorial flowers have all wilted. Why are you still beating the poor thing?

(AKA yes, we know what classic liberalism is. Modern liberal feminism is something different.)

Mousse it's like the difference between saying the Abolitionist movement was fundamentally a movement to fight for Africans to be able to make choices and especially choices you don't agree with, and saying it was a movement to liberate them from slavery. Focussing on the choices is putting the cart before the horse, and it's an odd thing to state is the main aim of a movement - if you acknowledge that the reason women aren't free is because of male oppression.

When you go on about choices and not agreeing with them, though, you frame the issue as one about women judging other women, primarily, as though if we all validated all the choices all women made, there'd be no problem left.

sawdustformypony
Change of name too, Lass ?

I closed my my account- changed my mind and re- registered. My old name is taken What point are you making?

I don't support the Nordic model, incidentally

I do only as a short term measure. I think buyers should in the meantime be treated with contempt.

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.

Do you mean soliciting by that ?

I don't understand your question. Soliciting is a woman seeking to drum up business for herself- she is not seeking to encourage another woman to do so. If you mean procuring in the sense of drumming up business for another woman- then yes that should be treated as an offence.

I thought it strange you would have a male friend - dim enough - to deny child maintenance for a child born after a 'one night stand'/prostitute. I didn't associate you with such dimness. Then I notice the change of name.

So soliciting would not be an offence but procuring would

@SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace in relation to abolitionism, freedom is all about choices some good some bad. The main aim of a liberation movement is not to allow people to make bad choices but it is always a side effect. Same with feminism it's not the main aim but it is and will continue to be a side effect.

I absolutely don't think we should validate all choices women make. Nope, no way. However, I will defend their right to make them.

I apologise if I am framing the discussion in a way that implies judgment. I try not to add extraneous detail to keep things simple. When I don't add detail I get accused of promoting FGM when I do I get shouted at for flogging a dead horse!

Sexism is about exploitation to keep selfish individuals in powe. Liberal feminism is trying to regulate that system so it is less exploitative. Radical feminism is getting rid of that system to replace it with one that doesn't exploit females. Both routes have been used in history for other exploited groups.

Often an environmental factor precedes a revolution. They often begin as strikes after famine or disease. It's a sort of all or nothing thing combined with the realisation by those doing the exploiting that if the workers stop working then the powers starve too. Eg. French rev, peasants revolt 14th century

Liberalism is a more gradual process with regulations happening here or there after studies show that it in some way benefits the current system. For example 19th century factory laws or the vote gradually introduced for different groups 19th and 20th century. It was realised that if you give people something then they feel they have something to work for.

I guess it comes down to fog (fear, obligation and guilt) that stops out and out revolution because we have families to feed and don't want to strike etc. Therefore we tend to use the liberal route as it is less physically dangerous and we live fairly comfortably so don't see the need to be more radical.

I'm not judging either route, just analysing it in a amateurish way admittedly. I guess there are levels of radicalism too as there are levels of Liberalism. Radicalism can go too far and start to eat itself if there isn't an ultimate plan and a point where it is agreed that they have reached the final goal eg French terror or other dictatorships after revolutions.

It probably comes down to why people want power...to help the many or the few. Do we want to be equal and free to help humanity in general or do we want to be in control ourselves for our own personal benefit? Or both?

I have always been a feminist but only recently thought about what I can actually do to sort this exploitation out. I tend to see it as a bigger picture of human group dynamics and how it swings from functional to dysfunctional. I know that pisses off some feminists because they believe it dilutes the specific argument about female rights to include children and other exploited groups but I feel it's all part of the same problem.

So soliciting would not be an offence but procuring would

Depends on how it is done. If it is annoying other people - yes it should be an offence. Why should decent men be harassed? And clearly street soliciting has consequences for other women in the area.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about my name change. I deleted and then changed my mind. What point are you trying to make?

@OtterPearl love your explanation.

In terms of diluting feminism by linking other groups. I can't help but think capitalism damages women as much as patriarchy. However, the left has subsumed feminism - "put this to one side and fight for freedom for all, oh and will you make me a cup of tea love."

Liberalism can be very gradual but it gets there in the end - hopefully. How exactly are the radfems going to dismantle society. Not asking to be awkward but is there ( are there) actual specific plans about how to move radical feminism forward?

Very interesting conversation about pole dancing.
I absolutely would support a woman’s choice to do this, in spite of the fact I don’t like it because it objectifies women.
I don’t like it. I’d rather it went away, but it’s not the same as prostitution.
What is a harmful choice? One that harms the person making it or one that harms other women?

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.

You're framing this in a bizarre way. If I say I don't want pole dancers rounded up and jailed am I supporting pole dancing? Or am I just in favour of women not being persecuted for exercising their bodily autonomy to choose to pole dance? It does not mean pole dancing is a side effect of feminism.

Bodily autonomy for women is basic feminism. Women were denied bodily autonomy and now they are not. They have freedom to choose to pole dance.

Pole dancing isn't the best example, as has been pointed out, women have always been involved in erotic (?) dancing.

Women are however able to work as pole dancers and remain within the mainstream of society and retain bodily autonomy. This is a side effect of feminism in that feminism has created a less sexually judgmental society.

This is a side effect of feminism in that feminism has created a less sexually judgmental society

Do you really believe that? I don't. I think there are people, men and women who are , for want of a better word , genuinely nice can be completely nice and non- judgemental about "sex workers".

I'm not btw one of them because I think their actions do harm society.

However the punters using the services? Oh come off it. The whole point of commercial sex is that it is filthy/ dirty/ whatever. You only have to look at the search terms on the current thread about porn to see how judged the sellers of sex are.

@LassWiADelicateAir you are entirely correct in relation to prostitutes.

However, marginal sex work (could use a better term??) like pole dancing and modelling etc is more or less acceptable. A pole dancer would remain within the mainstream of society, would not become a social pariah.

Someone mentioning it at the school gate would certainly elicit raised eyebrows but would not become a social outcast as would have happened 50 years ago. This relative acceptability is a definite side effect of feminism. I think not stigmatising people who do this work is generally a good thing.

in terms of the men who view them, that is where the problems lie. I think the attitudes they express publicly are very different to the internalised contempt they feel for these women.