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......

"all choices are motivated by personal/individual preference which is shaped by society and the family that you grew up in. Off course feminism can inform those choices but rarely is a decision taken on a purely feminist/unfeminist basis."

Yes, I think that's true. Same as all political choices!

I now view that very individualistic type of feminism as very "I'm all right, Jack." With very little further analysis done on how things are for women as a class as opposed to the individual.

This sums up liberal feminism for me.

this is liberal feminism taken over by neo-liberalism

Yes. I think this is exactly what has happened. Most libfem "solutions" dovetail so well with capitalism's requirements, the conclusion is inescapable.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that this iteration of libfem first took hold in the US, where individualism is virtually the state religion and where the popular culture loves nothing more than an individual transformation story.

It is important though to acknowledge that not all choices are feminists one, even if a woman makes them freely.

I may make the decision to be an entrepreneur, all very well and fine, but if the business I decide to open harms girls and women then it is not a feminist action that I am taking. It may be made freely without influence by my parents/family/friends but it is not a feminist choice (my argument would actually be I didn't make it freely as I am under societal constraints but that is a different line of thought than what I am trying to say in this post).

I mean - is that a worthwhile distinction?

Liberal feminism is capitalist feminism.

Radical feminism is revolutionary liberationist feminism.

I now view that very individualistic type of feminism as very "I'm all right, Jack." With very little further analysis done on how things are for women as a class as opposed to the individual.

I think that's extremely liberal feminism if I'm honest.

Most I think are fairly clear on how women are oppressed as a class, but sit somewhere along a spectrum based on how they would seek to "square the circle" or how to overcome the climate of oppression without actually oppressing the people involved.

I do think some choices are unfeminist, but I'm flexible on the circumstances under which I'd deny them the right to make them.

What is the specific relevance of the word "capitalism" in that Lang? I'm being dim. Isn't it moreover "establishment feminism", in that it would be equally as "within the establishment" if that establishment were in fact socialist (for example) rather than capitalist?

We live in a capitalist society. I don't think that we can wait for that to change in order to make things better for women. So we work with what we've got and strive to improve things now.

The problem with "tearing it all down" in my mind is "with what will be build it all back up?" if we have disregarded human rights to achieve it?

I'm curious which human rights you are seeing being disregarded?

“I do think some choices are unfeminist, but I'm flexible on the circumstances under which I'd deny them the right to make them.”

Has anyone said anything about denying anyone the right to make choices?

None in particular Goody, because there's no specific proposal to analyse is there? Am I missing one? I guess the example given of "what if one woman's choice effects the rights of other women?" the human right I'm talking about is "choice", is it not?

Choice and personal autonomy I guess - actually "right" probably isn't the right word because I don't mean that they should be unimpeachable, merely than it is considered good and highly promoted within a civilised society.

Dione I agree we need to improve things now, but I think we can simultaneously strive towards a massive social change.

We live in a capitalist society. I don't think that we can wait for that to change in order to make things better for women. So we work with what we've got and strive to improve things now.

But that's not the point being made, is it? The point being made is that radical feminists want to improve the structures of things (a challenge to capitalism) while liberal feminists want to make their own personal choices (something capitalism is happy to get on board with because it can be commodified).

The former will improve material conditions for all women. The latter will improve the lives of individual women for whom structures are less of a barrier.

I think choice and personal autonomy are fundamental and nobody should be denied them. However, what people do with the freedom to choose and their personal autonomy is key. As is understanding that free choice is a myth as a concept.

I don't disagree with anything you've said there Bertrand.

Lang, I'm not sure that's right. From speaking to and reading about radfeminism, it is about tearing down the the current structures as mentioned up thread. Lib feminism is the one that works to change the system from within by working for changes to legislation in order to improve women's lives and promote equality.

Goody, I'd be all up for massive social change. The question is how do we bring that about? And how do you centre women in that?

I'm not well versed in academic feminist discourse to apologies if this makes no sense.

I've long felt that liberal feminism (taken from the point of view that women no longer have societal barriers and have full agency to change structures and systems from within) relies on girls understanding what those structures and systems are from a very young age and being able to recognise them.

For example, if you are a confident, high achieving girl who is able to go on to have a good career then maybe on many levels liberal feminism can work for you. Especially if you make a good choice of partner to have children with who is very pro shared parenting and domestic workload.

Where though does it leave young girls who start off in life not making good choices or have no recourse to them for a myriad of reasons. Women and girls should be allowed to fuck up and be able to understand the class analysis of how this might have happened.

Teen motherhood is a prime example of this. Girls who become mothers at a young age rarely if ever understand (at the time) that this puts you on a back foot for decades even if she goes on to complete education at a later date. There is a snowball effect of consequences in trying to parent whilst you are still figuring out who you are and your place in the world. This isn't a swipe at teen mums by the way - I was one.

Not sure quite what I'm trying to express here, perhaps someone else can better articulate.

I suppose it's that for all female choices to be feminist ones you would have to be absolutely sure that every individual girl or women understands fully how society works in any given situation and they don't.

I think you're focussing too much on this tearing-down/massive social change, Dione, which everyone knows is not happening just now. For me, radical feminism is more about understanding that the root of women's oppression lies in their biology and society's treatment of them because of it, and making my choices from there and based on that.

Dione A big part of it for me is to focus on the children, if we can raise new generations who don't challenge rather than reinforce the existing hierarchy then we stand a chance.

Teach them that girls bodies and service is not something they are entitled to. That boys do not have to turn to violence to solve their problems.

That men at the top and women at the bottom is not the natural way of things.

It might take a good few generations to get to a point where all the power structures aren't built by and for men, but we could do it if we tried.

Lib feminism is the one that works to change the system from within by working for changes to legislation in order to improve women's lives and promote equality.

I don't really think so. Libfem has no analysis of power relations and so the changes it proposes generally benefit a very small subset of women - legalising prostitution; women on company boards; etc.

So, for example, for 1 happy hooker, we get 100 trafficked women who are likely addicted to drugs and beaten by their pimps.

And for 1 Sheryl Sandberg making gazillions out of marketable slogans like lean in, we get 1,000 women labouring away at minimum wage jobs failing to make rent because of Universal Credit sanctions.

As others have said, choices aren't made in vacuums. They are proscribed by access to power structures. If you don't challenge those, you don't challenge patriarchy.

(Still not a radfem though!)

Liberal feminism is to me women who say in response to campaigns well I've never noticed this.

Or, like my previous self, someone who lauds and applauds men who have to demonstrate very loudly their 'feminist' credentials. Basically they turn out to be the opposite.

I think many women like the idea of feminism but don't want to be seen as millietant or the modern day version of this, a TERF.

Choice and personal autonomy I guess - actually "right" probably isn't the right word because I don't mean that they should be unimpeachable, merely than it is considered good and highly promoted within a civilised society.

I'm not sure that radfem analysis wants to restrict choice. It's more about understanding the context for choices, how they are limited by social expectations/economic pressures etc, and how they impact on others.

Eg. wearing makeup - the more women "choose" to wear makeup = the more it becomes expected, and other women feel pressured. (Nb. I say this as someone who just received a makeup delivery this morning)

I don't think libfems have no analysis of power structures Lang, and I don't think they're unaware that choices are not made in vacuums Goody. I think they just look at the same set of circumstances with perhaps a different set of priorities and come out with a different approach. It seems they prize more highly personal liberties for all; not more highly than women's rights, just more highly than other feminists might.