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......

It seems they prize more highly personal liberties for all;

Yes, that's the impression I got, and I think that's where a lot of the antagonism between rad and lib fem centres.

To the radfems it feels like the libfems are putting their own wants above the needs of women as a class.

To the libfems it feels like the radfems are casting judgement on them personally.

Gail Dines did a good talk about where Lib Fem came from:

Very short clip:

Longer version in context: First 10 minutes describe the differences really well

For me it defines really well why people say they hate feminism, but it's weird that people hate Rad Fems when you look at this, because everything they say they hate is Lib Fem

I was there when Dines gave that talk! It was an eye opener. She gave a great segment on why porn harms young men's sexuality.

Whilst I half agree Goody I still think that assessment's a little bit down on your average liberal feminist, who isn't taking that stance to empower their own choice; they are, just like the rads, trying to further the case of womanhood as a whole. I might tweak it like this:

To the radfems it feels like the libfems are putting their own wants the wants of indiviual women above the needs of women as a class.

To the libfems it feels like the radfems are casting judgement on them personally on lots of women.

I think radical feminists may have tearing down and rebuilding current structures as a dream goal. I think most of us realize that is unlikely to happen. So we focus on looking at, and trying to mitigate against the way social structures and expectations act against women. To take for an example the question of shaving our.legs. Of course women have the choice whether to or not, but the societal expectation is so very deeply entrenched that choosing not to shave is a very difficult thing to do. So most of us shave- thereby reinforcing the expectation. The radical feminist analysis of this is to say that unless we stop shaving we are part of the societal expectation to “perform femininity” in a particular way. We could “tear down” that particular bit of patriarchal structure just by stopping shaving. By making a choice that put women front and centre- even if we actually personally prefer the look and feel of hairless legs.

Ah, good example Bertrand, I'm getting you. And if a load of women were like "nah mate, I want to shave my legs cos my boyfriend likes it", radfems would be of the opinion that that was Very Bad, and if they could compel them to do it for the good of all women, they would; right?

Whereas liberal feminists would be like, "I'm disappointed you feel that way but it's not really your fault. Let's work together to see if we can't bring you and others round to our way of thinking"; and the whole thing might take a little bit longer to achieve but at least nobody's forced a woman do something she actively doesn't want to do.

Giving up addictions like smoking and alcohol are very difficult things to do.

Giving up shaving your legs? That's a choice. Like deciding not to have sugar in your tea.

“radfems would be of the opinion that that was Very Bad, and if they could compel them to do it for the good of all women, they would; right?”

No.

“Giving up shaving your legs? That's a choice. Like deciding not to have sugar in your tea.”

Really? You’re obviously stronger that I am. I would find it very hard to appear in a swimming costume on holiday with hairy legs.

"radfems would be of the opinion that that was Very Bad, and if they could compel them to do it for the good of all women

This...seems to be taking an inch and extrapolating a mile.

Not of the opinion that it is "Very Bad" - there are many many things that are Very Bad.

Not "compel them" - whilst feminism anything a woman chooses, removing choice from women (however socially influenced) is not the goal!

What would they do differently to the Libfem then Bertrand, other than maybe be a bit less humoring of the leg-shaving non-feminist?

Well that's why I'm confused, because to me it seems rad and lib want largely the same thing (understandably) but just advocating different means of getting there? Perhaps that particular example has just run its useful course and the crux of the differing approach is something else then

I don't have a problem either way with women shaving or not shaving their legs on an individual level (apart from the plastic waste side of things from disposable razors, but that's a side issue to feminism). People tend to make the best choices available to them within the context they find themselves... the vector to going around hairy-legged is far too steep for most women to overcome the cultural conditioning. What I do have a problem with is the structural expectation that women must shave their legs, especially if they're dating or out & about bare legged in summer. And it does become self-reinforcing in that the closer to 100% shaving legs becomes normalised, the harder it becomes to the hairy outliers. I hope some hirsute 100 monkey type movement takes off, with hairy legs becoming normalised and permissable

radfems would be of the opinion that that was Very Bad, and if they could compel them to do it for the good of all women, they would; right

Honestly, Roly, you seem to have conjured up your own horror fantasy of what radical feminism is and are impervious to any explanations of the reality. As I keep saying, I'm not a radfem, but the fact that it has a class analysis and not an individual analysis does not make it authoritarian.

"Honestly, Roly, you seem to have conjured up your own horror fantasy of what radical feminism is and are impervious to any explanations of the reality."

Yeah, it does feel a bit like this, including the last sentence of the above post: "at least nobody's forced a woman do something she actively doesn't want to do."

I agree that leg shaving is not necessarily a complex enough example to illustrate two whole movements...!

I'm asking Lang, I didn't say that to cast radfems as monsters, I don't know much about the radical perspective except at all except to say I know I'm not it.

It seems that example just can't be used to demonstrate the difference then if the difference is class analysis, or "tearing it down" or whatever. I'm just curious at to how that difference translates on a practical level.

I really didn't mean to cast a negative assertion over anyone, that's not my view at all, I just genuinely didn't know if that was the position; needs of the many and all that, it's a valid position for some, I'm sure. But if that's not it on a practical level that's actually a relief!

I'm just curious at to how that difference translates on a practical level.

I've already given you two!

Libfem prioritises one happy hooker over one hundred trafficked women. Radfem prioritises the one hundred trafficked women.

Libfem prioritises one Sheryl Sandberg over one thousand women working minimum wage jobs without access to decent childcare. Radfem prioritises the one thousand women.

That's the difference between an individual and a class analysis! Nothing to do with making or not making any one individual do anything. That's what you can't get past, Roly, it's not about you, or any other individual woman. It's about women, as a whole. That's why you are a libfem. You approach everything from an individualist viewpoint. If you ever want to actually understand radfem, you have to let that filter through which you see everything go. If you do that, you might actually understand what radfems keep repeating to you over and over and over. You might come out the other side still disagreeing but at least you would understand what's being said to you.

This is also why you disagree with so many women here about trans issues. They see gender as an external, structural imposition. You see it as a matter of individual identity.

Libfem and radfem - two completely different ways of looking at the world.

Rat- you don’t seem to know much about liberal feminism to be honest, either!

The liberal feminist perspective would not be to try to persuade anyone not to shave. It would be that they had a perfect right to shave or not shave and it was an entirely individual matter. For radical feminists the personal is political. For liberal feminists it isn’t.

I think you've gone a bit far there Lang, your first two examples are fine, no probs, I was just seeing is there was a practical difference in that one specific example Bertrand gave - out of curiosity - and there isn't so... no biggy.

The rest of it about my filter, you may or may not have a point, but as I can't relate to what you're saying on this it's rather hard for me to tell. I can't change that.

And regarding gender, please don't presume to tell me that I think gender is an external structural imposition. That is not even a close approximation of my view.

But yes, absolutely, two different ways of looking at the world.

Bertrand, lovely as ever, liberal feminists certainly can think women should be freed of societal expectations, I just don't think the difference can be highlighted with leg-shaving.

Aaaand whilst I love being on the defensive I don't want to derail what I was finding an enjoyable discussion, so I'll hang back.

please don't presume to tell me that I think gender is an external structural imposition

See? You're doing it again! You read everything said to you with extreme prejudice and thus you never hear what's being said.

I said that you don't see gender as structurally imposed.

I'm over and out with you now, Roly. I don't believe you debate in good faith at all.

If you look at the 'Everyday Feminism' site, that's what Libfem is now.

It's the 'fun/cool' feminism that is for men.

For radical feminists the personal is political. For liberal feminists it isn’t

Precisely. That's why the following statements are liberal feminist, or antifeminist (fun game: see if you can spot the difference!)

I personally am proud of my marriage, and if I want to be Mrs Husbandname, that's nobody's business but mine.

I don't shave my legs because anyone tells me to - I do it because I like it, and surely feminism is about freeing women to make their own choices?

Many sex workers choose that profession, because they can set their own hours and if they want to use their bodies to make money, why shouldn't they? It's their body, nobody else's!

Women who choose to work for hostess companies might have lots of positive reasons for doing it: not everyone minds being groped, and you can always deal with it on a case by case basis by giving the bloke a quick slap!

I like pole-dancing because I feel very proud of my body and how much work I've put into it: we should be celebrating women's bodies, not hiding them away!

All of these privilege the individual moment or just the individual, and are often centred around consumer choices - although they don't see the selling of their own body to be part of a wider consumer picture, or to do with the commodification of women's bodies generally. Just things people might choose to do.

“I just don't think the difference can be highlighted with leg-shaving”

Really? It seems quite a good proxy to me. But that’s fine- why don’t you choose something? I presume you won’t want to talk about porn or prostitution.......