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......

[RatRolyPoly]

I'm sorry Lang, my outrage at being told what I think a fair amount lately bubbled over, that was wrong of me. I just didn't realise until the whole leg-shaving-example debacle that it was a debate rather than a conversation! But I guess it being me I should have realised that would be the assumption. It's been a tense week.

[BertrandRussell]

“I just didn't realise until the whole leg-shaving-example debacle that it was a debate rather than a conversation!”
Eh?
I feel as if i’ve stepped through the looking glass.........

[HelenDenver]

Rat, I don't think it's to do with 'it being you' - as we are looking at radfem/libfem differences, I think that's nearly the very definition of a debate topic!

[stoneagefertilitydoll]

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

This is the one that I can never get by - the idea that because some very privileged women can choose to sell their bodies for sex, that this means that prostitution isn't bad, and doesn't cause massive harm to women as a class and society, that the majority of women are forced into it by circumstance and not by free will.

And shaving, whilst seemingly a trivial example, actually goes further - because it impacts girls (I was about 10 when I first shaved my legs), it sucks our time and resources, it makes us worry about our appearance, it means our children never see a natural female body etc.

Rad Fems say that the choice to shave is not freely made, and is enforced by the patriarchy, therefore choosing to shave is not a feminist choice, and choosing not to is. Of course you can still make the choice to shave, forcing women to do stuff to their bodies is the patriarchy's bag, not rad fems.

[RatRolyPoly]

Okay Helen, thanks. Well for me my response to Bert's particular post was not to debate it but rather to understand it. Perhaps Bertrand it bears re-reading with that in mind. But not to worry, I don't mean to derail.

[BertrandRussell]

Out of interest, why don’t you think the leg shaving analogy works?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace, I talk about the tearing down because it is a fundamental difference between lib and rad feminism. It's fine to understand the roots of oppression, but that on its own is not enough. I am a doer. I want to do something about it. Maybe we need a Solution Based Feminism.

Goody, I am in agreement with you wrt focusing on children and that is where I kind of agree with the rad fem analysis on the family. Change the family and you will change the world quickly. My own family is evidence of that. However, many women wish to be SAHMs which in feminism is a bit of a double whammy in terms of how quickly change can be brought about.

[SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace]

No, but what I am saying is it isn't the (or certainly not the only) fundamental difference. The difference is how you understand the roots of oppression, because that determines how you behave and the choices you make.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

For radical feminists the personal is political.
So what do you think of your own decision to shave Bert?

[SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace]

So what do you think of your own decision to shave Bert?

Isn't that answered a few pages back?

[BertrandRussell]

I shave because I am pathetic. I would really like not to but I do.

I am puzzled by this idea that radical
feminists aren't "do-ers" and I am also puzzled by the idea of Women's Aid as a liberal feminist stronghold.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Libfem prioritises one happy hooker over one hundred trafficked women.

No it doesn't. Libfem does not blame the happy hooker for trafficked women. Unless she has trafficked them.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I think that's really sad Bert. Shave or don't, I personally don't care, but to put yourself down and think less of yourself is a waste of a woman's energy.

[Nuffaluff]

Surely liberal feminists want to eradicate trafficking. Otherwise they would not be feminists at all.
They still recognise the right and believe in the right of women to choose prostitution. And that those women should be protected as far as possible within the life they have chosen. That’s why some advocate decriminalisation, as they genuinely believe this will help women.
I say believe in the right to choose because others (radical feminists?) may think that this ‘choice’ is an illusion.

[ALunerExplorer]

As someone occasionally accused of being a liberal feminist, I'll take the 3 main points here bit by bit, but I just think it is worth noting that 'liberal feminism' is a very vague term. Do you mean 'neoliberal feminism in the context of western neoliberal social/fiscal constructs'? Do you mean queer feminism? Do you mean kyriarchal feminism? What about womanism - I don't know if there are any black/of colour women on these boards?

(Forgive me, I sometimes get the feeling that 'liberal' feminism is used as a catch all term for anything which is not 'gender critical' - which itself is a bit of an umbrella term).

Feminism is a theology/theory, primarily of liberation, and like any theory of liberation, it is informed by the context. I don't know if anyone here reads liberation theology in a Christian context, but one of the central American fathers of Christian liberation theology is Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, whose theology came from praxis (the intellectual framing came second, and is rooted primarily from in the doing/praxis of liberation), and he posited that the best liberation theologies are praxis first/theology second.

So I answer this on the basis of my feminism which is largely rooted in praxis (doing) first, theorising second.

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 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.
   
   I take these two together because I would put these both in a context of 'neo-liberal' feminism, that has grown out of the neo-liberal capitalist context that particular women - broadly speaking, women whose socio-economic background was/is largely (though certainly not exclusively) financially privileged, or relatively so - live in. 'Lean In' feminism, which to seemed like an stage on from (as it was called in the 90's/early 00's), 'lipstick' feminism.
   
   I will, briefly, say is that if your goal is equality with the patriarchy, and financial/human survival is not something you have to fret over, well, yeah, I can see the attraction. I'm not (I'll admit) very well versed in that type of feminism, in part because my experiences and work bear no relation to the type of environment that type of feminism comes from. I may have an unfair of assessment of it in someone's eyes here, apologies if that is the case.
   
   
3. That any choice a woman makes is by definition a feminist choice.
   
   The wording of this made me wince a bit, because I often see that kind of framing going along with 'you can't choose your way out of oppression' and I think both of those (and apologies if 'you can't choose you way out of oppression' wasn't something you were thinking about OP) miss a couple of things, and the reasons for that vary. So I again, I respond on the basis of my feminism and mine alone:
   
   We all live under the patriarchy, but we do not all experience that patriarchy in the same way, for many reasons. Broadly (rather than personally), that is because different cultures mean some differences in how the patriarchy performs, and how people experience it relative to their position in society.
   
   For example: I don't know if anyone here watched '12 Years A Slave'? (Like Schindlers List, I'm not sure I shall watch it a second time).
   
   But in that film, the character of Mistress Epps (the slave owner's wife) is good example: she is subject to his physical abuse, but she also freely abuses her husbands slaves, and receives more preferential treatment socially of course, because she is white. Her choice to single out and abuse Patsey (the slave her husband is, effectively, raping) is less about Epps sexual preference for raping his slave, than it is about her ability as a white woman to choose patriarchal violence because she is white.
   
   Nobody makes any choice independent of the patriarchal society in which they exist. And much like consent, it can only be exercised where there is the power to do so.
   
   I'm a bit of an old fashioned feminist in some ways because bodily autonomy remains a hugely important feminist issue, and whilst we have been achieving that in terms of reproductive choices, we've been losing ground in the US, and whilst Ireland could well be on the cusp (Repeal the 8th!), people affected by period poverty for example are unable to exercise any choice at all in what they use. Rolled up socks and tissue is only the half of it: they have no financial ability to make a choice about what brand of tampon, towel or cup they might otherwise prefer. They are denied bodily autonomy. (I'll be cheeky - give some sanitary products to your local foodbank PLEASE. This is an issue for wc women, girls and more and more disabled women. Ta for the plug!)
   
   So I would answer that question with an observation - if a woman has made a choice about her own body; if she has made that choice in defiance of the constrictions of patriarchal confines as she experiences them; if she has achieved or gained the power to make that choice where she would usually be expected to have none; and if that choice is made freely, and she is happy with it - frankly, I would celebrate that.
   
   I would also personally add that I would want to interrogate my reasons for questioning another woman's choice quite thoroughly, but I always think that's good practice in any context.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I would want to interrogate my reasons for questioning another woman's choice quite thoroughly, but I always think that's good practice in any context.

I completely agree ALuner.

[LangCleg]

I don't know quite why the entire lib/rad fem debate can be distilled into hairy or smooth legs but...

Leg shaving, radfem view

Leg shaving is a bad thing because patriarchal society coerces and pressurises women to accommodate their appearance to the male gaze. Radfems do not condemn women who do shave their legs because they acknowledge the coercive nature of patriarchal society. Radfems may refuse to shave their legs as a challenge to patriarchy and in the hopes of empowering all women through that challenge, rather than empowering themselves individually.

Capitalism does not like this as it offers no market or profit opportunities.

Men do not like this as they prefer women to appeal to the male gaze.

Leg shaving, libfem view

Everybody likes to feel attractive and there's nothing wrong with that. Women may feel more attractive and thus individually empowered if they shave their legs and if they do, that's a good thing. Libfems have an individual analysis and therefore their view of other women shaving their legs is: do whatever the heck makes you happy.

Capitalism loves this because it can create an endless array of products from razors to shaving cream to moisturiser to depilators. It can also create thousands of low paid jobs in which working class women remove the hair from the legs of middle and upper class women.

Men like the libfems who feel empowered by shaving their legs.

I think that about covers it!

[HelenDenver]

Thank you for that post, ALuner

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I don't shave my legs. I don't care that other women do. I don't think it furthers the feminist cause to induce negative feelings about themselves because of their decision to shave.

[HelenDenver]

LangCleg, that feels too dismissive of libfem to me, but I don't know what the counter would be

[LangCleg]

LangCleg, that feels too dismissive of libfem to me, but I don't know what the counter would be

The counter would be that radfem infantilises women who shave their legs!

(You can't knock me. At least I understand both points of view!)

[HelenDenver]

[LangCleg]

And then the radfems would re-counter by saying the libfems are only about getting women to feel good about patriarchy!

Seriously, though, this is the difference. Radfem has a starting point of the society and libfem has a starting point of the self. Everything else, any differences, any similarities, flow from that.

[DeleteOrDecay]

In my view lib feminism doesn't look at the bigger picture. Yes by all means shave your legs if it makes you feel good (I do) but let's not pretend that women removing body hair isn't something that has been imposed and is now expected.

Same goes for 'choosing' to work in the sex industry. Yes fine that's your choice but let's not pretend that the sex industry in all its forms isn't damaging to women, children and even men as a whole (despite them being the ones who benefit from it).

[GoodyMog]

Radfem has a starting point of the society and libfem has a starting point of the self. Everything else, any differences, any similarities, flow from that.

Yep. I can see why the latter appeals. It used to appeal to me (oh dear god the arguments I had with Dittany about burlesque and stripping).