Trying to figure out difference between liberal and radical feminism

[Millie2008]

Although I’ve always considered myself a feminist, since becoming a mother I’ve become more actively interested. Perhaps I’m reading the wrong material, but I’m struggling to work out the fundamental difference between liberal and radical feminism. Can anyone give a succinct summary of each and they’re essential differences please? I understand that it’s probably difficult to do this in a few sentences!, so even if you could point me in the direction of some good reading material that would be great. Thank you

It is an unhelpful assertion as it plays to the pro prostitution lobbyists who argue that it is only radical feminists and evangelical Christians who take the anti- stance.

Totally agree, Lass and speakingwoman.

What I would like to know is how the term "liberal feminism" got so successfully hijacked by people who are neither liberals nor feminists.

The essence of classical liberalism is that people can make their own choices be they good or bad. So if a woman chooses to sell sex, that may not be a feminist choice but it is a choice she is entitled to make.

So liberalism may mean feminists fighting so that woman can make 'non feminist' choices.

That's rather a one-dimensional portrait of liberalism, Mousse. Most formulations of liberalism are big on both an account of rights, and of liberties. Because you have to be able to decide what to do when two rights, or two freely made choices, conflict. Hence the old adage about "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

I don't know of many liberal theorists who would defend making selling a kidney legal, for instance.

Yes it doesn't cover the whole of liberalism which is why I said 'essence'. Also, the liberalism is constantly shifting. However, one of the problems radical feminism has with liberal feminism is that a liberal will defend a woman's right to choose be it abortion, pornography or prostitution.

It can be a very uncomfortable position - I don't like it or agree with it but I will defend you right to make that decision.

Decision making does, however, end somewhere and that can be the crux of the matter.

One is just liberal ideology applied to the topic of women, the other is actually an analysis of the role of females in human society.

In only one of these two will you find people saying "feminism is for everyone" or "if it isn't intersectional it isn't feminism".

Many of us haven’t any theoretical knowledge at all. So the harsher swipes at “liberal feminism” are, for me, just like wandering in to someone else’s hard-fought academic debate about some schism that arose in the last century. It doesn’t mean anything to me -I wande4 right out again, no harm done. But - I’m not so inexperienced that I can’t tell when one side is insisting on defining the other side.

There are-thank goodness-a few brave women who disagree with the majority on this board and stick around to say so. It makes the board more interesting. But I have never read a post talking of prostitution being empowering.

Also bear in mind that this board is, essentially, feminism HQ in the U.K. for people of mothering age and upwards outside specialist institutions like Universities. Very few of us who wander over from other boards and get hooked have ever been to any offline feminist or women’s meeting. So the general consensus on this board is essentially what I take feminism to be.

speakingwoman - that's a good point. Judge people by the consequences of their utterances.

Whatever complicated academic, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo someone uses to try to defend their position, if the upshot of it is that they want to cover up the realities of prostitution and trafficking of women by painting a portrait of all prostitutes as Belle du Jour, then, to paraphrase that young man in Leystone, "you ain't no feminist, sister."

...... and whilst I find it interesting to learn about radical feminism and to realise its power as a concept, references to this wrong “liberal” feminism sails over my head

Truthfully I thought “liberal” was, other than in relation to the Liberal Democrats more of an American term for left-wing??

(I am not completely uneducated but we Eng Lit girls were practically encouraged to make random references to political theories in our essays without understanding them. I educated myself after escaping from Durham by swimming the moat...)

To varying degreees, depending on parts of the world, the big 3 concerns for radfems are 1) women’s control over their own fertility; 2) male violence against women; 3) the commodification if women and female sexuality via porn and prostitution

Radical feminists are not the only group who are concerned about those things.

That’s the great thing about this board. Whilst many of you have a background, lots of us don’t so there is both dissemination of info and freshness of input.

No offence taken here Materialist :)

Going back to your comment about "liberalism" coming to mean "just a little bit left wing" I see what you mean, speaking, and it does seem to be used that way very much in the US. I think the old-fashioned distinction in this country would be that liberalism focuses very much on ensuring equality of opportunity for individuals, whereas socialism would focus on some degree of equality of outcome and redistribution of wealth. So typically liberals (while favouring some sort of social security safety net) would want lower taxes. Socialists would probably favour some sort of class analysis and/or emphasis on collective bargaining (though would probably stop short of the full-on collectivism of a Marxist).

Materialist yes, I think neo-liberals (aka libertarians - not sure I see a difference between the two) would back being allowed to sell a kidney, which is why I distinguish them from classical liberals.

I do quite fancy a "campaign for real liberalism" and an attempt to rescue "liberal feminism" from the po-mo, pro-porn, jendah warriors. Because I think when it comes to getting actual results, liberal feminism is more likely to get somewhere.

Again, the beauty is that if one of us does labour a point, it doesn’t matter. In that way the internet is less inflammatory than real life.

For those dismissing Mill he was years ahead of his time on racism too, eg he criticised Carlyle.

Social liberalism is the opposite of social conservatism and applies to subjects like legalising drugs, capital punishment and gay marriage.

Socialism is the opposite of political conservatism and is often defined by economics. You could be a socialist but socially conservative - this used to define many in the Labour Party. You could be a Conservative but liberal on social issues.

Lots of information to assimilate here, thank you, such an interesting read. I definitely need to do further thinking/research, as there were posts I agreed with from both stances.
Do liberal feminists and radical feminists have similar views with regards to trans issues? I could of course be wrong, but it seems that from this thread and others I’ve read on here that perhaps they fundamentally do? As in - the concept of gender is socially constructed anyway, so no one has issues with for e.g. a man wearing a skirt, in the same way no one has issues with a woman having short hair- as the idea that only women wear skirts and only men have short hair have been socially constructed as representing this idea of gender. But biology is scientifically factual, and therefore it remains important for changing areas, toilets, prisons, hospitals etc. to remain segregated by sex.... am I correct in thinking both liberal and radical feminists would hold this view?

On the whole, these days, people who would describe themselves as liberal feminists are all about the trans and being as "inclusive" as possible (though, as I argued up thread, there's no reason why a genuine liberal thinker would accept this - a genuine liberal would, I think, be quite keen on distinguishing scientific fact from political ideology, and would also see women's spaces in terms of balancing competing sets of rights, so would not immediately jump to the "trans rights win oppression top trumps" view).

Thanks fermats. Sorry if I’m being a bit dim/slow here, but when you say “inclusive” what do you mean?

By inclusive, I mean they're terribly keen on including people with penises in women's spaces if the people with penises identify as women.