Great thread: reasons to reconsider/abandon liberal or third wave feminism

[SunsetBeetch]

Saw this on twitter and think it sums up the issues with liberal feminism really well.

"If you haven't already, here are some reasons to reconsider/abandon liberal or third-wave feminism:

The "language orthodoxy" (credit to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie) or, the way libfems police words & their meaning and usage. Incredibly ironic for a "feminism" that claims to represent the oppressed; what's more academic and exclusive than strict rules re: your own jargon?

The absurd notion that any choice a woman makes is inherently a feminist or empowering one. This ignores every context except for the personal context of a given individual. It ignores larger power/political/religious/cultural influences.

You're likely to be accused of racism or of enabling racism if you speak about the difficulties women in different religions or countries face. It discourages anything other than extreme and complete cultural relativism. (If white, you'll be called a "white feminist".)

Lib feminism also misrepresents or ignores the plight of women and girls who have been victims of sex trafficking, prostitution and pornography. Women who leave various religions, sexist communities or the sex trade can be vilified/ silenced b/c they don't fit a libfem narrative.

Sex work and porn are celebrated and normalized. Have you heard of the oxymoron "feminist porn"? Libfems seem to love Teen Vogue with its preteen girl readers being shown how positive sex work and anal sex are (without detailing harms/considering this is grooming).

Libfems are happy to erase women's bodies and experiences from our language(s). Major health orgsdealing w/cancer or childbirth etc.are celebrated for "inclusivity" by calling us by our body parts or functions. Men are NOT treated the same way.

Liberal feminism pretends women don't need sex segregation in intimate spaces. In many areas, women are still fighting this most basic fight for women's rights & public safety. In the Western world, it's "progressive" to undo the work of earlier feminists.

"Queer theory" is at the core of liberal feminism. You're guilty of sedition if you point out how much of this theory reinforces gender stereotypes and promotes the homophobic notion that same-sex attraction is exclusive.

From this, a mystical belief in a "gender soul" or the idea we can be born in the "wrong body" follows. Disagree? You're a bigot who "hates trans people" or seeks to "erase their existence".

Liberal feminism refuses to acknowledge it's entirely possible (and commonplace) to support trans people, want them to have equal rights and access to healthcare etc. while not believing it's possible to LITERALLY change one's sex.

There's a general refusal to engage with dissent--even minor disagreements. There is no room for nuance. Don't agree with absolutely everything/the entire language orthodoxy? Bigot. TERF. SWERF. Personal attacks.

Libfems embrace flimsy social science while ignoringor actively attempting to suppresscontradictory evidence or more robust/medical science (or established medical FACTS). But don't be surprised when YOU are the one accused of "cherry picking" etc. if you disagree.

There's more... but that's all I've got for now. Please comment if I've overlooked something huge. I'm hoping to reach some libfems out there!"

Links here if you want to add to the discussion:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078508968786374658.html

twitter.com/preta_6/status/1078508968786374658?s=19

I do wonder HOW we can reach lib fems and perhaps discuss/ reason with them? It seems an impossible task at the moment.

The Green Party has been overtaken by Lib Fems. It was an open goal with the likes of Caroline Lucas, Baroness Jenny Jones and former leader Natalie Bennet shrugging their shoulders, keeping their heads down and bowing to the 'will of the membership'. Without so much as a fight.

Every single motion to introduce a policy supporting women was greeted with 'what about men?'

Sian Berry and Amelia Womack (co-leader and Deputy leader) are cheer leaders for the legalisation/decriminalisation of prostitution.

And of course, TWAW continues to be the Green Party's policy - no-one has actually taken steps to remove it.

In the May council elections, the Green Party is expected to make a lot of gains at the expense of the Conservative and Labour Parties. They don't expect the 'Woman Question' to raise its head. They are in for a suprise if enough woman can be persuaded to use the elections to protest.

One can be a mixture of different kinds of feminist, have differing views on various subjects. Is it productive to start parcelling feminism up into different factions? I don't mean don't discuss/don't disagree with thte views themselves, I think that's entirely healthy and necessary; I just mean the labels - 2nd/3rd wave, etc, I find confusing and not very helpful.

Second wave feminism, also known as radical feminism, is the only type of feminism that was around in my youth.

It's called radical feminism from the Latin (or possibly Greek) word for root. The word radish stems from the same source. It doesn't imply extremism but rather "concerned with or tending to concentrate on fundamental aspects of a matter; searching or thoroughgoing."

Radical feminism has a well thought through basis: analysing the position of women both within our society but also worldwide. It does this through class analysis. So instead of, for instance, looking at the pay of lots of individual women we examine the overall picture, which gives us far more useful figures and, from those figures, conclusions.

Third wave feminism doesn't qualify as a serious theory because it doesn't have intellectual underpinnings. There is no coherent philosophy. Anything an individual woman does can be described as empowering, from sex work to spending hours a day applying cosmetics.

If you understand the basis of the two strands of feminism then parcelling them up becomes unavoidable, ScrimshawTheSecond.

There have always been labels about the different types of feminism.

2nd wavers used to have socialist feminists, women's libbers, lesbian separatists, wymyn, womanists, radical feminists, etc etc.

1st wavers undoubtedly had suffragists and equalists.

Feminism is too damn large not to have different factions with people focused on different areas, and scorn heaped thereupon.

The fact that 3rd wave libfems insist on one faction as true feminism, and insists that men must be allowed to be women as a foundational principle is a big reveal about its roots.

Just to note: I don't think my post fundamentally disagrees with Prawnofthepatriarchy, who said it better than I could.

2nd wave did have more class analysis / awareness to it, to all the factions which were more spin on the English than fundamental disagreement.

3rd wave though, that started as backlash analysis of everything 2nd wave "got wrong" and then recouped as "lipstick feminism", but that was a bit too light so lets go with queer theory and use intersectional analysis to spin it. I find it incoherent.

Absolutely incoherent, KindOfAGeek. And far too wide. "Feminism is for everyone"? - wouldn't that be egalitarianism?