If I'm a feminist but not radical or liberal, what am I?

[itsnotawatercat]

I'm gender critical, and radical feminism is much more up my street than liberal/intersectional feminism. (eg I think porn and prostitution are harmful to women).

But I don't agree with the rad fems who say all heterosexual relationships and motherhood are both, by nature harmful to women, and, ideally, best avoided.

Is there a branch of feminism that celebrates motherhood? And recognises that it is at least possible for a women to be (shock horror!) happy in - and not oppressed by - her individual heterosexual relationship, despite the societal background of misogyny?

(Did I just commit heresy?! )

It's interesting that so many posters are replying, seeing names for sets of ideas as divisive. I can see that argument, but names for sets of ideas are also helpful so you can talk about them, and learn about them!

Part of the problem with modern politics, I believe, is a lack of naming sets of ideas / ideologies. Political parties used to tie their ideologies to the post and stand by them. But these days we have ideologies affecting our lives, and people don't even know their names - for example neo-liberalism. Many Tories are following a neo-liberal agenda, but they don't use this word, they avoid naming the political sets of ideas they believe in, instead they use soundbites to present their policies as stand-alone, not part of a bigger picture. And that means it's harder to see what they're up to, people are kept in the dark about what the overall aims are.

It's good to have names for sets of ideas so you can better understand them, and learn about them. This isn't necessarily divisive.

Also, I feel on much stronger ground saying to the rad fems who tell me my ideas are wrong, to say "I don't subscribe to all the ideas of radical feminism, I'm interested in matricentric feminism" as that can lead to an informed discussion rather than "I don't subscribe to all the ideas of radical feminism, I'm interested in normal feminism".

It's quite sad that the biggest reason you need names for your beliefs are to explain to other women.

Divisions only help the ones trying to bring feminism down, not the feminists trying to achieve true equality.

Now call me a cynic, but these threads all look like rather goady

Nope, I'm not being goady, I'm trying to explore ideas and learn more about feminism.

Continually asking what kind of feminist you are is really a distraction from being a feminist

If it was the same person asking, then perhaps! But I'm not the same person as those other threads!

I'm starting to feel a bit silenced tbh, as if people want me to STFU rather than explore and better understand feminist ideas.

If I was going to be cynical / paranoid I could start asking questions about who exactly doesn't want feminists to explore ideas and learn from each other!

Now call me a cynic, but these threads all look like rather goady

Nope, I'm not being goady, I'm trying to explore ideas and learn more about feminist ideas, because I'm interested in the topic.

Continually asking what kind of feminist you are is really a distraction from being a feminist

If it was the same person asking, then perhaps! But I'm not the same person as those other threads!

I'm starting to feel a bit silenced tbh, as if people want me to STFU rather than explore and better understand feminist ideas.

If I was going to be cynical / paranoid I could start asking questions about who exactly doesn't want feminists to explore ideas and learn from each other!

Over and over you see women becoming more feminist when they have children

Yes, becoming a mother hugely reignited my interest in feminism, and made me think about it in new ways.

A feminism that doesn't support mothers is a movement that is dead within a generation. And is frankly, ridiculous. Who the hell would support a movement that expected human reproduction to stop because < reasons> and anticipated the imminent and purposeful extinction of humanity?
Bah.
Lots of shouty voices in this movement, and so there should be, but what is needed is for women not to cede ground or supremacy to the nuttier proponents; instead to centre feminism in realism.
Feminism is for females. All of us. Woman, girl, mother, childless, lesbian, straight, of all religions and none.

I don't really consider myself a radical feminist despite the central theme hitting the mark much more than liberal feminism.

I am a feminist though. And a mother.

Feminism is for females. All of us. Woman, girl, mother, childless, lesbian, straight, of all religions and none

This. Irrespective of race, creed, beliefs, shapes, sizes, marital status, motherhood or not, disabilities, work status, economic status.

Feminists want true equality for women and girls. Where violence against us isn't disproportionately high, where casual sexism and sexual aggression isn't the norm for us or our daughters/mothers/sisters. Where pay is equal, where being a mother doesn't disadvantage us career and pension wise. Where women's safe spaces are just that, and where i know that my DD is less at risk than her brothers in the same situations.

Where worldwide women and girls can access medication, education, reproductive services, the job market, have the freedom to be who they are without fear.

That, to me, is feminism.

By fuck we're a long way off.

But I don't agree with the rad fems who say all heterosexual relationships and motherhood are both, by nature harmful to women, and, ideally, best avoided.

I don't understand why you can hear that voice and not the ones saying this is not an accurate representation of radical feminism.
Radical feminism seeks to understand and change the structure that creates inequalities.

Liberal feminism seeks to create equality withing the existing structure, and many women believe that is doomed to failure. If equality were feasible we'd already have it.

If you don't want to use either label then you can call yourself a feminist, but it is a verb as much as it is a noun.

I think it's really important to define precisely what is meant by feminism, and then to understand the different definitions of different types of feminism.

It's the belief that feminism can be any old thing, or "whatever you think it is" or "anyone can be a feminist" is what keeps getting it hijacked by men decade after decade.

Saying it's unimportant to have clear definitions is, to me, the same as saying women's politics shouldn't be taken as seriously as men's politics.

It's only if there are clear definitions , that you can know whether you agree or disagree with different feminist camps

It's strange to suggest feminism should be a blanket term to encompass all women's opinions because women are just too different from each other

Yes, labels are very useful in context. No one is telling you to shut up, but threads here don't exist in a vacuum and if there have been quite a few about how to be a correct feminist seemingly with the aim of encouraging excessive division then you needn't be surprised or offended if your thread is seen in that context.

In terms of the usefulness of labels, I wouldn't think that you'd make your argument that "I'm a normal feminist, not a radical feminist" and that isn't what the responses here have been saying at all.

Personally I understand much of the rad fem position, and certainly prefer it to the broadly lib fem one. I am a number of other things myself - I am pro life, I am Catholic, I am a Doctor Who fan. Each of those labels often leads to all sorts of wrong assumptions about my views, which I then usually have to clarify, so while the labels can be useful shorthand to lead in to a conversation, they have their limits.

Basically, I don't really see why you can't approach things by saying you tend towards rad fem ideas, and when in conversation talk about the significance and importance of motherhood and all that involves, as part of the feminist movement. Tbh, aside from some of the extreme positions that have been mentioned on other threads, I've never seen overtly anti-natal feminism on Mumsnet, which is hardly surprising given the demographic.
But I read those threads that talked about it, and I found it interesting to consider the thinking, while I don't agree with it, and I didn't feel excluded because some feminists have those opinions.

Anyway, I posted as I did because of the afore mentioned context of a number of these threads, and also because I have read threads some time ago where women were very new to feminist thought and were feeling unnecessarily excluded because they didn't fit neatly into expected beliefs. So it wasn't to tell you to shut up, it was actually to reassure you.

It's strange to suggest feminism should be a blanket term to encompass all women's opinions because women are just too different from each other

And yet we’re all still women, different but still women. A definition for feminism is needed, and has always been there. We don’t need to label ourselves beyond that. That’s tribalism.

sakura184 yes I totally agree.

It's strange to suggest feminism should be a blanket term to encompass all women's opinions because women are just too different from each other

It's also not what has been suggested. I and others talked about feminism being a things that centres women. For the avoidance of doubt, I meant centres women with the aim of their liberation. That's not saying that feminism is any woman's opinion just because she is a woman.

This, especially:

It's the belief that feminism can be any old thing, or "whatever you think it is" or "anyone can be a feminist" is what keeps getting it hijacked by men decade after decade.

Saying it's unimportant to have clear definitions is, to me, the same as saying women's politics shouldn't be taken as seriously as men's politics.

So now, instead of talking about ideas on this thread, we're debating whether it's reasonable to talk about and name ideas. Shame.

threads here don't exist in a vacuum and if there have been quite a few about how to be a correct feminist seemingly with the aim of encouraging excessive division then you needn't be surprised or offended if your thread is seen in that context.

Ok I'll be really frank. I do find it irritating that certain, what you might call "fringe groups" of radical feminism are yolking the feminist leanings of mothers to serve their own political interests (trans- which I emphatically do not regard as the most important issue in feminism) when - having been involved up close with such groups- I know how they really feel about mothers.

I was not the one who thought it would be a good idea to divide women into mothers/non mothers, but I had this divide imposed upon me when I began to explore feminism. It feels exactly the same as when patriarchs put me in the mother box: not nice at all.

I think, by the way, that women who happen to be mothers ( because I've never thought of defining women in relation to whether or not they've given birth) are amongst the most vulnerable in society , and because of this, issues that affect such women are overlooked in feminism. They are the voiceless.

I think it's great that everybody has united to fight trans, I guess. But it is definitely at the neglect of other issues.

if there have been quite a few about how to be a correct feminist seemingly with the aim of encouraging excessive division

I've noticed two.

One was in response to a radical feminist group (which I'm in, so I know this wasn't stirring but a genuine response to a real life discussion elsewhere).

I noticed the one about hair, but didn't read it beyond a quick skim, as tbh it seemed a silly question to me.

Have there been many more?

There is a lot of cross over between Mumsnetters and feminist groups elsewhere online, and there have been certain rad fems recently keen to tell others how to do radical feminism correctly, including the idea that heterosexual relationships and motherhood are bad for women. (to be clear, I haven't seen anyone saying you shouldn't be in a heterosexual relationship or be a mother, but that we need to understand that radical feminism is clear that they're inherently harmful to us).

I imaging that's why there have been so many threads recently. Such a strong position provokes thought and discussion, and this is a place many of us come to e

Oops hit send too soon!

.. and this is a place many of us come to explore ideas.

I think, by the way, that women who happen to be mothers ( because I've never thought of defining women in relation to whether or not they've given birth) are amongst the most vulnerable in society , and because of this, issues that affect such women are overlooked in feminism. They are the voiceless.

Yes I totally agree (except, I'm happy to use the word mother!).

I was becoming a mother that made me interested in feminism again, and to see why I needed it within my own life.

I do see the world differently since being a mother, and I wish there was a well-known, strong strand of feminism that celebrated motherhood and examined issues relevant to us. I'm looking forward to reading the book LancCleg recommended.

That division between mothers/non mothers hasn't been.part of my experience, as my feminism was really grown as the realities of the patriarchy hit me when I realized how I was treated in relation to motherhood and issues surrounding it.

I read the anti natalist ideas with interest, but distance, because it's not really how I've lived.

I haven't seen anyone saying you shouldn't be in a heterosexual relationship or be a mother, but that we need to understand that radical feminism is clear that they're inherently harmful to us

Yes radical feminism is clear on this.

I think it's great that everybody has united to fight trans, I guess. But it is definitely at the neglect of other issues

I see it as a gateway issue! Hasn't interest in feminism increased overall? For example, Make More Noise's recent event in Manchester was packed, and the theme wasn't on trans issues specifically, it was more generally "the elephant in the room". This excellent talk from Sarah Cooksley, for example was to do with domestic violence, not trans issues. Surely the trans issue - and more generally how obvious it is that women's voices and needs are being ignored in relation to trans issues - is bringing many women back into feminism, or into feminism for the first time - and many of them will expand their feminism into other issues over time?

Yes for sure, you're right that it's a gateway issue. And women peak at different times so after peaking they then go off and explore other issues. If this pattern is correct we're going to be seeing a lot of interest in other areas of feminism in the years to come

Sigh. And I posted in good faith, an' all.

itsnotawatercat

You've noticed two. I've seen reams of attempts to wind up and divide here, so I guess I shall have to leave you to discover that joy all by yourself. It's lovely that FWR is once again becoming a place where feminist ideas are explored. I just don't think the framing of those discussions as 'which camp can you be in if you subscribe to such and such a view' is especially productive. You wanted to discuss motherhood within feminism. You started a thread which focused on tribal divisions within feminism. If you wanted the focus to be on motherhood, it wasn't an effective opener.

"It's good to have names for sets of ideas so you can better understand them, and learn about them. This isn't necessarily divisive."

I completely agree. You can discuss ideas and try to understand them without having to identify with them.