How can liberal feminists argue that sexism exists if they deny biological sex exists?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GenderCritical

Liberal feminists, like Emma Watson, argue that sexism exists. However, how can liberal feminists argue that sexism exists and has a detrimental impact on women if they deny that biological sex exists?

These two things contradict each other.

If liberal feminists think that being a woman is an innate idea/feeling/lady brain, rather than a biological reality that is fixed and can't be changed, then you can't experience or have sexism in society and sexist men, for sexism requires biological reality to exist (hence the name). Liberal feminists don't seem to see this. They don't seem to see that viewing womenhood as a gender and sexism is at odds with one another, they can't have it both ways as it doesn't make sense. By denying the biological reality of the female sex, the logical conclusion to that is for them to deny sexism.

It's ironic, because liberal feminism is actually sexist. They support gender, so therefore, they support the idea that to be a woman you have to be feminine and be a stereotype, as that is what the concept of gender is about. The more I think about liberal feminism, the more I realize that it is the opposite of feminism.

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jkfinn 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"The more I think about liberal feminism, the more I realize that it is the opposite of feminism."

At one time, "feminist" mainly assumed "radical feminist." But at the end of the 1970's, the self-named feminist pro-sex movement split the second wave. After that, it was "what kind of feminist are you?" liberal? socialist? pro-sex? And then the liberals feminist began to become what "feminist" meant. So, a kind of reversal, which stands today, at least in terms of numbers and sheer public influence.

[–]PurpleAmathea 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

They claim that sexism is really anti-femme-ism. Ie the problem is femininity is discriminated against, rather than females.

[–]nonpenishaver 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yep. Back when I was a libfem this is literally what I believed. That sexism and misogyny were rooted in hate/disrespect toward femininity. And if men could just be taught to see femininity as "equal" to masculinity, sexism would be over. Lol.

This belief crumbled when I got into radical feminism and learned how men have always hated biological females, and they enforce femininity on us precisely because femininity is degrading. I only needed to hear this explained to me once before I got it. It was instantaneous. It baffles me that there are grown women who call themselves feminists and still don't get it.

[–]Lemonade_Masquerade 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. And because it's -femininity- that's oppressed, not females, it's obvious how TIMs can use that to their advantage. It's funny, because they always talk about femininity in a way that's more closely related to homophobia than misogyny. "I was always discriminated against for wearing make up!" That's a male thing. Women are pushed -into- make up etc not for doing it. It is devalued because it's seen as feminine, but it's not the same experience.

It also works in their favor because it's easy to paint radical feminists as just as discriminatory for our anti-femininity views. They're individualists, and none of them seem to be able to tell the difference between a criticism of a system and a personal attack. So "I think choices are not made in a vacuum. I think that society has an influence on our decisions and our decisions have an impact on society" gets the response "Why are you shaming me right now?" It's not the things themselves, it's always us. Men liking a feminine thing won't make it accepted. It'll just be seen as something for men. Computer programming is a great example. Or it'll be like cooking, expected by women at home but high paying chefs tend to be men. In the art world, women do crafts, men make art. The only continuous thread is that if it is associated with women, it's less important. After all, if women can do it, then it must be easy. It's unimpressive.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

This sounds like juggling with words, because the problem "femininity is discriminated" exist only because it is females who are discriminated, and because of that - everything that is reminding of famels (or "feminine") is discriminated too. Femme gay is discriminated not because he is femme, but because femme is "like female or reminding about females". Even wording of discriminations says that, I often hear "why you look like a girl" or "are you a woman or something?", it is clearly not my femme looks that are discriminated, but the fact that I am reminding them about women or the fact that man "acts like a woman".

And it is easy to see if person just checks the history. When men were wearing dresses and make up (aristocracy, old Japan or anceint greeks/rome) - women still were discriminated, even if they were looking "manly" by current standarts. Or if person go into the big facility where poor people are working and will see masculine women working there and doing hard work, and yet they are still discriminated, while being "not feminine looking". And the fact that meaning of "feminine" is different in every part of the world as well - somewhere it is make-up and 90-60-90, somewhere it is small feet, somewhere it is long neck, somewhere it is weight above 90 kg, somewhere it is crooked teeth, and so on.

[–]PurpleAmathea 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Oh it's certainly bullshit. By their reasoning butch women don't face oppression, when actually butch women are regularly penalised for not being feminine enough aka not falling into the subservient, decorative role female objects are supposed to fulfill.

But I'm just saying, this is the bullshit that they use as their explanation of sexism. (it's also why they consider radfen criticism of makeup/heels/shaving to be sexist, because it's criticising femininity and that's sexist. When actually radfems whole point is men get to be the default and not have to do anything to be acceptable whereas women are expected to spend hours of time and money policing their appearance to fit within the narrow range deemed acceptable presentation for the underclass.)

[–]MezozoicGay 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

it's also why they consider radfen criticism of makeup/heels/shaving to be sexist

It is almost like if you remove makeup from face you will stop being a woman.

[–]msteacherlady 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Back in the day I'd take this angle as a strategy to help people realize feminism was a good thing and helps everyone. However, at this point, I feel like IT AIN'T WOMEN'S JOB. Fix your own house, men.

[–]sisterinsomnia 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup. It used to be that the three major (in how many are affected by them) axes of oppression were based on sex, race and class. Now it is the wokeratis who are erasing sex and that means we won't be able to speak clearly about sex-based oppression at all. They argue that sex is a social construct and a spectrum but sexism and misogyny have no trouble treating it as binary.

It's also fun that it is only the female sex that is being erased. Men can still be the only ones who suffer from prostate cancer but women can't be the only ones who can menstruate.

[–]vitunrotta 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The more I read about liberal feminists, the more I think that these people nowadays are the people who did the biggest disservice to the movement EVER. Hate to say this about my fellow women but alas, some of them fell for that trap. And it has to do with so many things. Age, sex, economics, one's societal status, innate goals, innate fears... In any case they decided to just go for it head first, and look at them now. Look at them. Paul Rudd voice intensifies LOOK AT THEM.

I hope a lot of them can crawl out of it, though. They are certainly not "feminists" in my mind at all - just some people who were looking for a place where they could finally belong, and that made them feel accepted and radical at the same time - while they were trying to figure out the odd and sexist and nonsensical mathematics of our current capitalist world.

Unfortunately, they will not become anything by repeating some postmodern individualist claptrap horseshit on Twitter. One day, we shall hope, they'll overcome and join our ranks once more.

EDIT: Were to are in the beginning

[–]MezozoicGay 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Same happened with LGBT community. LGBT now are the ones who are promoting things which LGBT was supposed to fight against. Anti-feminism is rebranded as "feminism" and anti-LGB is rebranded as "LGBT". And most of them actually believing they are doing a good thing.

However, this is not even the worst part.

The worst part is that young people are coming to Feminism or LGBT movements, and all they see is libFem or TRA. And they are thinking it is normal, they are believing in this, and thinking they are helping and that everything is good. They are not aware that things can be different, they are not aware that they can be wrong. This is why Paekening exist at all - when people starting to notice that something is off, that something is wrong in all this.

[–]Sebell 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not liberal feminism - it's transfeminism. Julia Serrano if you want to read up on it.

She argues that women do not face discrimination. Feminine people do. This puts "butch women" above "transwomen" in terms of oppression points.

Next, she argues something or another about adherance to the binary.

Now - most of them have not actually read the source so they can't name it, or articulate it very well, and frankly, it's a lot of drivel. But there are some good summaries out there of her work. But what they are advocating is "transfeminism" - oppression is based on being feminine, or masculine, NOT on being female or male.

Radical Feminism, among other things - is the belief we should change society. Liberal Feminism, among other things, is the belief we should preserve society - and make smaller changes.

I have been doing a lot of feminist reading lately...

Oh, this is a great review, start here: https://www.sociologylens.net/topics/gender/julia-seranos-whipping-girl-a-review/11727

Comments are golden "fix this" "oh i humbly apologize for my transgressions".

[–]MezozoicGay 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

In one of libFem articles I've read there was line "feminism is saving everyone and is for everyone" (why then there "femin" in name?). So I am not even sure it is about sexism at all, it looks more like communism, "everything same for everyone", and not like feminism.

I am very surprised that they are not using words like "genderism" to replace "sexism" yet.

[–]materialrealityplz 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whenever I see those kinds of people, I point out that women have been really stupid all this time, for not just identifying out of their oppression as the inferior sex.

[–]LasagnaRossa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're overthinking it: libfems accept everything like a faith without caring if some parts are incompatible with others. Like a religion.