Liberal feminism: the strand that keeps us tied to the patriarchy
Have you ever been seduced by the hegemonic discourse of the liberal feminism? I assume that, for a long a time, I was. It’s this strand that permeates the main News channels, advertisements and corporate programs that alludes to feminism. Its omnipresence in a bunch of medias is responsible for the appealing and seductive nature between women and men. The name of the strand, which at first inspires affinity, it’s in fact a reference to the political-economic order known as liberalism. Behind it is the philosophy that preaches the supremacy of individual freedoms over collective thinking. Still according to this notion, the market is the major provider and regulator of the social relations, so that free trade is fundamental for its exercise and the State interference must be minimal, principle also known as minimal State.
In order to understand how the liberal feminism is related to the liberal ideology mentioned in the last paragraph, it’s important to do a historical throwback. The rise of the liberalism date back to the Illuminism (the Age of Reason) and the struggles waged by the British bourgeoisie in the eighteenth century against reigning absolutism. The proposal of the reason-based doctrine covered the defense of individual rights, equality before the law, protection of private property, openness to diversity, recognition of the merit, among others. But as history has repeatedly taught us, theory often distances itself from practice, generating distortions and acute social problems. In this case, the final balance of the implementation of this ideology, which is embedded in capitalism, is more present than never: the hegemony of a wealthy and minority class and deep levels of social inequality.
Another element that constitutes the capitalist and liberal system is the patriarchal structure that, from the outset, involved different social levels under its tentacles. The same elite that condemned the proletarian mass and non-white groups to the precariousness created an environment to confine, erase and relegate many women to social ostracism. With many restricted to the home, others destined to precarious and unhealthy jobs and all occupied with the work of social reproduction, women were separated from life in society and politics, under the supervision of husbands in the private sphere and an elite of white and rich men who have always dominated State institutions. The reversal of this secular imprisonment is still ongoing and its legacy lies in the conquest of the female vow, contraceptive methods and other rights acquired for those who confronted the hegemonic order.
What’s the problem with liberal feminism?
One of the problems with the liberal doctrine, which guide many political and economical systems, is that it also permeates most of feminist discourses based on gender equality. That’s the ideology behind speeches about women accessing corporate levels that, before, were only occupied by men, for example. By appropriating arguments from the liberal-individualist logic and occupying spaces within the structure of the patriarchy capitalist, the so-called feminist ends up adapting and reproducing social stratification. That is, the hierarchies resulting from inequalities based on issues such as class, gender, race and other evaluative factors. Thus, liberal feminism is built as a movement restricted to those at the top of the social pyramid.
Under individualistic practices, liberal feminism restricts female emancipation to some privileged groups and sells simply unrealistic empowerment speeches for most of people. The lack of revolutionary character and the dominant feeling of complacency about the prevailing oppressive structures end up being attractive to the elitist interests that underpin capitalism. No wonder liberal feminism has been gaining space in the headlines, companies and the support of men who are in the high levels of businesses. Far from releasing women, the system works to turn the debate superficial, creating “girl power” narratives that only slips into the fundamentals themes of the feminist movement. Such manipulations create the necessary smoke screen to make it difficult for women realize the oppression and exploitation to which they remain submitted.
The speech that public and private institutions chant in defense of gender equality is actually associated with meritocracy — one of the main features of the liberal philosophy, as mentioned before. Thus, paths are created to make possible for more women occupy high positions, previously restricted to men. While competitiveness between women and men at the top of the financial pyramid keep rising, those who doesn’t belong to the 1% of the elites keep being crushed by the system and used to free the few women who freed themselves from reproductive labor, since now they have the financial conditions to outsource it to the poorer layers.
Conclusion
Its crucial to see that the progress of feminism and gender “equality” conditions can’t be measured by a greater number of women executives, as many media outlets suggest in reports that praise women’s major occupation in the corporate hierarchy. This is a minority composed of white, middle-class and educated women who have consciously or unknowingly accepted to submit to the same system that oppresses and throw women in precarious and low-paid jobs. There is no transformation when only a minority can release themselves. A real feminist emancipation relies on a revolution that subverts the capitalist, patriarchal and racist system. Until all women are free, women’s release won’t have happened.
*This is a translation of a text written in Portuguese.
