Liberal Feminist
To understand the differences in feminist movements it is useful to go back to the beginning of the 1960s and the new emergence of the concept of “women’s rights” as a topic of political debate in the United States. After the issuance of the constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote, which was not actually implemented until forty years later. There were two major events in the early sixties of the last century, thanks to which they ended the silence about this matter. The first was the publication of the book (The Feminine Mystique, in 1963 by Betty Friedman). The second event: the establishment of the Presidential Committee to discuss the status of women by order of US President “John Kennedy” in 1961. How did these two events affect? What are the demands that her children have in society? What are the differences between the liberal feminist movement and its counterparts in other movements? And what did you distinguish from them?
The popularity of the book, The Feminine Mystique, immediately after its publication is indicative of the widespread resentment against the stereotype of the “happy wife”. According to Friedman, the daily lives of women in neighborhoods are very different from the prevailing picture, and contain very bad qualities. As a result, women activists had to discuss why women were excluded from all forms of public activities, which were seen as belonging only to men. In one of its forms, this debate was brought up in the document entitled “American Women,” which was issued by the committee set up by President Kennedy in 1963. Although the document did not discuss traditional standards related to the status of women in the family, it argued sharply against its exclusion from the fields. Other. This is in addition to its adoption of the idea of “the primary responsibility of mothers and heads of families and the contribution of society to building a strong family neighborhood.” Several government agencies emerged from the committee set up by President Kennedy, such as the Citizens Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, the Administrative Committee on Women’s Issues, and other committees and branches concerned with the status of women. These gatherings created a space for dialogue on women’s issues within the limits of the law and attracted those interested in this field. The significance of the conference held by the National Committee for Caucus in the summer of 1966 in Washington, DC, was the formation of the “Popular Authority for Women.” This commission came in response to the urgent need for a specialized governmental system to push the rest of the governmental branches concerned with the rights of groups. The position of the “People’s Committee for Women” is evident in the women’s rights laws, which held its second national meeting in 1967 in Washington. A parliamentary platform was introduced for the Democratic and Republican committees and for each candidate for the general elections in 1968. These laws contain eight main demands:
1. A constitutional amendment of equal rights.
2. Deterrent laws prohibiting sexual discrimination in employment.
3. Maternity and childbirth rights in the workplace and in termination incentives.
4. Tax deductions to service childcare costs for working parents.
5. Childcare centers.
6. Equal and impartial education.
7. Equal training opportunities and bonuses for needy women.
8. A woman’s right to give birth is guaranteed.
These demands created some confusion, as the Auto Workers Union objected to the constitutional amendment relating to equal rights. The justification of the union and other objectors was that these constitutional amendments would contradict other laws concerned with protecting workers’ rights. Some women also objected to the right to childbirth, arguing that abortion is not covered by women’s rights.
It is well known that the degree of societal life need to change varies with the different local culture, and part of this difference is manifested in the feminist movement. The difference still breeds between liberal feminism and its more extreme counterparts. There is a difference when we call upon the woman’s right to keep her family name after marriage and that the spouses should share in the housework, and between objecting to the privileges granted to the traditional system of marriage and sexual intercourse. Thus, we see that feminist liberalism has embraced the concept of “the personal is the political” more than others, but this has not prevented her from being more cautious in calling for revolutionary political changes.
The most prominent difference between liberal feminism and its more extreme counterparts bears important consequences regarding its position on the relationship between private and public life. Whereas feminist liberalism, like many feminist movements, tended to sympathize with the redefinition of the relationship between the personal and the public, for feminist liberalism this meant that the definition of the private was included as part of the public for a clearer understanding. On this basis, there is an analogy between feminist liberalism and government-backed liberalism in the twentieth century, since they rely on the government to solve social problems. Both positions seek to grant the government more powers and activities that were believed to be the prerogative of the family community. Examples include the development of education, the introduction of the social security system, and the emergence of several health care agencies. This phenomenon, in conjunction with official legislation, has called for some to call for the creation of a new political concept with regard to family issues and their economic activities. This would break the boundary between what is public and private. The dependence of women on men as individuals has transformed into a collective dependence on government aid as a result of the pressure of the work environment.
Sources: Gender and History: The Limits of Social Theory in the Age of the Family (New York: Columbia University Press، hardback edition، 1986; paperback edition 1988).
