involved any more...). Books such as Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics (1970) and
Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1970) began focusing more attention
upon the personal, psychological and sexual aspects of female oppression.
Radical feminism differs from liberal and socialist views in acknowledging that
gender alone is the most fundamental of social divisions. For example, where a
socialist feminist would argue that we live in a ‘capitalist society’, radical
feminists insist we live in ‘patriarchal society’. These two views are, however, not
immensely dissimilar. Radical feminist Firestone adopted Marxist theory to swap
class for sex. Society can be understood through the process of reproduction (as
opposed to production). In bearing children, women are constantly at the mercy
of biology. Socialist feminism developed as a coherent movement in the mid
twentieth century, although some socialist ideas were used during the ‘first
wave’. Socialist feminist ideas are based on Marxist theories of capitalism, and
that it is to blame for the oppression of women. This relates back to the position
of women in pre-capitalist societies with the ‘mother right’ - the inheritance of
property and social position through the female line. Capitalism in turn, is based
upon ownership of private property by men. Men achieve paternity by insisting on
monogamous marriage, rigorously applied to wives but routinely ignored by the
husband.
The public / private distinction is a main area of feminist ideology. It represents a
distinction between a female’s public life - economic and political - and her
domestic role. Both socialist and radical feminists agree that these two areas
are equally important. For socialists, a woman’s domestic role can be seen as
rather useful to capitalism. Women constitute a reserve army of labour, which
can be recruited into the workforce when there is a need to increase production
and easily shed and returned to domestic life during a depression. They believe
that women could gain economic independence and enjoy enhanced social
status if their domestic labour is recognised as productive and worthwhile by
being paid. This same argument is used for the legalisation of prostitution. Millett
described patriarchy as a ‘social constant’ running through all political, social
and economic structures. Different gender roles are a result of conditioning and
the institution of ‘the family’ must be destroyed. Liberal feminists believe in
reforms to establish rights in the public sphere but give less attention to the
division of labour within the family.
The issue of sex and gender is initially simple within radical feminism. Radical
feminist ideology is defined by it’s belief that all political, social and economic
structures are controlled by and favour men. Millett and Firestone agree that the
nature of the sexes in equal and human nature is androgynous - therefore there is
no good reason for the patriarchal system. Other ‘pro-women’ radical feminists
however, believe that men and women are different, but equal. Liberals accept
different natures and inclinations between men and women and accept that
women lean towards family and domestic life because they are influenced by
nature and so this reflects a willing choice. Orthodox Marxists insist upon the
primacy of class politics over sexual politics - for example, the ‘bourgeois family’
arose as a consequence of private property - a by-product of capitalism.
Therefore women are oppressed not by men but by ‘private property’ therefore
feminists should devote time to the class war, as a by-product of social revolution
would be emancipation.
It is clear that socialist and feminist arguments are similar - especially in their
outright aim: equality for women in both public and private life. It is the reasons
for female oppression on which they disagree, most notably that socialists
believe in the capitalist society whilst radical feminists see a patriarchal society,
although as illustrated earlier these arguments have a similar basis, with radical
views growing out of socialist views in many ways. Most criticisms are directed
towards the liberal feminists. Other feminists believe that it’s individualist
perspective draws away from the structural character of patriarchy, in which
women are subordinated as a sex that is subject to systematic and pervasive
oppression. In viewing humans as individuals, it is argued liberalism appears to
transcend gender. The allegedly sexless individual will embody male norms. This
idea of ‘personhood’ makes it more difficult for women to think and act
collectively. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that the liberal demand for
equal rights assumes that all women would have the opportunity to take
advantage of better educational and economic opportunities; other forms of race
and class are ignored.
Since the late 1970s, feminism has operated in an increasingly hostile political
environment. Both Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s, for example, were openly
antifeminist in their desire to restore the woman’s role as a housewife, therefore
upholding traditional family values. The new right has tried to reassert ‘pro-family’
patriarchal values and ideas, not only because they are seen to be ‘natural’ but
also because they are viewed as a guarantee of social order and stability. For
example, the rise in crime and vandalism would be blamed upon single or
working mothers. In the face of these challenges, the women’s movement has
undergone a process of deradicalisation.
The main problem for feminism in the twenty-first century is that many of the
original goals appear to have been reached. The right to vote was achieved in
the early years of the twentieth century, so ‘second wave’ feminism successfully
campaigned in many countries for the legalisation of abortion, equal pay
legislation, anti-discrimination laws and wider access to education and political
and professional life. So the central illusion for post-feminism is that the most
obvious forms of sexual oppression have been overcome. However, it is still
women who are predominantly employed in poorly paid, low status and often part
time jobs. So, as with ‘second wave’ feminism, the problem is still the subjection
of women and the supremacy of men, but as in the sixties and seventies,
feminists are finding ways to agree on how and why women are still being
oppressed. The main argument of which is that women should have the choice to
work and raise a family. This, however, means that women are held back from
having successful careers, often by the ‘glass ceiling’ meaning that employers
will not promote a woman who has or wants to have children of her own. This
idea indicates a move back to liberal feminism, with it’s ideas that women are
influenced by nature, and so have more of an inclination towards family and
domestic life. But the ‘pro-women’ radical feminists are a better example, with
their belief that while men and women are different, they are equal and so should
not be oppressed by being given worse jobs and not as many chances in the
workplace, as liberalism doesn’t seem to take account for the fact that many
women want to raise a family and have a successful job.
1
