'There are liberal feminists, socialist feminists and radical feminists, but no conservative feminists.' Discuss.

‘There are liberal feminists, socialist feminists and radical feminists, but no conservative feminists.’ Discuss.

Although the three main strains of feminism – liberal, socialist and radical – have taken priority in studies of feminism, it must not be forgotten that there are other, less well known strains of feminism which include not only conservative feminism, but also eco-feminism and post-modernist feminism. Liberal feminism is concerned, as liberalism itself is, with the individual: female emancipation, individualism and gender inequality can all be found within this strain. Socialist feminism argues that nothing short of a social revolution can bring about the necessary changes in society and offer women genuine emancipation. They also believe that patriarchy can only be understood in the light of social and economic factors. Radical feminists believe that the personal is the politics: the details of family life should be challenged by political changes. It is a reactionary movement that believes in revolutionary change in society and the raising of consciousness amongst individuals in society.

Liberal feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. The first person to advocate equal rights of men and women was Mary Wollstonecraft in her 1792 book ‘Vindication of the Rights of Women’. The philosophical basis for liberal feminism is individualism and the belief that all individuals are of equal moral worth: they are entitled to equal treatment, regardless of sex, race, colour or religion. Liberal feminists express this belief in the demand for equal rights in order that women are able to take an active part in all areas of society. It seeks to open up public life to equal competition between women and men, rather than to challenge the patriarchal structure of society itself. They do not intend to break the divide between the political and the private spheres of life, as they feel that the family life is something over which politics should not have control. However, they have advocated reform insomuch as it establishes equal rights in the public sphere: the right to vote, to education and to pursue a career. Feminists such as Betty Friedan have highlighted what Friedan calls ‘the problem with no name’, by which she meant the sense of despair that many women feel by being confined to a domestic and subordinate existence because they are unable to gain fulfilment thorough a career or through political life. Friedan highlighted this in her 1960s book ‘The Feminine Mystique’. Liberal feminists accept that men and women have different characteristics and therefore assume that a woman’s leaning towards a domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and therefore represents a choice. Friedan again has highlighted the importance of a loving family life as well as broader opportunities for women in public life in her 1983 book ‘The Second Stage’. However, this emphasis upon the central importance of the family in women’s life has been criticised by radical feminists as contributing to a ‘mystique of motherhood’. Liberal feminists have also been criticised by radicals for the limitations on individualism as the basis for gender politics. The patriarchal structure of society cannot be addressed because the individualist perspective draws attention from a patriarchy in which women are subordinated because of their sex. Also, by advocating a ‘personhood’, liberal feminists may be making it harder for women to act collectively. This is why radical feminists advocate a ‘sisterhood’ of all women.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Socialist feminism only became prominent in the second half of the twentieth century. Socialist feminists do not believe that omen face political disadvantages that can be remedied by equal rights. Rather, they believe that the inequalities in society are rooted in the social and economic structure itself and that nothing short of a revolution can offer women genuine emancipation. The central theme of socialist feminism is that patriarchy can only be understood in the light of social and economic factors. Engels states that before capitalism, family life had been communists and the ‘mother right’ – the inheritance of property through the female line – had been widely observed. Engels also believed that female oppression operates through the institution of the family and especially in the ‘bourgeois family’ because men wish to ensure that their property will be passed on only to their sons. Most socialist feminists agree that the confinement of women to a domestic sphere of housework serves the economic interest of capitalism. Women are a ‘reserve army of labour’ which can be called into action when there is a need to increase production but can also be easily shed back into domestic life. However, women’s domestic labour is essential to the efficiency of the economy: women produce labour power for the next generation through their children. They also educate children, making them more obedient workers. As housewives, women relieve men of the burden of housework, allowing them to concentrate on paid and productive employment. This promotes economic efficiency. Some feminists have argued that women’s domestic work should be recognised by the giving of a wage. They argue that women would gain economic freedom and social status if their labour were recognised with a wage. Although the link between feminist thinking and social and economic life cannot be severed, socialist feminists are divided about the nature of that link. Some, such as Engels, believe that the subordination of women rose as a consequence of private property and therefore from capitalism. Therefore, women should devote their energies not to a women’s movement, which Engels saw as divisive, but to the class struggle. Many modern socialist feminists subscribe to Marxism which accepts the interplay of economic, social, political and cultural forces in society and agree that the roots of patriarchy lie in the culture and ideology of society itself, not in simple economic terms. Juliet Mitchell has suggested that women fulfil four social functions: they are members of the workforce; they bear children; they socialise children; and they are sex objects. Liberation therefore requires that women achieve emancipation in each of these areas and not merely that the capitalist class system is replaced by socialism.

Radical feminists, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer have argued that patriarchal values pervade the culture and morality of society. Women are constantly being portrayed as inferior, and have been palmed off with a stereotype of ‘femininity’ imposed on them by men. The central feature of radical feminism, as expressed by writers such as Kate Millet, is that the most fundamental feature of society is sexual oppression and other forms of injustice are merely secondary. Society can therefore be understood to be patriarchal to highlight the central role of sex oppression, just as ‘capitalist’ draws attention to economic exploitation/. Millet believed that patriarchy was present not only in the family but also in literature, art and public life, and should be challenged through ‘consciousness raising’: through discussion and education, women would become aware of the sexism that pervades their society and would be better equipped to challenge it. The institution of the family would be destroyed and the sexual oppression would be overthrown. Firestone believes that, due to the fact that women have the unique capacity to bear children, this has led to a seemingly ‘natural division of labour’ within the family which ahs left women at the mercy of men for their survival. However, Firestone argues that women can escape this through the use of new technology such as birth control, abortion and even test tube pregnancies. Whilst radical feminists believe that human nature is androgynous and the sexes are equal, presently concealed under the misfortune that women are born with wombs, the radical feminist position also emphasises the fundamental differences between men and women. This is seen in the pro-woman position seen in the US which encourages women to embrace their sisterhood, and not try to be ‘more like men’. The acceptance of these differences has led some feminists to retreat into an all-female society; some have become more politically assertive. Some feminists, believing that ‘men are the enemy’, have embraced female separatism. Feminists have also engaged in ‘political lesbianism’, believing that in a heterosexual relationship, the woman is unfulfilled and oppressed. However, most see this as a reflection of misogyny that pervades society today. Instead, they believe that it is possible to establish harmony between the sexes in a non-sexist society.

Although there are very few Conservative feminists, the strain does exist. Feminism has traditionally been associated with the Left, but Conservative feminists are the exception. Conservative feminists believe in a free market meritocracy, where there is equal competition between the sexes in public life. They also believe that discrimination against women is inefficient within the market if the woman can do the most effective and efficient job. Conservative feminism can be seen slightly in the ‘Back to Basics’ campaign launched in 1993 by John Major. It was not only a ploy to help re-launch the Conservative party after the horrors of Black Wednesday. It was meant to appeal to mothers, especially single mothers, as a morality campaign. However, it was ruined by the revelation of several instances of ‘Tory Sleaze’.

In conclusion, it can be seen that, whilst there are Conservative feminists, the strain is a very weak one compared to Liberal, social and radical feminism. The underlying ideology of Conservatism itself which seems to embrace the patriarchal nature of both the public and private life seems to suggest that the ideas are not compatible with feminism.

Aileen Thomson