1

Clare Bright, Honors 394A

Winter 2016, Question #3
Student ID: 1230664

A longstanding but elusive goal of feminist and LGBTQ movements has been to achieve
equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for their respective marginalized groups.
For the past 40 years, many overlapping ideologies characterizing different feminist and LGBTQ
movements have emerged. The dominating ideological shift towards a more liberal feminist or
liberal gay/lesbian theory however cannot be misinterpreted to suggest the absence of other
theories embodying each movement. The birth of these different theories stems from varying
foundational assumptions of human nature. In other words, each individual movement holds
different assumptions about humanity as truth, therefore giving birth towards different lines of
reasoning. A closer examination of the main feminist and LGBTQ theories reveals an array of
foundational assumptions on human nature and illuminates why the liberal feminist and LGBTQ
theory may be more of a politically advantageous framework within the American system.

Liberal Feminism
The foundational assumption of human beings for liberal feminists is that human beings
have a unique capacity to be rational (Jaggar, 173). Since each person has this potential, it is
thereby necessary that each individual is given the space and resources to exercise their capacity
for reason. As a result, the very nature of liberalism and liberal feminism holds that individual
freedom is of fundamental value and that the impartial state should work to protect that freedom.
Through this perspective, women are seen as being constrained from being able to fulfill
the highest, most truthful expression of oneself as a human being (Friedan, 112). Differing from
the perspective that women simply do not have the means to walk on a path towards selffulfillment, liberal feminists argue that it is the oppressive nature of our patriarchal systems that

relegate women towards menial and degrading work that does not allow them to utilize their
capacity for reason (Jaggar, 177).
Building on the idea that women, like men, do have the potential to hold noble and
skilled lines of work, liberal feminists would note that differences in sex or gender are thereby
irrelevant factors in judging a persons capacity to perform a task (Jaggar, 176). Historically, one
paradigm that has segregated the sexes was the division in lines of work between men and
women. However, if sex and gender are irrelevant indicators of performance, then perhaps the
abilities between men and women are not that different from each other (Friedan, 117).
What this means for the liberal feminist agenda is a call for the integration of more
women into mainstream society to the point where an equal proportion of men and women
across different socioeconomic classes and occupations can be seen. It is here whereby a second
foundational assumption emerges from the liberal feminist standpoint. By reason that the liberal
feminist agenda wishes to see an equal distribution of women throughout the hierarchical social
structure, liberal feminists are silently content with having a hierarchical social structure. Liberal
feminists contend with the disproportionately low numbers of women in the upper levels of
social hierarchy, not the actual hierarchy itself. By virtue of this, liberal feminists hold a
fundamental assumption that human beings naturally organize themselves into a hierarchical
system by acting in self-interest. By acknowledging that humans have this capacity to act in a
way for self-fulfillment, they are silently endorsing a view that human beings are naturally
selfish and act in ways that benefit oneself.
Socialist Feminism
In opposition to liberal feminists, socialist feminists take a step further and acknowledge
that the behavioral manifestations of human nature are instead malleable through the economic

constructs of the system (Bright, 2/11/16 lecture). In short, the current economic state at a
moment in time has major implications towards human nature. From this perspective, socialist
feminists would rationalize that the selfish behaviors exhibited by all humans is a byproduct of
the economically stratified capitalist system that we have implemented. Moreover, if wealth was
to be redistributed equally among current members of different socioeconomic classes, ideas
would thereby change and thus what we previously perceived to be selfish human nature would
also subsequently change.
Proponents of socialist feminist theory underscore this position by reflecting upon a time
in early human history where the division of labor between sexes was not hierarchical. Prior to
the Neolithic Revolution, the naturally larger build of men rendered them responsible for hunting
wild animals and thus women, in turn, were responsible for gathering fruits and vegetables.
Despite this sexual division of labor, men and women performed economic roles that were
equally crucial to their survival. As a result, men and women were equally respected members of
society due to the equally valued economic tasks they performed (Davis, 224).
The wide-scale transition from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to one of agriculture
and settlement marked a critical juncture in time that paved the road resulting in female
economic inferiority. Inhabiting spaces for extended periods of time resulted in the changeover
from communal ownership of land towards private property. What is more, the domestication of
animals and agriculture produced a surplus to be used as a money commodity. With the
dominating economic shift towards a settled agricultural lifestyle, the production of economic
goods within the family unit became divided between the production of public commodities for
the market, and private domestic labor for the family. This dichotomy allowed men to
accumulate wealth and as a result, the economic roles provided by each gender were no longer

equally vital for survival (Radical Women Manifesto, 4-6). Through the lens of a socialist
feminist, it was at this critical moment where the economic roles provided by men and women
were no longer equal that has unmistakably perpetuated this greedy self-interested nature of
human beings today. If the economic framework was rebuilt such that everyone is able to get
their fair share, the self-centered behaviors of human beings would also change.

Radical Feminism
While socialist feminists argue that innate human behaviors and beliefs are influenced by
economic factors, radical feminist theory takes the position that those behaviors and beliefs are
influenced and enforced by social factors. In essence, the conceptual frameworks we have to
characterize men from women or heterosexuals from homosexuals are entirely socially enforced
constructs that are not rooted in biology (Bright, 2/16/16 lecture). This bears similarity with the
liberal feminist standpoint that all human beings, men and women included, have the same
capacity for reason and are therefore not much different from each other. The radical feminist
perspective sees no natural-born differences between individuals for those differences are simply
social perceptions held by society through cultural or social practice.
Embodying this concept, one would begin to question the values and traits that we so
often attribute to women. For instance, for many generations it would be fair to say that marriage
and motherhood were the quintessential goals to be achieved by women (Kreps, 236). Radical
feminists would challenge these conceptions and argue that they are simply socially enforced
through men. Not only does perpetuating this notion as the ideal for women prevent them from
being able to achieve their highest potential, but in maintaining this level of oppression men are
able to benefit from the fruit of their unpaid domestic labor (Frye, 13; Kreps, 236).

If one truly believes that the goals and traits we attribute in general towards men and
women are simply socially constructed, it only takes a few more steps in the eyes of a radical
feminist to challenge ideas of sexuality that we attribute to men and women. From a radical
feminist point of view, one is not born as a man or a woman, but rather becomes one (Kreps,
235). Thus, biological sex becomes irrelevant because instead everyone is born androgynous.
Therefore, in order to view the true androgynous nature of humans which have been influenced
awry by society, one would need to peel away these layers of fictitiousness (Kreps, 235).

Separatist Feminism
Straying away from the radical feminist conjecture that differences between men and
women are socially constructed ideas, separatist feminism is diametrically contradictory and
proposes that differences between men and women are solely rooted in biology (Bright, 2/18/16
lecture). While liberal and feminist theories implicitly attempt to underline the similarities held
between individuals of opposite sex, separatist feminist theory instead chooses to highlight these
differences. For a separatist feminist, there is division of human nature drawn right between
gender binary lines. As such, separatist feminists argue that men are naturally more dominant
while women are naturally submissive, more cooperative, caring, and non-hierarchical.
This division on the views of human nature between the two sexes gives separatist
feminists the platform to explain that oppression experienced by women is a result of these
naturally-born differences. While men occasionally provide material support, women constantly
provide males with the energy and spirit required for their being. As a consequence, a parasitic
relationship forms whereby the strength, inspiration, and nurture provided by women for men
cannot be reciprocated (Frye, 98-99). The naturally kind-hearted nature of women does not

complement well with the naturally dominating essence of men. Therefore, separatists encourage
women to strategically separate themselves entirely from men since their aggressive
temperament cannot be changed.

Gay/Lesbian Liberal Theory

Gay/lesbian liberal theory parallels that of liberal feminism in many different aspects. In
an effort to achieve equal freedoms and responsibilities under the government for those who
identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, or queer, the liberal theory strongly emphasizes the
idea that all human beings are created equal. This mirrors the liberal feminist and radical feminist
theories where each of them at its core believe that there is a common humanity that transcends
amongst all of us. For liberal gays/lesbians and feminists, its the idea that we are all similar and
all have the same capacity for success, whereas for radical feminists its the notion that everyone
is born with and embodies a certain level of androgyny.
Similar to separatist feminists, liberal gays/lesbians do attribute some differences as a
result of biology. In terms of sexuality, liberal gays/lesbians believe that this aspect of a person is
completely determined at birth, and that an individual person has no agency in this decision
(Gilreath, 89; Bright, 2/25/16 lecture). Thus, homosexual sex and homosexuality itself are byproducts of evolution as evidenced by homosexual acts practiced by different species within the
animal kingdom (Cruikshank, 52). By taking the position that many individuals who identify as
either gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, or queer is an irreversible character trait, the liberalist
theory is able to lay the foundation for justification of equal rights and responsibilities as
everyone else.

Gay/Lesbian Radical Theory

Stemming from radical feminism, the gay/lesbian radical theory takes a similar view on
human nature in that individuals are naturally androgynous. If people are born naturally
androgynous, then essentially everyone has the capacity to be homosexual (Freedman &
DEmilio, 252). Far from a dichotomous view, the gay/lesbian radical theory presents the
perspective of a spectrum whereby ones individual sexuality can lie anywhere in between.
Adherence to the binary system of homosexuality versus heterosexuality stems from barriers put
into place by society.
According to gay/lesbian radical theorists, society defines the object of our sexual desire
(Whitman, 4). Moreover, they would argue that sexuality is not predisposed by ones genetic
makeup (Whitman, 2). These ideas clash strongly with those held by gay/lesbian liberal theorists
who strongly believe that sexual orientation is determined at birth. The major premise which
underlies the foundation of argument for liberal gays/lesbians is that LGBTQ people are no
different from heterosexuals for differences are rooted in biology. It is here where we can note a
second difference. Radical gays/lesbians would argue that the personal is political, and that by
coming out one and identifying as an LGBTQ person, one is making a personal statement
(DEmilio, 154; Freedman & DEmilio, 253). In doing so, an individual would figuratively be
putting oneself in the spotlight by marking oneself as different from others. Whereas liberal
gays/lesbians believe that a strategy emphasizing similarity and integration between the
dominant and marginalized groups is the best tactic for change, radical gays/lesbians take
opposite approach and take pride in their sexual differences from the dominant group. In fact, it
is the radical theorists who adopted the term gay rather than queer, homosexual, or
homophile as an act to take agency for ones own identity (Bright, 3/1/16 lecture).

Queer Theory
Similar to gay/lesbian radical theory, a strong pillar of queer theory rejects what they
argue to be socially constructed views of sexuality and identity. Whereas gay/lesbian liberal
theory focuses on the natural division between homosexuals and heterosexuals, queer theory
expands its perspective to encompass all and any types of sexual identities that might not align
well with current conventions (Bright, 3/3/16 lecture). As an alternative, queer theorists view
human sexuality as a dynamic enterprise. Sexuality is not easily categorized, for it is not fixed
(Butler, 7). Therefore, queer theorists hold an underlying assumption that human nature itself is
subject to adjustment and modification (Duggan, 164). If ones self identity is a composition of
many fluctuating variables, categorizing oneself based upon one characteristic that is
unrepresentative of the entire self would be problematic and misplaced. What all preceding
gay/lesbian theorists succumb to is the idea of static, steady-state sexual identities. Queer theory
stands on a completely different line and chooses to acknowledge that sexual behavior fluctuates
with time and culture (Eaklor, 293; Cohen, 202).
As an example of this complex interplay of many varied components, queer theorists
bring up the issue of intersexed infants. The dominant gender binary system is strongly
challenged when presented with an intersexed child whose genital ambiguity does not nicely fit
with normal conventions of male and female bodies. Acts of correction towards one end or the
other (though most often an intersexed child would be corrected to be a female) illustrate our
inability to grasp the complex nature of sexual identity and behavior.
In Alignment for Liberal Feminist & Gay/Lesbian Theory

10

While each theory presents a unique perspective on human nature and subsequent
strategies for initiating change, for the moment I find myself more compelled by the liberal
feminist and liberal gay/lesbian theory. As detailed at the beginning of this paper, one of the
implicit fundamental assumptions liberal theorists hold is that human beings are naturally
hierarchical for they act in self-interest. Though the degree to which this selfishness is publicly
displayed differs from one person to another, the common denominator that behaviorally
manifests from this selfishness within every individual person is the desire to be validated.
Understanding that one principle, that everybody wants to be heard, will allow one to vividly see
human selfishness to the tenth power. Everyone wants to feel accepted, to be noticed from the
clothes we wear to the way we act. Self-satisfaction is not sufficient, we need others to
corroborate in what we believe.
Another important tenet of the gay/lesbian and feminist liberal theory is the idea that
human beings do try to act rational. Stemming from an evolutionary perspective, in a variant act
of selfishness, it was an evolutionary stable strategy to help members of ones own ethnic group
or tribal community in order to increase the likelihood of survival of the bloodline. What
manifests in todays society is the formation of different ingroups and outgroups. Deeply
ingrained in human selfishness and rationality is the predisposition to identify, care, and help
those who appear similar to ourselves. From this perspective, liberal theorists take a tactful
approach towards political change by emphasizing the common humanity that binds us together
despite our differences. With the defining and ongoing innovations of this age that has made the
world more visible and less distant, we are ever increasingly aware of the inequities shared
among different marginalized groups. As informed citizens, we no longer have the luxury of
pleading ignorance. If one believes that every life has equal value, a stride not burdensome for

11

many to take, then it would be revolting to learn that some lives are worth more than others
under the democratic laws of the state. Humanity in the abstract rarely ignites that flame of
passion for equality and justice the way meeting another similar human being will whose
freedoms are restricted in ways that you would not restrict your own (Powell, 5). With that
awareness, people will begin to make rational decisions with an informed moral conscience that
will torment them if they choose not to help the lives of individuals with very little effort.