Women Emancipation

THE EMANCIPATION OF
WOMEN

The emancipation of women, i.e. their liberation from

religious, legal, economic, and sexual oppression, their
access to higher education, and their escape from narrow
gender roles is not easily achieved. The struggle for sexual
equality has a long history and is likely to continue for some
time. Even if it should soon be won in the industrial nations,
it may well rage on in many "underdeveloped" countries.
.
The following pages briefly sketch the history of the modern
feminist movement in Europe and America and offer some
observations about the position of women in the
contemporary world.

 In traditionally patriarchal societies any improvement in the

status of women has far-reaching consequences and produces
fundamental political changes. Therefore it is always resisted
by the established powers. However, it seems certain that
they will ultimately have to relent, because the emancipation
of women is both necessary and desirable. It will provide for a
greater degree of social justice and thus benefit everyone.
Indeed, from the beginning, the great "feminists" or
champions of women's rights have always insisted that they
worked in the interest of the whole human race. The feminist
movement therefore has always been a humanist movement.
Some of its representatives were reformers, others
revolutionaries, but virtually all of them worked for a better,
more equitable, and more humane world. Much can be
learned from their experiences. They often suffered ridicule,
persecution, and defeat, but also won admiration, support,
and victory. Gradually, they achieved many of their goals.
Their opponents, on the other hand, learned that a just cause
cannot be suppressed forever. Where needed reforms are
consistently blocked, revolution becomes inevitable

THE TRAGEDY OF WOMAN'S

EMANCIPATION
BEGIN with an admission: Regardless of
all political and economic theories,
treating of the fundamental differences
between various groups within the
human race, regardless of class and race
distinctions, regardless of all artificial
boundary lines between woman's rights
and man's rights, I hold that there is a
point where these differentiations may
meet and grow into one perfect whole.

 With this I do not mean to propose a

peace treaty. The general social
antagonism which has taken hold of
our entire public life today, brought
about through the force of opposing
and contradictory interests, will
crumble to pieces when the
reorganization of our social life, based
upon the principles of economic
justice, shall have become a reality.

 Peace or harmony between the sexes and individuals does not

necessarily depend on a superficial equalization of human
beings; nor does it call for the elimination of individual traits and
peculiarities. The problem that confronts us today, and which
the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one's self and yet in
oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and
still retain one's own characteristic qualities. This seems to me
to be the basis upon which the mass and the individual, the true
democrat and the true individuality, man and woman, can meet
without antagonism and opposition. The motto should not be:
Forgive one another; rather, Understand one another. The oftquoted sentence of Madame de Stal: "To understand
everything means to forgive everything," has never particularly
appealed to me; it has the odor of the confessional; to forgive
one's fellow-being conveys the idea of pharisaical superiority. To
understand one's fellow-being suffices. The admission partly
represents the fundamental aspect of my views on the
emancipation of woman and its effect upon the entire sex

Emancipation should make it possible for woman to be

human in the truest sense. Everything within her that craves
assertion and activity should reach its fullest expression; all
artificial barriers should be broken, and the road towards
greater freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of
submission and slavery.
This was the original aim of the movement for woman's
emancipation. But the results so far achieved have isolated
woman and have robbed her of the fountain springs of that
happiness which is so essential to her. Merely external
emancipation has made of the modern woman an artificial
being, who reminds one of the products of French
arboriculture with its arabesque trees and shrubs, pyramids,
wheels, and wreaths; anything, except the forms which would
be reached by the expression of her own inner qualities. Such
artificially grown plants of the female sex are to be found in
large numbers, especially in the so-called intellectual sphere
of our life.

 Liberty and equality for woman! What hopes and

aspirations these words awakened when they were first
uttered by some of the noblest and bravest souls of those
days. The sun in all his light and glory was to rise upon a
new world; in this world woman was to be free to direct
her own destiny--an aim certainly worthy of the great
enthusiasm, courage, perseverance, and ceaseless effort
of the tremendous host of pioneer men and women, who
staked everything against a world of prejudice and
ignorance.
My hopes also move towards that goal, but I hold that the
emancipation of woman, as interpreted and practically
applied today, has failed to reach that great end. Now,
woman is confronted with the necessity of emancipating
herself from emancipation, if she really desires to be free.
This may sound paradoxical, but is, nevertheless, only too
true.

THE BEGINNINGS OF FEMINISM

IN EUROPE

The ancient Romans and Celts had granted considerable

freedom to women, but with the arrival of Christianity their
legal status began to decline. In the Middle Ages single
women still enjoyed many rights, but had to surrender them
to their husbands upon marriage. Thus, in general, women
were second-class citizens. Nevertheless, occasionally
individual women were able to break out of conventional
patterns and to impress their contemporaries with their
accomplishments. The nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim as a
playwright, Guillemine of Bohemia as a religious leader, and
Joan of Arc as a soldier proved that the female sex was not
inferior even in "male" occupations. Medieval queens like
Matilda of Scotland (wife of Henry I of England) and Philippa
of Hainault (wife of Edward III of England) even exercised a
considerable and very beneficial political influence.

The Renaissance saw more women of power, such as Diane de

Poitiers, Marguerite of Navarre, Catherine de Medici, and
Elizabeth I of England. Some noblewomen also won distinction as
writers and scholars, such as Margaret Roper, the daughter of
Thomas More. Indeed, the intellectual independence of women
grew to a point where it frightened many men who then attacked
it in vituperative books and pamphlets. The Scottish religious
reformer John Knox, for example, in his First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558), exclaimed:
"To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or
empire above any realm, nation, or city is repugnant to Nature;
contumely to God.... Woman in her greatest perfection was made
to serve and obey man, not rule and command him." This
Natural-Law argument was to be used many more times in the
following centuries not only against female monarchs, but also
against any other women with higher aspirations.

 Or the Womanish Man (1620) which

declared: "We are as freeborn as Men,
have as free election and as free spirit,
we are compounded of like parts, and
may with like liberty make benefit of our
creations." It went on to demand equal
treatment for both sexes and to equate
the oppression of women with slavery.

 In the 17th century a few women, such as the Swedish

queen Christina and the French and English writers Mme,
de La Fayette and Aphra Behn continued to excel as
scholars, novelists and playwrights. In France, learned
women began to cultivate "salons," i.e. sexually integrated
intellectual circles where good manners, wit, and erudition
were esteemed and exercised. That these efforts were not
appreciated by everyone can be seen in Moliere's comedies
Les Precieuses Ridicules and Les Femmes Savantes which
satirize female attempts to enter "high culture." Still, the
influence of women on French intellectual life was not
diminished and has, in fact, continued to this very day.
From Mme. de Sevigne to Mme. de Stae'l, George Sand,
and Si-mone de Beauvoir, French women have held a
position of eminence in French literature.

 However, while female intellectual brilliance found recognition in

exceptional cases, women were not given any political rights. As a matter
of fact, with a new growing cult of "nature" even an intellectual education
for women came to be seen as inappropriate. jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his
influential Emile (1762) flatly stated: "The education of women should
always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us
love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when
grown up; to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable.
These are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be
taught in their infancy." For a very long time this remained the accepted
view. When, in 1 789y the French Revolution broke out, some attempts
were made to secure equal rights and equal education for women, most
notably by the Marquis de Condorcet in his essay The Admission of Women
to Full Citizenship (1790). Unfortunately, Condorcet himself soon became a
victim of the revolutionary "reign of terror" and his proposal, along with
others, was quickly repudiated. Indeed, in 1793 the National Convention
suppressed all women's clubs, societies, and "salons," and denied women
all political rights. In the meantime, Talleyrand had formulated the
educational policies of the new government which offered girls public
education up to the age of eight, after which they were to be kept at home.

The English writer Mary Wollstonecraft, who had

observed the French Revolution at close range, and
who admired both Rousseau and Talleyrand,
nevertheless felt compelled to protest against this
reactionary trend. She therefore challenged both of
these male authors in her Vindication of the Rights of
Women (1792). In direct response to Rousseau she
affirmed: "Woman was not created merely to be the
solace of man. ... On this sexual error has all the false
system been erected, which robs our whole sex of its
dignity." Instead, she demanded full and equal
education for all women as a means of escaping
sexual oppression. The invocation of "nature" in
defense of oppres-

WOMEN AS SOLDIERS
One of the most famous and successful
military commanders of all time was a
teenage girl: Joan of Arc (1412-31 A,D.)
However, for most of human history
women have been denied any active
role in the military. Curiously enough,
the myths and legends of many
cultures tel! of soldier-like women and
even of whole female armies.

 sive policies left her unconvinced. Rousseau had offered

this seemingly "objective" observation: "Boys love
sports and noise and activity: to whip the top, to beat
the drum, to drag about their little carts; girls on the
other hand are fond of things of show and ornament
trinkets, mirrors, dolls." Woll-stonecraft now replied:
"Little girls are forced to sit still and play with trinkets.
Who can say whether they are fond of them or not?" For
her, the different behaviors of males and females arose
out of "unnatural" distinctions created by society. In
demanding the abolition of these distinctions, she
argued for equal opportunity and equal rights. Women
should enter all professions and become active in
politics. The fight for the "Rights of Man" was more
properly broadened to include the "rights of humanity".

THE FAMILY IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

The word "family" (from Latin famulus: domestic slave) originally

referred to a group of slaves belonging to one man, then, by extension,
to all persons ruled by one man or descended from one man, and
finally to all persons living together in a man's household, such as
servants, wives, children, parents, grandparents, other close and
distant relatives, friends, and permanent guests. These various
meanings were still very much alive in medieval English. Indeed, well
through the Renaissance the word "family" was used to mean either a
body of servants, or the retinue of a nobleman, or a group of people
related by blood, or a group of people living together. It was not until
the 17th and 18th centuries that the last two of these meanings were
combined to describe a new social phenomenon: a small number of
close relatives who lived by themselves under the same roof and who
were also emotionally close to each other. By the early 19th century
this usage had virtually replaced the others, and since then "family"
has referred mostly to an intimate domestic group of parents and their
children. Thus, we find that today the meaning of the word is both
wider and narrower than it had been before. (The same semantic shifts
at roughly the same time can be observed in the French famille and the
German Familie.)

 This means, among other things, that our present particular

concept of family cannot simply be applied to other cultures or
even to our own past. If we really want to understand the issue,
we have to be more discriminate and, as our philological
observations suggest, we should perhaps distinguish between at
least three separate phenomena:
1. The kindred, i.e., people who are related, whether they live
together or not,
2. the household, i.e., people who live together, whether they
are related or not,
3. the family (something now often called "domestic family"),
i.e., people who are related and who live together.

 In our own present culture it is usually the

third of these phenomena, the "domestic
family", which dominates the discussion.
Kindred systems and household patterns by
themselves are now generally neglected as
social issues. Instead, the main interest is
focused on the one case where they happen
to coincide. For example, for the purposes of
a recent U.S. Census, "family" was officially
defined as "two or more persons related by
blood, marriage, or adoption and living
together in a household".

Compared to its previous wide range of meanings, this current

definition of "family" is, of course, very narrow. Still, upon closer
examination, it covers a surprising variety of possible combinations.
Even in the simplest case, where a family consists of only two persons,
we may find any one of at least a dozen different relationships:
1. A childless married couple,
2. a woman and her natural child,
3. a woman and her adopted child,
4. a man and his natural child,
5. a man and his adopted child,
6. a woman and her natural grandchild,
7. a woman and her adopted grandchild,
8. a man and his natural grandchild,
9. a man and his adopted grandchild,
10. a brother and a sister,
11. two sisters, and
12. two brothers.

 Actually, the list could easily be expanded by including greatgrandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, stepparents, stepsisters,
stepbrothers, and still other persons "related by blood, marriage,
or adoption". According to the U.S. Census, any and all of these
social units, even if they comprise only two elements, must be
considered families as long as some common living arrangement
is involved.
As we can see, the government bureaucrats who use the word
"family" in this fashion thereby express a restrictive and modern,
but also a "neutral" view. They do not postulate a particular type
or ideal of domestic family, but rather look for a practical way of
describing present realities. After all, they want simple,
descriptive statistics. Thus, for them, all of the above examples
represent legitimate families in their own right, not fragments of
other, larger families that have "broken up", or become
"disorganized".

However, the average citizen may see the matter quite differently. To him,
the "two-person family" may not appear as a "real" family at all. Instead,
he may regard it as a regrettable exception, a mere vestige or relic of
what a family should be. Therefore, he is likely to feel that a husband and
his wife or a brother and his sister, for example, do not constitute a family,
and that, at the very least, a family should include three persons of two
generations: a father, a mother, and a child.
On the other hand, most people today would probably be reluctant to go
very far beyond that basic constellation. They would, of course, include
any additional number of children, but might begin to wonder whether
grandparents, great-grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and
nieces really belong to the family proper. Here again, it will be
remembered, the census takers think differently. They say nothing about
the size of the family or the degree of relationship between its members.
Their decisive criterion is the common household. Thus, the definition of
the U.S. Census covers not only the smallest, but also the largest possible
domestic family.

 Still, in actual fact most modern American families fall

somewhat between the extremes. They usually consist
of more than two persons, but rarely of more than two
generations. Both very large and very small families
are now considered atypical. Instead, there seems to
be a general trend to reduce or restore the family to a
certain "natural" elementary group or "kernel" of a
married couple and their offspring. Therefore it seems
that the single term "domestic family" is inadequate for
a more detailed discussion. If domestic families can
come in different shapes and sizes, and if one
particular combination is clearly favored today, some
further distinction seems to be useful. Such a
distinction has been provided by sociologists who
commonly list two basic types of domestic family:

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN

THE WORLD TODAY

Since the early days of the Industrial Revolution women in Europe

and North America have made considerable progress towards
equality with men, although much remains still to be done. Of
course, the industrialization of Western countries at first had not
improved the status of women, but had degraded them even
further by exploiting them and their children in factories as cheap
labor. In the preceding relatively prosperous agrarian culture
women had worked on an almost equal footing with men and had
been skilled in many occupations. Families were still "producing
units", and women received recognition for contributing their
substantial share. The factory system changed all that by breaking
up the traditional extended family with its large household and by
giving people specialized monotonous tasks behind perpetually
moving machines. Women and children were, however, paid much
less for such work than men, and thus their economic "value"
declined. It took many decades of struggle before unionization and
legal reform ended the crassest form of this discrimination.

At the same time, middle- and upper-class women were

increasingly confined to the home with little to do except to
take care of their children. Their husbands no longer worked
inside the house, but were absent during most of the day.
These idle women often played the role of frail, sensitive
creatures who had "the vapours" and fainted in any
"indelicate" situation. On the other hand, many of them also
became critical of their position in society. They found time to
devote themselves to various religious and moral causes and
even to become interested in abolition and the women's
rights movement. Eventually, both working-class and
bourgeois women insisted on change and contributed to the
success of feminism. This success still is not total, and, as we
all know, even in the industrialized countries women continue
to fight for equal rights. Today, however, in addition to
economic issues, problems of sexual self-determination have
come to the foreground.

Emancipation
Emancipation is a term used to describe various
efforts to obtain political rights or equality, often for a
specifically disenfranchised group, or more generally
in discussion of such matters.

"Political emancipation" as a phrase is less common in

modern usage, especially outside academic, foreign or
activist contexts. However, similar concepts may be
referred to by other terms. For instance, in the United
States the civil rights movement culminating in the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, can be seen as further
realization of events such as the
Emancipation Proclamation and abolition of slavery a
century earlier

Freedom (political
Political freedom is the absence of
interference with the sovereignty of an
individual by the use of coercion or
aggression. The members of a free society
would have full dominion over their public
and private lives. The opposite of a free
society would be a totalitarian state, which
highly restricts political freedom in order to
regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In
this sense freedom refers solely to the
relation of men to other men, and the only
infringement on it is coercion by men.[

Feminism

Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and

political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned
with gender inequalities and equal rights for women.
According to some, the history of feminism consists of three
waves.[1][2] The first wave was in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, the second was in the 1960s and 1970s and
the third extends from the 1990s to the present.[3] Feminist
Theory developed from the feminist movement.[4][5] It takes a
number of forms in a variety of disciplines such as
feminist geography, feminist history and feminist literary criticism.
Feminism has altered aspects of Western society, ranging from
culture to law. Feminist political activists have been concerned
with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a
woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on
matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion
, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection
from domestic violence; against sexual harassment and rape;[6]
[7] for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay;
and against other forms of discrimination.[8][9][10]

 Throughout much of its history, most of the leaders of

feminist social and political movements, as well as many
feminist theorists, have been predominantly middle-class
white women from western Europe and North America.
However, at least since Sojourner Truth's 1851 speech to
US Feminists, women of other races have proposed
alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s
with the Civil Rights movement in the United States and
the collapse of European colonialism in Africa, the
Caribbean, parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia.
Since that time, women in former European colonies and
the Third World have proposed alternative "post-colonial"
and "Third World" feminisms as well.[11] Some
Postcolonial feminists, such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty,
are critical of Western feminism for being ethnocentric.
[12] Black feminists, such as Angela Davis and
Alice Walker, share this view.[13]

 Since the 1980s some feminists (including the

standpoint feminists) have argued that the
feminist movement should address global
issues (such as rape, incest, and prostitution)
and culturally specific issues (such as
female genital mutilation in some parts of
Africa and the Middle East and glass ceiling
practices that impede women's advancement in
developed economies) in order to understand
how gender inequality interacts with racism,
homophobia, classism and colonization in a
"matrix of domination."[14][15] Other feminists
have argued that gender roles are social rather
than biological phenomena.[16][17][18]

History of Feminism

Feminists and scholars have divided the movement's history into three
"waves". The first wave refers mainly to women's suffrage movements of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (concerned with women's right to
vote). The second wave refers to the ideas and actions associated with the
women's liberation movement beginning in the 1960s (which campaigned for
legal and cultural equality for women). The third wave refers to a continuation
of, and a reaction to the perceived failures of, second-wave feminism,
beginning in the 1990s.[3]

First-wave feminism
First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist
activity during the nineteenth century and early
twentieth century in the United Kingdom and the
United States. Originally it focused on the promotion
of equal contract and property rights for women and
the opposition to chattel marriage and ownership of
married women (and their children) by their
husbands. However, by the end of the nineteenth
century, activism focused primarily on gaining
political power, particularly the right of women's
suffrage. Yet, feminists such as Voltairine de Cleyre
and Margaret Sanger were still active in campaigning
for women's sexual, reproductive, and economic
rights at this time.[19]

In Britain the Suffragettes campaigned for the women's vote. In 1918

the Representation of the People Act 1918 was passed granting the
vote to women over the age of 30 who owned houses. In 1928 this
was extended to all women over eighteen.[20] In the United States
leaders of this movement included Elizabeth Cady Stanton and
Susan B. Anthony, who each campaigned for the abolition of slavery
prior to championing women's right to vote. Other important leaders
include Lucy Stone, Olympia Brown, and Helen Pitts. American firstwave feminism involved a wide range of women, some belonging to
conservative Christian groups (such as Frances Willard and the
Woman's Christian Temperance Union ), others resembling the diversity
and radicalism of much of second-wave feminism (such as
Matilda Joslyn Gage and the National Woman Suffrage Association ). In
the United States first-wave feminism is considered to have ended
with the passage of the
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1919),
granting women the right to vote in all states.The term first wave, was
coined retrospectively after the term second-wave feminism began to
be used to describe a newer feminist movement that focused as much
on fighting social and cultural inequalities as political inequalities.[19]
[21][22][23][24]

Second-wave feminism

Second-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity beginning in the early 1960s and
lasting through the late 1980s. The scholar Imelda Whelehan suggests that the second wave was
a continuation of the earlier phase of feminism involving the suffragettes in the UK and USA.
[25] Second-wave feminism has existed continuously since that time and coexists with what is
termed third-wave feminism . Second-wave feminists saw cultural and political inequalities as
inextricably linked and encouraged women to understand aspects of their personal lives as
deeply politicized as well as reflective of a sexist structure of power. With her essay "The
Personal is Political," Carol Hanisch coined a slogan that became synonymous with the second
wave.[6] If first-wave feminism focused on rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was
largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.[19]

Women's Liberation in the

USA
The phrase "Womens Liberation" was first used in
the United States in 1964[26] and first appeared in
print in 1966.[27] By 1968, although the term
Womens Liberation Front appeared in the magazine
Ramparts, it was starting to refer to the whole
womens movement.[28] Bra-burning also became
associated with the movement.[29] One of the most
vocal critics of the women's liberation movement
has been the African American feminist and
intellectual bell hooks, who argues that the
movement's glossing over of race and class was part
of its failure to address "the issues that divided
women". She has highlighted the lack of minority
voices in the women's movement.[30]

The Feminine Mystique

Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963) criticized the
idea that women could only find fulfillment through childrearing
and homemaking. According to Friedan's obituary in the
The New York Times, The Feminine Mystique ignited the
contemporary women's movement in 1963 and as a result
permanently transformed the social fabric of the United States
and countries around the world and is widely regarded as one
of the most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century.
[31] In the book Friedan hypothesizes that women are victims
of a false belief system that requires them to find identity and
meaning in their lives through their husbands and children.
Such a system causes women to completely lose their identity
in that of their family. Friedan specifically locates this system
among post-World War II middle-class suburban communities.
At the same time, America's post-war economic boom had led
to the development of new technologies that were supposed to
make household work less difficult, but that often had the
result of making women's work less meaningful and valuable.[

Third-wave feminism

Third-wave feminism began in the early 1990s, arising as a response

to perceived failures of the second wave and also as a response to
the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the
second wave. Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what
it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity,
which (according to them) over-emphasize the experiences of upper
middle-class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of
gender and sexuality is central to much of the third wave's ideology.
Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge
the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for
females.The third wave has its origins in the mid-1980s. Feminist
leaders rooted in the second wave like Gloria Anzaldua, bell hooks,
Chela Sandoval, Cherrie Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine Hong Kingston
, and many other black feminists, sought to negotiate a space within
feminist thought for consideration of race-related subjectivities.
Third-wave feminism also consists of debates between
difference feminists, such as the psychologist Carol Gilligan, who
believe that there are important differences between the sexes, and
those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the
sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.

 Post-feminism
French feminism
Simone de Beauvoir
1970spresent

Feminism's many forms

Liberal feminism

Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through

political and legal reform. It is an individualistic form of feminism,
which focuses on womens ability to show and maintain their
equality through their own actions and choices. Liberal feminism
uses the personal interactions between men and women as the
place from which to transform society. According to liberal feminists,
all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality,
therefore it is possible for change to happen without altering the
structure of society. Issues important to liberal feminists include
reproductive and abortion rights, sexual harassment, voting,
education, "equal pay for equal work", affordable childcare,

Feminist theory

Feminist theory is an extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical

fields. It encompasses work in a variety of disciplines, including
anthropology, sociology, economics, women's studies, literary criticism, and
philosophy Feminist theory aims to understand gender inequality and
focuses on gender politics, power relations, and sexuality. While providing a
critique of these social and political relations, much of feminist theory also
focuses on the promotion of women's rights and interests. Themes explored
in feminist theory include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification
(especially sexual objectification), oppression, and patriarchy
The American literary critic and feminist Elaine Showalter describes the
phased development of feminist theory. The first she calls "feminist
critique", in which the feminist reader examines the ideologies behind
literary phenomena. The second Showalter calls "gynocriticism", in which
the "woman is producer of textual meaning" including "the psychodynamics
of female creativity; linguistics and the problem of a female language; the
trajectory of the individual or collective female literary career [and] literary
history". The last phase she calls "gender theory", in which the "ideological
inscription and the literary effects of the sex/gender system" are explored".
[58] This model has been criticized by Toril Moi who sees it as an essentialist
and deterministic model for female subjectivity and for failing to account for
the situation of women outside the West

Women Emancipation
Radical feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy,
which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of
womens oppression. Radical feminists believe that
women can free themselves only when they have
done away with what they consider an inherently
oppressive and dominating system. Radical feminists
feel that there is a male-based authority and power
structure and that it is responsible for oppression and
inequality, and that as long as the system and its
values are in place, society will not be able to be
reformed in any significant way. Radical feminists see
capitalism as one of the most important barriers to
ending oppression. Most radical feminists see no
alternatives other than the total uprooting and
reconstruction of society in order to achieve their
goals.

Separatist feminism
Separatist feminism is one form of radical feminism. It
does not support heterosexual relationships because
its proponents argue that the sexual disparities
between men and women are unresolvable. Separatist
feminists generally do not feel that men can make
positive contributions to the feminist movement and
that even well-intentioned men replicate patriarchal
dynamics.[61] Author Marilyn Frye describes
separatist feminism as "separation of various sorts or
modes from men and from institutions, relationships,
roles and activities that are male-defined, maledominated, and operating for the benefit of males and
the maintenance of male privilege this separation
being initiated or maintained, at will, by women

Sex-positive feminism
Both the sex-positive and sex-negative forms of present-day
feminism can trace their roots to early radical feminism. Some
feminists joined the sex-positive feminist movement in response to
anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon,
Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan and Dorchen Leidholdt, who argued
that heterosexual pornography was a central cause of women's
oppression. Sex-positive feminism, sometimes known as pro-sex
feminism, sex-radical feminism, or sexually liberal feminism, is a
movement that was formed in order to address issues of women's
sexual pleasure, sex work, and inclusive gender identities. The initial
period of intense debate and acrimony between sex-positive and
anti-pornography feminists during the early 1980s is often referred to
as the Feminist Sex Wars. Other, less academic, sex-positive
feminists became involved not in opposition to other feminists, but in
direct response to what they saw as patriarchal control of sexuality,
such as the organization Feminists for Free Expression.
Ellen Willis's 1981 essay, "Lust Horizons: Is the Women's Movement

Anarcha-feminism
Another offshoot of radical feminism is anarcha-feminism
(also called anarchist feminism or anarcho-feminism), an
ideology which combines feminist and anarchist beliefs.
Anarcha-feminists view patriarchy as a manifestation of
hierarchy, believing that the fight against patriarchy is an
essential part of the class struggle and the anarchist
struggle against the state.Anarcha-feminists such as Susan
Brown see the anarchist struggle as a necessary component
of the feminist struggle. In Brown's words, "anarchism is a
political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power,
it is inherently feminist"Recently, Wendy McElroy has
defined a position (she describes it as "ifeminism" or
"individualist feminism") that combines feminism with
anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism, arguing that a procapitalist, anti-state position is compatible with an emphasis
on equal rights and empowerment for women.Individualist
anarchist-feminism has grown from the US-based
individualist anarchism movement.

Black feminism

Black feminism argues that sexism, class oppression, and racism are
inextricably bound together.Forms of feminism that strive to overcome
sexism and class oppression but ignore race can discriminate against
many people, including women, through racial bias. The
Combahee River Collective argued in 1974 that the liberation of black
women entails freedom for all people, since it would require the end of
racism, sexism, and class oppression.One of the theories that evolved
out of this movement was Alice Walker's Womanism. It emerged after
the early feminist movements that were led specifically by white women
who advocated social changes such as womans suffrage. These
movements were largely white middle-class movements and ignored
oppression based on racism and classism. Alice Walker and other
Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and
more intense kind of oppression from that of white wome
Angela Davis was one of the first people who articulated an argument
centered around the intersection of race, gender, and class in her book,
Women, Race, and Class. Kimberle Crenshaw, a prominent feminist law
theorist, gave the idea the name Intersectionality while discussing
identity politics in her essay, "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality,
Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color".

Socialist and Marxist

feminisms
Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women
to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and
labor. Socialist feminists see women as being held
down as a result of their unequal standing in both the
workplace and the domestic sphere.Prostitution,
domestic work, childcare, and marriage are all seen
as ways in which women are exploited by a
patriarchal system which devalues women and the
substantial work that they do. Socialist feminists
focus their energies on broad change that affects
society as a whole, and not just on an individual
basis. They see the need to work alongside not just
men, but all other groups, as they see the oppression
of women as a part of a larger pattern that affects
everyone involved in the capitalist system.

 Marx felt that when class oppression was overcome, gender

oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist
feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class
oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists
has gone towards separating gender phenomena from class
phenomena. Some contributors to socialist feminism have
criticized these traditional Marxist ideas for being largely silent
on gender oppression except to subsume it underneath broader
class oppression.Other socialist feminists, notably two longlived American organizations Radical Women and the
Freedom Socialist Party, point to the classic Marxist writings of
Frederick Engels and August Bebel as a powerful explanation of
the link between gender oppression and class exploitation.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both
Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization
of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would
overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible

Post-structural and postmodern

feminism

Postcolonial feminists argue that oppression relating to the colonial

experience, particularly racial, class, and ethnic oppression, has
marginalized women in postcolonial societies. They challenge the
assumption that gender oppression is the primary force of
patriarchy. Postcolonial feminists object to portrayals of women of
non-Western societies as passive and voiceless victims and the
portrayal of Western women as modern, educated and empowered.
Postcolonial feminism emerged from the gendered history of
colonialism: colonial powers often imposed Western norms on
colonized regions. In the 1940s and 1950s, after the formation of
the United Nations, former colonies were monitored by the West for
what was considered "social progress". The status of women in the
developing world has been monitored by organizations such as the
United Nations and as a result traditional practices and roles taken
up by womensometimes seen as distasteful by Western
standardscould be considered a form of rebellion against colonial
oppression. Postcolonial feminists today struggle to fight gender
oppression within their own cultural models of society rather than
through those imposed by the Western colonizers.

Feminism and political

movements
Feminism and socialism
Some early twentieth century feminists allied with socialism. In 1907 there was an
International Conference of Socialist Women in Stuttgart where suffrage was described as
a tool of class struggle. Clara Zetkin of the Social Democratic Party of Germany called for
women's suffrage to build a "socialist order, the only one that allows for a radical solution
to the women's question".
In Britain, the women's movement was allied with the Labour party. In America, Betty
Friedan emerged from a radical background to take command of the organized movement.
Radical Women, founded in 1967 in Seattle is the oldest (and still active) socialist feminist
organization in the U.S. During the Spanish Civil War, Dolores Ibrruri (La Pasionaria)
led the Communist Party of Spain. Although she supported equal rights for women, she
opposed women fighting on the front and clashed with the anarcho-feminist Mujeres
Libres.
Revolutions in Latin America brought changes in women's status in countries such as
Nicaragua where Feminist ideology during the Sandinista Revolution was largely
responsible for improvements