An Introduction to Feminism

In the first chapter of this book, I defined the core of feminism, the common thread running through various different feminisms, in terms of (i) a descriptive recognition of the fact of patriarchy, and (ii) the opposition to this state of affairs. These bare bones are fleshed out in very different ways by different schools of feminist political philosophy. The way in which patriarchy is characterised will vary, as will the manner of opposition to it.

Feminism is often divided into three main traditions, with the expectation that contemporary feminist philosophers will fall unambiguously into one or other of them:

There are two points to make about this division straightaway. First, it by no means exhausts the range of feminist perspectives. It does not include anarchist feminists, such as Emma Goldman, who wrote on the status of women in the early twentieth century. It leaves no obvious place for the black feminists who have been critical of all mainstream feminist traditions, or perhaps for self-described ‘eco-’ and ‘techno-feminists’. (It leaves no obvious place for Sarah Palin, either, but we might be less worried about that.)

The second point to note is that the three categories distinguished above are not particularly transparent, either in themselves (what is e.g. ‘liberal’ feminism?) or in their relation to one another (is liberal feminism compatible with radical feminism?). So not only do these three labels not cover everything; it's not even all that clear what they do cover. And the lack of clarity is not just a product of a lack of information. We cannot simply go and look the terms up in a dictionary. There is a slipperiness inherent in the categories themselves. There can be no simple and satisfying fact of the matter as to what defines these varieties of feminism: definitions are products of agreement, and this is an area where people simply do not agree.

So if we assume that these three categories are all there is to feminism, then our horizons will be unduly narrow. And if we assume that these are three discrete, non-overlapping, clearly defined types, then we will be disappointed, and will also tend to misunderstand the force of various usages of the terms.