What distinguishes each form of feminism from the other?<\/p>\n
This isn’t quite the same as asking how different forms of feminism are defined<\/em>. Many feminisms, for instance, rightly include questioning gender roles as part of their definition; but because this is true of most forms of feminism, it doesn’t help much when trying to tell the difference between (for example) liberal feminism and socialist feminism.<\/p>\n Disclaimer: My purpose here isn’t to “define” feminism, or to tell people what this or that feminism is as if I were an authority. On the contrary, I’m assuming that people will disagree with me and feel free to tell me where I’m wrong.<\/p>\n Socialist feminism<\/strong> is the form of feminism with which I most<\/em> identify (this week, at least). Socialist feminism is distinguished from all other feminisms (except Marxist feminism) by its emphasis on material and economic inequality. Socialist feminists, like other socialists, look at culture as a whole and ask, “who controls the resources?” and “which institutions are keeping those<\/em> people in control of the resources?” But unlike non-feminist socialists, socfems answer those questions by talking not only about class but also about patriarchy.<\/p>\n In her Dictionary of Feminist Theory<\/em>, Maggie Hume says “Unlike radical feminism, socialist feminists refuse to treat economic oppression as secondary; unlike Marxist feminists they refuse to treat sexist oppression as secondary.”<\/p>\n Marxist feminism<\/strong>, unsurprisingly, shares a lot of ground with socialist feminism. Marxfems, however, tend to see class oppression – “the ongoing battle over who does the producing and who reaps the rewards of production” – as the “root” oppression on which all other oppressions are modeled. Sexist oppression is a form of class oppression. Marxfems have thus done a lot of useful analysis on how production is gendered, and how women’s larger share of domestic labor means that women do more producing while getting fewer rewards.<\/p>\n Marxist feminists, like radical feminists (and unlike socfems), tend to be skeptical about the chances of achieving substantive change by working within “the system.”<\/p>\n Radical feminism<\/strong> is distinguished, first of all, by the belief that male supremacy is the root or model for all other oppressions. While most radical feminists would not argue that (for example) racist oppression is necessarily less harmful<\/em> to its victims than sexist oppression, they would argue that fighting male supremacy is necessary to get at the root of both<\/em> problems. So while fighting racism doesn’t necessarily <\/i>do anything to fight male supremacy, fighting male supremacy does<\/em>, by definition, help to reduce racist oppression.<\/p>\n Radfems are also distinguished by their emphasis on sexual violence and exploitation as the lynchpin of male supremacy. While other feminists care about sexual violence and exploitation, of course, no other feminism makes SVAX as central a point in its analysis of patriarchy. This had led radfems to help women in many concrete ways: rape victim services, battered women’s shelters, sexual harassment laws, and so on.<\/p>\n Radfems are skeptical of the long-term viability of seeking change within the system, but that hasn’t prevented them from working within the system, as in the case of sexual harassment laws, or from trying to work within the system, as in the case of the MacKinnon\/Dworkin antipornography ordinance. Arguably, radfems see working in the system less as a route for seeking social reform than as band-aid measures; laws against stalking or sexual harassment are needed because they provide some protection to women, but laws can’t really do much to fight male supremacy in the long run.<\/p>\n Finally, radfems are generally more skeptical about men’s ability to be feminists than other feminists are; in this view, supportive men should therefore be called something else, like “pro-feminist men.”<\/p>\n Liberal feminism<\/strong> is politically more individualist than other forms of feminism (except for libertarian feminism); from a liberal feminist point of view, the primary purpose of feminism is to create a world in which people are judged for their individual characteristics without regard to sex. Liberal feminists do tend to work through the system more than radfems or marxfems; liberal feminists believe that many social problems can be meaningfully addressed through the government, which will gradually bring about social change. Hence, libfems are the most likely feminists to form groups like NOW and the Feminist Majority, groups which try to advance a wide range of feminist issues through legislative and lawsuit strategies.<\/p>\n While libfems agree with radfems that sexual violence and exploitation are serious problems, libfems are less likely to put SVAX at the center of their analysis of patriarchy. Instead, libfems point to barriers of prejudice and discrimination keeping women from taking an equal place in the power structures of society. Some libfems see strong connections between male dominance and other oppressions; such as racism and classism; other libfems believe that these issues can be seen separately, and feminism is stronger when it focuses on issues of sexism.<\/p>\n Liberal feminism is distinguished from libertarian feminism (aka individualist feminism) by its belief in government solutions for social problems; it is, for example, rare to find a liberal feminist who does not support welfare policies to help the poor.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n I think that’s enough from me, for now. I’m hoping that people will contribute distinguishing traits of other sorts of feminism as well: obviously there are lots of feminisms I didn’t mention, plus I’m sure many people will disagree with how I distinguished the four I did mention. I’d be especially eager to see if someone could explain what distinguishes third wave feminism from other kinds of feminism, as I’ve always felt deficient in understanding what that was about.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What distinguishes each form of feminism from the other? This isn’t quite the same as asking how different forms of feminism are defined. Many feminisms, for instance, rightly include questioning gender roles as part of their definition; but because this … Continue reading