Philosopher views

VARIETIES OF FEMINISM

While these cominonalities are impressive, there are at least a dozen different versions, probably more, of the system called feminism. Some of these feature notable authors which I will mention. Using Alison Jagger’s three categories will give us our first few varieties, but there are even more, including some which open the door for criticism of more conventional kinds of feminism.

Liberal feminism is, in a sense, the philosophy of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and for. contemporary feminism, Betty Friedan. Liberal feminists accept existing institutions, as well as the democratic and republican ideology, capitalism, and statism. They seek to actualize those institutions and ideologies by including women on equal terms with men. Liberal feminists such as Friedan are among the most vocal critics of other, more extreme forms of feminism.

Socialist feminists generally subscribe to Marx and Engels’ theories of the way capitalism situates its societies and citizens. Patriarchy, for socialist feminists, is a manifestation of unjust material relations. However, the feminist contingent separates itself from the rest of Marxism by emphasizing that patriarchy is a particularly great evil which in many ways presents a series of unique problems requiring proactive analysis and praxis. Socialist feminists are also critical of non-materialist types of feminism, as well as being offended by liberal feminism for the same reasons that liberal theory is generally shunned by Marxists.

The feminism of Simone DeBeauvoir, who authored The Second Sex, is grounded in her unique interpretation of Heidegger, Sarrre, Kierkegaard, Levinas, and other existential-oriented Continental thinkers. Existentialism tells us we have to consciously choose our situations; existentialist feminism argues that in many cases women spend too much time agonizing over patriarchy and that women are thus at times complacent in their oppression. Many other feminists don’t like DeBeauvoir very much.

Also called “conservative” feminism, this unique and obscure movement originated in conservative American states who in the 1970’s successfully defeated ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. There are good reasons why the family ought to be the focus of both men and women, especially for thinkers of the conservative bent who seek strong networks of personal and tradition-based stability as guiding points for society. Famiists believe that both men and women should put aside any thoughts of domination, although some are willing to concede that the man’s traditional economic role might necessitate the man as the so-called “head of the household.” You can imagine what other feminists think of familists and conservatives.

Deconstruction is a multifaceted and misunderstood term. In the case of feminism, deconstruction is the “method” (Derrida oftbandedly says in a letter to a friend that deconstruction is not a method) by which feminism can play with, dismantle, critique and speculate upon the foundations of patriarchy, its various manifestations in popular culture and university ideology. Deconstructive feminists are generally extremely critical of radically exclusionary or strongly political feminist ideologies. In some cases, as with Camille Paglia’s fascination with Madonna, deconstructive feminists seek to transform traditionally sexist symbols into messages of liberation; and whereas legal feminists generally distrust heterosexual sex and its pornographic ideology, deconstructive feminists often see pornography simply as one more text, compkx and containing strengths and weaknesses.

This is an offshoot of deconstruction which deconstructs and generally makes fun of/with the way gender is constructed. Gender deconstructionists point out that there are more than merely “men” and “women” and that gender is often more a social and textual construction than a natural state of affairs. Judith Butler believes the concept of gender is troublesome and should give pause for thought prior to tackling feminist strategy m the political realm. Other GD’s speak of women who dress as men, and vice versa, as well as hermaphrodites, people who have both male and female sexual organs and who often “decide” to be female.

A small minority of feminists, who in nearly every other way are similar to other varieties of feminism, see abortion as a serious breach of the mother/child relationship which in many ways makes women unique. Pro-life feminism carefully stays away from the conservative pro-life movement and generally believe that it is patriarchy’s oppressive conditions which force women to accept ~ man’s” solution to unwanted pregnancy. Life is the highest value. The ideal community for pro-life feminists is one where all children can be cared for and nurtured, not a community which takes the surgeon’s technology and snuffs out life.

Another offshoot of radical feminism, mystical feminism seeks to give a narrative account of the special essence of woman-ness. Mary Daly and others take witchcraft, menstral blood, and the Goddess very seriously, endowing them with special powers in a manner which can best be decribed as scriptural. Goddess religion has recently been blessed with serious popular interest, and often feminists write science fiction and fantasy stories with mystical feminist themes.

Again, radical in nature, lesbian feminism emphasizes not so much sex as the ideology of women-for-women, holding that men are not necessary for that kind of liberation, and that most men possess inherently undesirable traits. Alison Jagger points out in her book (cited in the bibliography) that this sort of exclusionary feminism cannot succeed as a political philosophy because it excludes half the population of the planet, among whom are many sincere and potentially beneficial political and personal allies (1988, p. 296).

Like socialist feminists, those of the anarchist bent blame capitalism. Because they are anarchists, they also believe that statism is insideous in the maintanence of patriarchy. And like their socialist sisters, they believe patriarchy is so insideous itself that it requires a special analysis of its own. Anarcho-feminists advocate women’s collectives, self-supporting and nurturing in nature.

Shulamith Firestone’s monumental The Dialectic of Sex advocates using the technological gains we’ve made in recent history to “correct” gender differences, whether those differences are natural or constructed. Giving birth, for example, is conceptually possible absent a “real” mother’s womb; surrogate birth is now an established practice. Firestone believes that feminist takeover of science and technology is essential to women s liberation. Other feminists, particularly ecological feminists, generally distrust technology.

Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, both articulate crusaders against pomography and for tougher prosecution of (and radical redefinition of) rape laws, lead a pack of legal scholars who seek to transform society by transforming the legal system. Legal feminists have one foot on each side of the radical/liberal conflict. On the one hand, in Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, MacKinnon argues that only a transformation of all institutions, and in a sense the way we think, can liberate women. On the other hand, she supports legal reforms as the most concrete means of achieving this change. And on the third hand, should there be one, this is especially good for debaters both for and against feminism in a debate round, since legal reforms can always be advocated as a counter-mechanism to ensure the values of feminism while avoiding the flaws of opponents’ versions of feminism.

In ‘essence”: women are “closer to the earth,” and further from the artificial constraints that man has placed in his environment. This is due to many different factors, chief among them childbearing, and it is supposed to result in a greater understanding of nature, and more propensity and insight to save the environment. After several effective criticisms by social ecologists such as Murray Bookchin and Janet Biel, ecological feminists tempered their mystical links of woman and earth with a commitment to being primarily a wing of the ecological movement which examines the relationship between the two.