FEMINISM

As a political term, ‘feminism’ became familiar part of everyday discourse since the 1960s. In
modern usage, feminism is linked to the goal of advancing the role of women, usually by
reducing gender inequality, although it has come to be associated with the wider project
of transforming gender relations.

Feminist ideology has traditionally been defined by two basic beliefs:

a) women are disadvantaged because of their gender;
b) this disadvantage can and should be overthrown.
In this way, feminists have highlighted what they see as a political relationship between the
sexes, the supremacy of men and the subjection of women in most, if not all, societies.

Nevertheless, feminism has also been characterized by a diversity of views and political
positions. The women’s movement, for instance, has pursued goals that range from the
achievement of female suffrage and an increase in the number of women in elite positions in
public life, to the legalization of abortion, and sexual harassment and sexual assault of
women. Similarly, feminist theory has both drawn on established political traditions and
values, notably liberalism and socialism, and, in the form of radical feminism, rejected
conventional political ideas and concepts. However, feminism has long since ceased to be
confined to these ‘core’ traditions. Contemporary feminist thought is characterized by a
more radical engagement with the politics of difference, as well as an encounter with
modern approaches to gender and sexuality, such as intersectionality, trans theory and
queer theory.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW:

The first text of modern feminism is usually taken to be Mary Wollstonecraft’s A

Vindication of the Rights of Woman ([1792] 1967), written against the backdrop of the
French Revolution. By the mid-nineteenth century, the women’s movement had acquired a
central focus: the campaign for female suffrage, the right to vote, which drew inspiration
from the progressive extension of the franchise to men.
This period is usually referred to as first-wave feminism, and was characterized by the
demand that women should enjoy the same legal and political rights as men. Female
suffrage was the principal goal of first-wave or liberal feminism because it was believed that
if women could vote, all other forms of sexual discrimination or prejudice would quickly
disappear.

Feminism’s ‘first-wave’ ended with the achievement of female suffrage, introduced first in
New Zealand in 1893. The Nineteenth Amendment of the US Constitution granted the vote
to American women in 1920. Ironically, in many ways, winning the right to vote weakened
and undermined the women’s movement. Many activists naively believed that in winning
suffrage rights, women had achieved full emancipation. It was not until the 1960s that the
women’s movement was regenerated, with the emergence of feminism’s ‘second wave’.
The publication in 1963 of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique did much to relaunch
feminist thought. Second-wave feminism, as it became known, acknowledged that the
achievement of political and legal rights had not solved the ‘women’s question’. Indeed,
feminist ideas and arguments became increasingly radical, and at times revolutionary. Books
such as Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch
(1970) pushed back the borders of what had previously been considered to be ‘political’ by
focusing attention on the personal, psychological and sexual aspects of female oppression.

The goal of second-wave feminism was not merely political emancipation but ‘women’s
liberation’, reflected in the ideas of the growing Women’s Liberation Movement. Such a
goal could not be achieved by political reforms or legal changes alone, but demanded,
modern feminists argued, a more far-reaching and perhaps revolutionary process of social
change.

Since the first flowering of radical feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, feminism has
developed into a distinctive and established ideology, whose ideas and values challenge the
most basic assumptions of conventional political thought. Feminism has succeeded in
establishing gender and gender perspectives as important themes in a range of academic
disciplines, and in raising consciousness about gender issues in public life in general.

However, three processes have accompanied these developments.

The first is a process of deradicalization, whereby there has been a retreat from the
sometimes uncompromising positions that characterized feminism in the early 1970s. This
led to the growing popularity of the idea of ‘post feminism’, suggesting that as feminist
objectives have been largely achieved, the women’s movement has moved ‘beyond
feminism’.

The second process is one of fragmentation. Instead of simply losing its radical or critical
edge, feminist thinking has gone through a process of radical diversification, making it
difficult, and perhaps impossible, any longer to identify ‘common ground’ within feminism. In
addition to the ‘core’ feminist traditions – liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical
feminism – must now be added postmodern feminism, psychoanalytical feminism, black
feminism, lesbian feminism and transfeminism, among others.

The third, and related, process is the growing recognition of intersectionality and of the
tendency for women to have multiple social identities. Women, thus, do not have a
straightforward gender-based identity but one in which, for instance, race, social class,
ethnicity, age, religion, nationality and sexual orientation can overlap or ‘intersect’ with
gender. This implies that women may be subject to interlocking systems of oppression and
discrimination, as sexism becomes entangled with racism xenophobia, homophobia and
the like.

CORE THEMES

Redefining ‘the political’

Sex and gender
Patriarchy
Equality and difference

Redefining ‘the political’ :

Politics has usually been understood as an activity that takes place within a ‘public sphere’ of
government institutions, political parties, pressure groups and public debate. Family life and
personal relationships have normally been thought to be part of a ‘private sphere’, and
therefore to be ‘non-political’. Modern feminists, on the other hand, insist that politics is an
activity that takes place within all social groups and is not merely confined to the affairs of
government or other public bodies. Politics exists whenever and wherever social conflict is
found.

Kate Millett, for example, defined politics as ‘power-structured relationships,

arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another’. The relationship
between government and its citizens is therefore clearly political, but so is the relationship
between employers and workers within a firm, and also relationships in the family, between
husbands and wives, and between parents and children.

Feminists argue that sexual inequality has been preserved precisely because the sexual
division of labour that runs through society has been thought of as ‘natural’ rather than
‘political’. Traditionally, the public sphere of life, encompassing politics, work, art and
literature, has been the preserve of men, while women have been confined to an essentially
private existence, centred on the family and domestic responsibilities. Women, restricted to
the private role of housewife and mother, are in effect excluded from politics.

Feminists have therefore sought to challenge the divide between ‘public man’ and ‘private
woman’ . Radical feminists have been the keenest opponents of the idea that politics stops
at the front door, proclaiming instead that ‘the personal is the political’. Female oppression
is thus thought to operate in all walks of life, and in many respects originates in the family
itself. Radical feminists have therefore been concerned to analyse what can be called ‘the
politics of everyday life’. This includes the process of conditioning in the family, the
distribution of housework and other domestic responsibilities, and the politics of personal
and sexual conduct.

Socialist feminists have also viewed the private sphere as political, in that they have linked
women’s roles within the conventional family to the maintenance of the capitalist
economic system. However, although liberal feminists object to restrictions on women’s
access to the public sphere of education, work and political life, they also warn against the
dangers of politicizing the private sphere, which, according to liberal theory, is a realm of
personal choice and individual freedom.

Sex and gender:

The most common of all anti-feminist arguments is that the gender division that runs
through society is ‘natural’: women and men merely fulfil the social roles for which nature
designed them. In short, ‘biology is destiny’. Feminists typically challenge such thinking by
drawing a sharp distinction between sex and gender.
‘Sex’, in this sense, refers to biological differences between females and males; these
differences are natural and therefore are unalterable. The most important sex differences
are those that are linked to reproduction.
Gender’, on the other hand, is a cultural term; it refers to the different roles that society
ascribes to women and men. Gender differences are typically imposed through contrasting
stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’.
As Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, ‘Women are made, they are not born’. In denying that
there is a necessary or logical link between sex and gender, feminists therefore emphasize
that gender differences are socially, or even politically, constructed.

Most feminists believe that human nature is characterized by androgyny. All human beings,
regardless of sex, possess the genetic inheritance of a mother and a father, and therefore
embody a blend of both female and male attributes or traits. Such a view accepts that sex
differences are biological facts of life but insists that they have no necessary social, political
or economic implications. This implies that the central core of feminism is the achievement
of genderless ‘personhood’.
Not only does it highlight the possibility of social change – socially constructed identities
can be reconstructed or even demolished – but it also draws attention to the processes
through which women are ‘engendered’ and therefore oppressed.

Although most feminists have regarded the sex/gender distinction as empowering, others
have attacked it. These attacks have been launched from two main directions. The first,
advanced by so-called ‘difference feminists’, suggests that there are profound and perhaps
ineradicable differences between women and men.

The second attack on the sex/gender distinction challenges the categories themselves.
Postmodern feminists have questioned whether ‘sex’ is as clear-cut a biological distinction
as is usually assumed. For example, the features of ‘biological womanhood’ do not apply to
many who are classified as women: some women cannot bear children, some women are not
sexually attracted to men, and so on. The categories ‘female’ and ‘male’ are therefore
more or less arbitrary. An alternative approach to gender has been advanced by the trans
movement. In seeing gender as essentially a matter of self-identification, this explodes the
binary conception of gender, in which the human world is tidily divided into female and male
parts.

Simone de Beauvoir

Simone de Beauvoir was a French writer, intellectual, existentialist philosopher, political

activist, feminist, and social theorist. She had a significant influence on both feminist
existentialism and feminist theory.
 Her book , The Second Sex, first published in 1949 argues that existence precedes essence
into a feminist one: "One is not born but becomes a woman". With this famous phrase,
Beauvoir first articulated what has come to be known as the sex-gender distinction, that
is, the distinction between biological sex and the social and historical construction of
gender and its attendant stereotypes. Beauvoir argues that "the fundamental source of
women's oppression is its historical and social construction as the quintessential" Other.

Beauvoir defines women as the "second sex" because women are defined in relation to
men. She pointed out that Aristotle argued women are "female by virtue of a certain lack
of qualities", while Thomas Aquinas referred to woman as "imperfect man" and the
"incidental" being.

Beauvoir asserted that women are as capable of choice as men, and thus can choose to
elevate themselves, moving beyond the "immanence" to which they were previously
resigned and reaching "transcendence", a position in which one takes responsibility for
oneself and the world, where one chooses one's freedom.

In the chapter "Woman: Myth and Reality" of The Second Sex, Beauvoir argued that men
had made women the "Other" in society. She wrote that a similar kind of oppression also
happened in other categories of identity, such as race, class, and religion, but she claimed
that it was nowhere more true than with gender in which men stereotyped women and
used it as an excuse to organize society into a patriarchy.

Patriarchy:

Feminists use the concept of ‘patriarchy’ to describe the power relationship between women
and men. The term literally means ‘rule by the father’ (pater meaning father in Latin). Some
feminists employ patriarchy only in this specific and limited sense, to describe the structure
of the family and the dominance of the husband-father within it, preferring to use broader
terms such as ‘male supremacy’ or ‘male dominance’ to describe gender relations in society
at large.

However, feminists believe that the dominance of the father within the family symbolizes
male supremacy in all other institutions. Many would argue, moreover, that the patriarchal
family lies at the heart of a systematic process of male domination, in that it reproduces
male dominance in all other walks of life: in education, at work and in politics. Patriarchy is
therefore commonly used in a broader sense to mean quite simply ‘rule by men’, both
within the family and outside.

Millett for instance described ‘patriarchal government’ as an institution whereby ‘that half
of the populace which is female is controlled by that half which is male’. She suggested
that patriarchy contains two principles: ‘male shall dominate female, elder male shall
dominate younger’. A patriarchy is therefore a hierarchic society, characterized by both
sexual and generational oppression.

The concept of patriarchy is, nevertheless, broad. Feminists may believe that men have
dominated women in all societies, but accept that the forms and degree of oppression have
varied considerably in different cultures and at different times.

Feminists do not have a single or simple analysis of patriarchy, however. Liberal feminists, to
the extent that they use the term, use it primarily to draw attention to the unequal
distribution of rights and entitlements in society at large. The face of patriarchy they
highlight is therefore the under-representation of women in senior positions in politics,
business, the professions and public life generally. Socialist feminists tend to emphasize
the economic aspects of patriarchy. In their view, patriarchy operates in tandem with
capitalism, gender subordination and class inequality being interlinked systems of
oppression.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, place considerable stress on patriarchy. They see it as
a systematic, institutionalized and pervasive form of male power that is rooted in the family.
Patriarchy thus expresses the belief that the pattern of male domination and female
subordination that characterizes society at large is, essentially, a reflection of the power
structures that operate within domestic life.

Equality and difference:

Traditionally, women have demanded equality with men, even to the extent that feminism is
often characterized as a movement for the achievement of sexual equality. However, the
issue of equality has also exposed major fault lines within feminism: feminists have
embraced contrasting notions of equality and some have entirely rejected equality in favour
of the idea of difference.

Liberal feminists champion legal and political equality with men. They have supported an
equal rights agenda, which would enable women to compete in public life on equal terms
with men, regardless of sex. Equality thus means equal access to the public realm.

Socialist feminists, in contrast, argue that equal rights may be meaningless unless women
also enjoy social equality. Equality, in this sense, has to apply in terms of economic power,
and so must address issues such as the ownership of wealth, pay differentials and the
distinction between waged and unwaged labour.

Radical feminists, for their part, are primarily concerned about equality in family and
personal life. Equality must therefore operate, for example, in terms of child care and other
domestic responsibilities, the control of one’s own body, and sexual expression and
fulfilment.
TYPES OF FEMINISM:
- traditional feminist theories
- modern approaches to gender and sexuality.

Traditional feminist theories:

Liberal feminism :
Early feminism, particularly the ‘first wave’ of the women’s movement, was deeply
influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. John Stuart Mill’s On the Subjection of
Women , written in collaboration with Harriet Taylor, proposed that society should be
organized according to the principle of ‘reason’, and that ‘accidents of birth’ such as sex
should be irrelevant. Women would therefore be entitled to the rights and liberties
enjoyed by men and, in particular, the right to vote.

‘Second-wave’ feminism also has a significant liberal component. For instance, Betty Friedan
advanced a critique of the ‘feminine mystique’, by which she referred to the cultural myth
that women seek security and fulfilment in domestic life and ‘feminine’ behaviour. This myth
therefore serves to discourage women from entering employment, politics and public life in
general. She highlighted what she called ‘the problem with no name’, the sense of despair
and deep unhappiness that many women experienced because they were confined to a
domestic existence and are thus unable to gain fulfilment in a career or through political life.

The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of individualism. This implies
that individuals are entitled to equal treatment regardless of their gender, race, colour,
creed or religion. If individuals are to be judged, it should be on rational grounds, on the
content of their character, their talents, or their personal worth. Any form of discrimination
against women that constrains their ability to participate in, or gain access to, public or
political life should therefore be prohibited.

Socialist feminism:
In contrast to their liberal counterparts, socialist feminists have not believed that women
simply face political or legal disadvantages that can be remedied by equal legal rights or the
achievement of equal opportunities. Rather, they argue that the relationship between the
sexes is rooted in the social and economic structure itself, and that nothing short of profound
social change – some would say a social revolution – can offer women the prospect of
genuine emancipation.

The central theme of socialist feminism is that patriarchy can only be understood in the light
of social and economic factors. The classic statement of this argument was developed in
Friedrich Engels’ The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.
In pre-capitalist societies, family life had been communistic, and ‘mother right’ – the
inheritance of property and social position through the female line – was widely observed.
Capitalism, however, being based on the ownership of private property by men, had
overthrown ‘mother right’ and brought about what Engels called ‘the world historical
defeat of the female sex’

Engels believed that female oppression operates through the institution of the ‘bourgeois
family’.
Most socialist feminists agree that the confinement of women to a domestic sphere of
housework and motherhood serves the economic interests of capitalism. Some have argued
that women constitute a ‘reserve army of labour’, which can be recruited into the workforce
when there is a need to increase production, but easily shed and return to domestic life
during a depression, without imposing a burden on employers or the state.

Radical feminism:

The central feature of radical feminism is the belief that sexual oppression is the most
fundamental feature of society and that other forms of injustice – class exploitation, racial
hatred and so on – are merely secondary. Gender is thought to be the deepest social
cleavage and the most politically significant; more important, for example, than social class,
race or nation. Radical feminists have therefore insisted that society be understood as
‘patriarchal’ to highlight the central role of gender oppression. Such thinking was evident in
the pioneering work of Simone de Beauvoir, and was developed by early radical feminists
such as Eva Figes, Germaine Greer and Kate Millett.

In The Female Eunuch , Greer suggested that women are conditioned to a passive sexual
role, which has repressed their true sexuality as well as the more active and adventurous
side of their personalities. In effect, women have been ‘castrated’ and turned into sexless
objects by the cultural stereotype of the ‘eternal feminine’.
In Sexual Politics , Millett argued that the different roles of women and men have their
origin in a process of ‘conditioning’: from an early age boys and girls are encouraged to
conform to very specific gender identities. This process takes place largely within the family –
‘patriarchy’s chief institution’ – but it is also evident in literature, art, public life and the
economy. Millett proposed that patriarchy should be challenged through a process of
‘consciousness-raising’, an idea influenced by the Black Power movement of the 1960s and
early 1970s.

Radical feminists generally agree that the origins of patriarchy lie in the structures of family,
domestic and personal life, and therefore that women’s liberation requires a sexual
revolution in which these structures are overthrown and replaced.

Men constitute an oppressive ‘sex-class dedicated to aggression, domination and

destruction; so the female ‘sex-class is therefore the ‘universal victim’. For example, Susan
Brownmiller’s Against Our Will emphasized that men dominate women through a process
of physical and sexual abuse. Men have created an ‘ideology of rape’, which amounts to a
‘conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear’.
Modern approaches to gender and sexuality:

Since the 1990s, feminist discourse has moved beyond the campaigns and demands of the
1960s and 1970s women’s movement. This has made it increasingly difficult to analyse
feminism simply in terms of the threefold division into liberal, socialist and radical traditions.
Not only have new forms of feminism emerged, but feminism has also been challenged as
well as enriched by its encounter with new thinking about gender and sexuality. Among the
themes that this has brought to the fore are the following:

Third-wave thinking and intersectionality:

Third-wave feminists tried to rectify an over-emphasis within earlier forms of feminism on

the aspirations and experiences of middle-class, white women in developed societies,
thereby illustrating the extent to which the contemporary women’s movement is
characterized by diversity, hybridity and what the US scholar and advocate, Kimberlé
Crenshaw , dubbed ‘intersectionality’.
This has allowed the voices of, among others, low-income women, women in the developing
world, ‘women of colour’ and LGBTIQ people to be heard more effectively. Black feminism
has been particularly effective in this respect, challenging the tendency within conventional
forms of feminism to ignore racial differences and to suggest that women endure a common
oppression by virtue of their gender.

In being concerned about issues of ‘identity’, and the processes through which women’s
identities are constructed (and can be reconstructed), third-wave feminism also reflects the
influence of poststructuralism.

Trans theory and feminism:

Trans theorists reject the binary conception of gender, in which society allocates its
members to one of two sets of identities, usually linked to biological or anatomical
differences. In the binary view, the categories woman and man are meaningful and
objectively based. Although trans theory is not associated with a single or simple conception
of gender, its most influential belief is the idea of gender and sexual ambiguity, sometimes
based on the idea of a gender continuum. Trans people are thus ‘gender nonconforming’;
they are neither women nor men.

From this non-binary perspective, gender is not something that is determined at birth or
ascribed to individuals by society; instead, it is a matter of self-identity. People are therefore
whatever gender they choose to be, based on their inner feelings. In this vein, Judith Butler’s
concept of gender as repeated social performance has been particularly influential.

Gender performativity is a term first used by the feminist philosopher Judith Butler in her
1990 book Gender Trouble. She argues that being born male or female does not determine
 behavior. Instead, people learn to behave in particular ways to fit into society. The idea of
gender is an act, or performance.This act is the way a person walks, talks, dresses, and
behaves. She calls this acting "gender performativity." What society regards as a person's
gender is just a performance made to please social expectations and not a true expression
of the person's 'gender identity'.

Queer theory:
The term ‘queer theory’ was coined in 1990 by the Italian-American feminist theorist Teresa
de Lauretis. This reflected the tendency within the LGBTIQ community in the 1980s for
‘queer’ – once a term of homophobic abuse – to be reclaimed as a means of denoting a
radical and unapologetic rejection of conventional sexual identities.
From the perspective of queer theory, therefore, sexuality is not a natural, fixed, core
identity, but something that is fluid, plural and continually negotiated.
Perhaps the defining feature of queer theory is robust opposition to heteronormativity
(sometimes dubbed anti-heteronormativity). Heteronormativity establishes heterosexuality
as the baseline for humankind, a position sustained by cultural belief, religion and
institutional arrangements, linked, among other things, to marriage, taxation and adoption
rights. As such, heteronormativity systematically marginalizes – and ‘invisibilizes’ – gay
people.

Resistance to this can nevertheless be explained by reference to the concept of gender

performativity, particularly as developed by Judith Butler . To say that gender is
performative is to say that how we understand gender, and how we position ourselves as
gendered or sexual beings in relation to others, is a product of repeated words and actions.
Gender and sexuality are therefore not an expression of what one is (identity), but of what
one does (social action).
Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism, also called ecological feminism, branch of feminism that examines the
connections between women and nature. Its name was coined by French feminist Françoise
d’Eaubonne in 1974. Ecofeminism uses the basic feminist tenets of equality between
genders to these notions ecofeminism adds both a commitment to the environment and
an awareness of the associations made between women and nature. Specifically, this
philosophy emphasizes the ways both nature and women are treated by patriarchal (or
male-centred) society. Ecofeminists examine the effect of gender categories in order to
demonstrate the ways in which social norms exert unjust dominance over women and
nature. Its practitioners advocate an alternative worldview that values the earth as
sacred, recognizes humanity’s dependency on the natural world, and embraces all life as
valuable.

Origins of ecofeminism
The modern ecofeminist movement was born out of a series of conferences and workshops
held in the United States by a coalition of academic and professional women during the late
1970s and early 1980s. They met to discuss the ways in which feminism and
environmentalism might be combined to promote respect for women and the natural
world and were motivated by the notion that a long historical precedent of associating
women with nature had led to the oppression of both. They noted that women and nature
were often depicted as chaotic, irrational, and in need of control, while men were
frequently characterized as rational, ordered, and thus capable of directing the use and
development of women and nature. Ecofeminists contend that this arrangement results in
a hierarchical structure that grants power to men and allows for the exploitation of
women and nature, particularly insofar as the two are associated with one another.
Early work on ecofeminism consisted largely of first documenting historical connections
between women and the environment and then looking for ways to sever those connections.
One founder of ecofeminism, theologian Rosemary Ruether, insisted that all women must
acknowledge and work to end the domination of nature if they were to work toward their
own liberation.

By the late 1980s, ecofeminism had grown out of its largely academic environment and
become a popular movement. Many scholars cite the feminist theorist Ynestra King as the
cause of that popularization. In 1987 King wrote an article titled “What Is Ecofeminism?”
that appeared in The Nation. There she challenged all Americans to consider the ways in
which their belief systems allow for the exploitative use of the earth and the further
oppression of women. With the help of King’s article, the concept of ecofeminism grew both
in support and philosophical scope.

Radical ecofeminism and cultural ecofeminism

As ecofeminism continued to develop, it witnessed the first of several splinterings. By the late
1980s ecofeminism had begun to branch out into two distinct schools of thought:

Radical ecofeminism and

Cultural ecofeminism.
Radical ecofeminists contend that the dominant patriarchal society equates nature and
women in order to degrade both. To that end, radical ecofeminism builds on the assertion
of early ecofeminists that one must study patriarchal domination with an eye toward
ending the associations between women and nature. Of particular interest to those
theorists is the ways in which both women and nature have been associated with negative or
commodifiable attributes while men have been seen as capable of establishing order. That
division of characteristics encourages the exploitation of women and nature for cheap labour
and resources.
Cultural ecofeminists, on the other hand, encourage an association between women and the
environment. They contend that women have a more intimate relationship with nature
because of their gender roles (e.g., family nurturer and provider of food) and their biology
(e.g., menstruation, pregnancy, and lactation). As a result, cultural ecofeminists believe
that such associations allow women to be more sensitive to the sanctity and degradation
of the environment. They suggest that this sensitivity ought to be prized by society insofar as
it establishes a more direct connection to the natural world with which humans must coexist.
Cultural ecofeminism also has roots in nature-based religions and goddess and nature
worship as a way of redeeming both the spirituality of nature and women’s instrumental role
in that spirituality.

Not all feminists agree with cultural ecofeminism as they think it merely reinforces gender
stereotypes and could lead to further exploitation.

Ecofeminism’s future
Many women remained unsatisfied with the limits of the movement. Of particular concern
was the failure of women in developed countries to acknowledge the ways in which their
own lifestyles were leading to further degradation of their counterparts in less-developed
countries and of the Earth as a whole. Women from developing countries pointed that
western ecofeminists go for the appropriation of indigenous cultures and religions for the
purpose of advancing a philosophical position. Thus, contemporary ecofeminism must be
developed to acknowledge the very real effects of race, class, ethnicity, and sexuality on a
woman’s social position. Women in developing countries and women representing minority
cultures have worked to establish their own sense of ecofeminism to include local cultures
and spirituality, a celebration of their roles as mothers and caretakers, and a recognition of
the ways in which Western colonization compromised those beliefs.
Many ecofeminists were also concerned with what they saw as a heterosexual bias in the
movement insofar as ecofeminism appeared to privilege the experience of heterosexual
women over homosexual women. To correct that problem, an emerging school of
ecofeminism emphasized the need to incorporate the tenets of queer theory into the
precepts of ecofeminism. They contended that if ecofeminism is indeed committed to
fighting against systems of oppression and domination, then the movement must also
acknowledge the ways in which sexuality—and, more specifically, responses to that
sexuality—also figure as oppressive mechanisms. Thus, the redemption of women’s roles
and opportunities must also include a valuing of sexual differences as well as differences in
race, class, and gender.

Ecofeminist scholars often contend that the great plurality of beliefs within ecofeminism is
one of the movement’s greatest strengths. They note that the myriad definitions and
applications, which sometimes complement and sometimes conflict with one another,
demonstrate the liberating and inclusive aspects of the movement. They also point to the
important commonalities shared within the various schools of ecofeminism. All ecofeminists,
they say, work toward the development of theory and action that acknowledge the problems
inherent in patriarchal and hierarchical systems. They advocate the revaluing of science to
acknowledge the role of subjectivity and intuition. They also support the creation of a new
worldview that celebrates all biological systems as inherently valuable. Finally, they insist on
solving those problems through affirming and nonviolent means.

Vandana Shiva
An Indian scholar, environmental activist, food sovereignty advocate, ecofeminist and
anti-globalisation author.
Shiva plays a major role in the global ecofeminist movement. According to her 2004 article
Empowering Women, a more sustainable and productive approach to agriculture can be
achieved by reinstating the system of farming in India that is more centred on engaging
women. She advocates against the prevalent "patriarchal logic of exclusion," claiming that
a woman-focused system would be a great improvement. She believes that ecological
destruction and industrial catastrophes threaten daily life, and the maintenance of these
problems have become women's responsibility.

Shiva co-wrote the book Ecofeminism in 1993 with "German anarchist and radical
feminist sociologist" Maria Mies. It combined Western and Southern feminism with
"environmental, technological and feminist issues, all incorporated under the term
ecofeminism".

Postcolonial feminism is a form of feminism that developed as a response to feminism

focusing solely on the experiences of women in Western cultures and former colonies.
Postcolonial feminism seeks to account for the way that racism and the long-lasting
political, economic, and cultural effects of colonialism affect non-white, non-Western
 women in the postcolonial world. Postcolonial feminism originated in the 1980s as a
critique of feminist theorists in developed countries pointing out the universalizing
tendencies of mainstream feminist ideas and argues that women living in non-Western
countries are misrepresented.

Postcolonial feminism argues that by using the term "woman" as a universal group,
women are then only defined by their gender and not by social class, race, ethnicity, or
sexual preference. Postcolonial feminists also work to incorporate the ideas of indigenous
and other Third World feminist movements into mainstream Western feminism. Third
World feminism stems from the idea that feminism in Third World countries is not
imported from the First World, but originates from internal ideologies and socio-cultural
factors.

Postcolonial feminism is sometimes criticized by mainstream feminism, which argues that

postcolonial feminism weakens the wider feminist movement by dividing it.

Prominent Post Colonial scholars include Chandra Mohanty Talpade and Sarojini
Sahoo.

THE FUTURE OF FEMINISM:

The image of feminism as constantly beleaguered and in retreat, conjured up by the once
fashionable idea of ‘post feminism’ is starkly misleading. Rather than being dead – or at
least transformed into something else, which is not really feminist – feminism is alive and
vibrant and shows every sign of continuing to be so . What has happened to feminism is that
it has become less visible, or less easily noticed, but this may be more a reflection of
feminism’s widening influence than its incipient decline. This can be seen in at least two
respects.

First, feminism is no longer only (or mainly) an outsider protest movement. Instead, it has
increasingly moved into the mainstream. This can, for example, be seen in the fact that
initiatives to reduce gender inequality (a traditional concern of feminism, even though the
initiatives are not necessarily labelled ‘feminist’) have increasingly become standard practice
in the public services and across civil society. Further evidence of this can be found in the
prominence feminist perspectives now enjoy in a growing range of fields of academic study.

Second, the ideological orientation of feminism has been revised and broadened. Whereas
feminism once focused on the relatively narrow goal of advancing the role of women by
reducing gender inequality, it has come to address the issue of gender relations in general,
reflecting on both how they are shaped and how they can be transformed. This has drawn
feminists, together with those influenced by feminism but who do not self-defne as feminists,
into wider debates about gender and sexuality.

Feminism, nevertheless, is confronted by a number of enduring challenges.

One of the most significant of these challenges is that feminism’s successes threaten to
weaken the women’s movement, undermining its unity and sense of purpose.
A further challenge is that the survival of the forces of anti-feminism seems to suggest that
feminism will always exist within a contested political environment. This was evident in the
1980s in a conservative backlash against feminism, which has been revived in the early
decades of the twenty-first century, in association with the rise of right-wing populism.