taken
from lesbian herstory
FEMINISMS
by C. T. MOORE et al
A variety
of movements in feminism means that calling one's self a feminist
can mean many things. In general, members of the following categories
of feminism believe in the listed policies; however as with any diverse
movement, there are disagreements within each group and overlap between
others. This list is meant to illustrate the diversity of feminist
thought and belief. It does not mean that feminism is fragmented (although
it often seems that way!). Much of the definitions presented here
are inspired from _American Feminism_ by Ginette Castro; there is
a definite American bias here. Other sources were _Feminist Frameworks_
(2nd ed.) by Jaggar and Rothenberg (which is a worthwhile but incomplete
reader that tried to sort out these various schools of feminist thought).
Any additional, balancing information from other countries and/or
books is more than welcome (and will be incorporated).
Defining various kinds of feminism is a tricky proposition. The diversity
of comment with most of the kinds presented here should alert you
to the dangers and difficulties in trying to "define" feminism.
Since feminism itself resists all kinds of definitions by its very
existence and aims, it is more accurate to say that there are all
kinds of "flavors" and these flavors are mixed up every
which way; there is no set of Baskin Robbins premixed flavors, as
it were.
Amazon
Feminism
Amazon
feminism is dedicated to the image of the female hero in fiction and
in fact, as it is expressed in art and literature, in the physiques
and feats of female athletes, and in sexual values and practices.
Amazon
feminism is concerned about physical equality and is opposed to gender
role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions
that women are supposed to be, look or behave as if they are passive,
weak and physically helpless.
Amazon
feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests
are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a
vision of heroic womanhood. Thus Amazon feminism advocates e.g., female
strength athletes, martial artists, soldiers, etc. [TG]
Anarcho-Feminism
Anarcho-feminism
was never a huge movement, especially in the United States, and you
won't find a whole lot written about it. I mention it mostly because
of the influential work of Emma Goldman, who used anarchism to craft
a radical feminism that was (alas!) far ahead of her time. Radical
feminism expended a lot of energy dealing with a basis from which
to critique society without falling into Marxist pleas for socialist
revolution. It also expended a lot of energy trying to reach across
racial and class lines. Goldman had succeeded in both. Radical feminist
Alix Schulman realized this, but not in time to save her movement.
She's put out a reader of Goldman's work and a biography, both of
which I recommend highly. [JD]
Cultural
Feminism
As radical
feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In
fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter.
They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and
some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg
don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical
feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.)
The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas radical
feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated
to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of
this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis centers, for
example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in
social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD]
Cultural
feminists can sometimes come up with notions that sound disturbingly
Victorian and non-progressive: that women are inherently (biologically)
"kinder and gentler" than men and so on. (Therefore if all
leaders were women, we wouldn't have wars.) I do think, though, that
cultural feminism's attempts to heighten respect for what is traditionally
considered women's work is an important parallel activity to recognizing
that traditionally male activities aren't necessarily as important
as we think. [CTM]
I have
often associated this type of statement [inherently kinder and gentler]
with Separatist Feminists, who seem to me to feel that women are *inherently*
kinder and gentler, so why associate with men? (This is just my experience
from Separatists I know...I haven't read anything on the subject.)
I know Cultural Feminists who would claim women are *trained* to be
kinder and gentler, but I don't know any who have said they are *naturally*
kinder. [SJ]
As various
1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks
got pessimistic about the very possibility of social change. Many
of then turned their attention to building alternatives, so that if
they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as
much as possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical
feminism to cultural feminism was about. These alternative-building
efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps justifying)
the abandonment of working for social change. Cultural feminism's
justification was biological determinism. This justification was worked
out in great detail, and was based on assertions in horribly-flawed
books like Elizabeth Gould Davis's _The First Sex_ and Ashley Montagu's
_The Natural Superiority of Women_. So notions that women are "inherently
kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism,
and remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by some cultural
feminists is that while various sex differences might not be biologically
determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable.
There is no inherent connection between alternative-building and ideologies
of biological determinism (or of social intracta- bility). SJ has
apparently encountered alternative-builders who don't embrace biological
determinism, and I consider this a very good sign. [JD]
I should
point out here that Ashley Montagu is male, and his book was first
copyright in 1952, so I don't believe that it originated as part of
the separatist movements in the '60's. It may still be horribly flawed;
I haven't yet read it. [CTM]
Erotic
Feminism
[European]
This seemed to start (as a movement) in Germany under the rule of
Otto von Bismarck. He ruled the land with the motto "blood and
iron". In society the man was the _ultra manly man_ and power
was patriarchal power. Some women rebelled against this, by becoming
WOMAN. Eroticism became a philosophical and metaphysical value and
the life-creating value. [RG]
Eco-Feminism
This
branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical
in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and
vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchical society will
exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as
a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchical/hierarchical
society. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of
the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women.
In resisting patriarchical culture, eco-feminists feel that they are
also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa.
[CTM]
This
is actually socially-conscious environmentalism with a tiny smattering
of the radical and cultural feminist observation that exploitation
of women and exploitation of the earth have some astonishing parallels.
The rest of "eco-feminism" turns out to be a variation on
socialism. The Green movements of Europe have done a good job of formulating
(if not implementing) an environmentally aware feminism; and while
Green movements were not originally considered a part of eco-feminism,
they are now recognized as a vital component. [JD]
(If I
remember correctly, a couple of feminist groups, including NOW have
joined up with Green parties. [CTM])
Feminazi:
This term is of course completely without merit, but there's the definition
of it FYI. [CTM]
Feminism
and Women of Color
In _feminist
theory from margin to center_ (1984), bell hooks writes of "militant
white women" who call themselves "radical feminists"
but hooks labels them "reactionary" . . . Hooks is refering
to cultural feminism here. Her comment is a good introduction to that
fractious variety of feminism that Jaggar and Rothenberg find hard
to label any further than to designate its source as women of color.
It is a most vital variety, covering much of the same ground as radical
feminism and duplicating its dynamic nature. Yet bad timing kept the
two from ever uniting. For more information you might want to also
read hooks' book and her earlier reader, _ain't i a woman?_ Whereas
radical feminism was primarily formulated by educated white women
focusing on women's issues, this variety was formulated by women who
would not (because they could not) limit their focus. What is so extraordinary
is that the two converged in so many ways, with the notable exception
that the women of color were adamantly opposed to considering one
form of oppression (sexism) without considering the others. [JD]
I think
an important work in the history of feminism and women of color is
Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga's anthology, _This Bridge Called
My Back: Writings By Radical Women of Color_. It's my belief that
the unique contribution of women of color, who experience at least
two forms of discrimination daily, provides balance and reality to
much of the more theoretical forms of academic feminism favored by
educated white women. [EE]
Individualist,
or Libertarian Feminism
Individualist
feminism is based upon individualist or libertarian (minimum government
or anarchocapitalist) philosophies, i.e. philosophies whose primary
focus is individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence and diversity.
Lesbianism
There
are a couple of points to make here. First is that Lesbianism is not
necessarily a *de facto* part of feminism. While it is true that merely
being a lesbian is a direct contravention of "traditional"
concepts of womanhood, Lesbians themeselves hold a wide variety of
opionions on the subject of feminism just as their straight sisters
do.
On the
other hand, Lesbianism has sometimes been made into a political point
by straight women "becoming" lesbian in order to fully reject
men. However, it is never accurate to characterise all feminists as
Lesbians nor all Lesbians as feminists.
The reader
should also note that homophobia is as present among feminists as
it is in any other segment of society. Lesbianism and feminism, for
all their common points and joint interests, are two very different
groups. [CTM]
Liberal
Feminism
This
is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream
society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch
back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the
American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there
from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case
with liberals, they slog along inside the system, getting little done
amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls
those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days
of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical
feminists. [JD]
Marxist
and Socialist Feminism
Marxism
recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression
to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the
only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist
system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical
feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg point to significant differences between
socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present
the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism
as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the
dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical,"
but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root"
of society: the economic system. [JD]
Material
Feminism
A movement
in the late 19th century to liberate women by improving their material
condition. This meant taking the burden of housework and cooking off
their shoulders. _The Grand Domestic Revolution_ by Charlotte Perkins
Gilman is one reference. [RZ]
Moderate
Feminism
This
branch of feminism tends to be populated by younger women or other
women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They are closely
affiliated with liberal feminism, but tend to question the need for
further effort, and do not think that Radical feminism is any longer
viable and in fact rather embarrassing (this is the group most likely
to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist").
[CTM]
'pop-feminism'
This
term has appeared several times on soc.feminism. It appears to be
a catch-all for the bogey"man" sort of feminism that everyone
loves to hate: you know, the kind of feminism that grinds men under
its heel and admits to no wrong for women. It is doubtful that such
a caricature actually exists, yet many people persist in lumping all
feminists into this sort of a category. [CTM]
Radical
Feminism
Provides
the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides
an important foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors".
Seen by many as the "undesireable" element of feminism,
Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas
arising from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various
ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism. [CTM]
Radical
feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately
1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then,
nor does it provide a foundation for, for example, cultural feminism.
In addition, radical feminism is not and never has been related to
the Maoist-feminist group Radical Women. [EE]
This
term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil
rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets
the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of
women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across
boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement
intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions,
in fact. [JD]
Ironically,
this get-to-the-roots movement is the most root-less variety of feminism.
This was part of its strength and part of its weakness. It was always
dynamic, always dealing with factions, and always full of ideas. Its
influence has been felt in all the other varieties listed here, as
well as in society at large. [JD]
To me,
radical feminism is centred on the necessity to question gender roles.
This is why I identify current "gender politics" questions
as radical feminist issues. Radical feminism questions why women must
adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why
men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts
to draw lines between biologically- determined behavior and culturally-determined
behavior in order to free both men and women as much as possible from
their previous narrow gender roles. [EE]
The best
history of this movement is a book called _Daring to be Bad_, by Echols.
I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply
titled _Radical Feminism_ and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt,
a well-known radical feminist [EE].
Radical
feminist theory is to a large extent incompatible with cultural feminism.
The reason is that the societal forces it deals with seem so great
in magnitude that they make it impossible to identify any innate masculine
or feminine attributes except those which are results of the biological
attributes. (This is what I think the [above] "view[s] the oppression
of women as the most fundamental form of oppression," [is getting
at] although I don't agree with that statement in its context.) [DdJ]
Separatists
Popularly
and wrongly depicted as Lesbians, these are the feminists who advocate
separation from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. Women who
organize women-only events are often unfairly dubbed separatist. Separatists
are sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. The core idea is that
"separating" (by various means) from men enables women to
see themselves in a different context. Many feminists, whether or
not separatist, think this is a necessary "first step",
by which they mean a temporary separation for personal growth, not
a permanent one. [CTM]
There
is sometimes some overlap between separatist and cultural feminists
(see below). [SJ]
It is
equally inaccurate to consider all Lesbians as separatist; while it
is true that they do not interact with men for sexual fulfillment,
it is not true that they therefore automatically shun all interaction
with men. [CTM] And, conversely, it is equally inaccurate to consider
all separatists Lesbians. Additionally, lesbian feminism may be considered
a category distinct from separatist feminism. Lesbian feminism puts
more emphasis on lesbianism -- active bonding with women -- than separatism
does, in its emphasis on removing bonds with men. [EE]
My
thanks to: Ellen Eades[EE] David desJardins [DdJ] Jym Dyer [JD] Thomas
Gramstad [TG] Rebecca Grinter [RG] David Gross [DG] (incl. all info
on men's movements) Stacy Johnson [SJ] Rudy Zalesak [RZ] --------------
--Cindy
Tittle Moore
"I
myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is:
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments
that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca
West, 1913