This is a slightly edited repost of something I wrote for feminist Mormon housewives. Miko’s latest post brought up both Islamic feminism and the complications of being a privileged Western feminist. This may provide some welcome background:
There are dozens of major varieties of feminism. There are those that are politically-based: Marxist, liberal, and anarcha-feminism; racial and ethnic: Womanist, Latina, Asian-American; religious: Islamic, mujerista, evangelical Christian; others that don’t fit in my neat little categories: post-modern, lesbian, and ecofeminist. There are feminisms that assert the essential differences between men and women, and there are feminisms that argue that these differences are culturally constructed. Here’s a few descriptions of prominent feminisms (compliments of Wikipedia and Google, both great places for beginning, if not ending):
Liberal feminism focuses on social, economic and political equality between women and men. This umbrella covers the formation of the National Organization of Women, the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, the fight for the right to choose, etc. The late Betty Friedan would fall under this category.
Cultural feminists are an expression of difference feminism. They argue that women are inherently more compassionate, nurturing and community-focused than men (with their destructive habits and ideologies). Jane Addams and Margaret Fuller are examples of cultural feminists.
Ecofeminism connects the domination of women to the exploitation of the earth. It argues that the two intimately connected and mutually reinforcing. Vandana Shiva and Rosemary Radford Ruether are two proponents of ecofeminism.
Womanism was formed by African-American women who realized that they weren’t being adequately represented by both civil rights activists (who catered primarily to the needs of black men) and white feminists (for example, many were working women). Prominent womanists include Alice Walker and bell hooks.
Islamic feminism is a movement for women’s rights that relies heavily on Islamic discourse (including Islamic theology and jurisprudence). Amina Wadud is a Qur’anic scholar who promotes interpretations that empower Muslim women.
I’m missing all kinds of interesting feminisms, like separatist feminism, male feminism, and the mujerista movement. What’s cool about many of these is that they build on, complicate and spill over into the other feminisms.
Take the title of Feminist Mormon Housewives. It’s a challenge: “I’m a feminist and a Mormon and a housewife. Wanna make something of it?” There’s a creative tension between feminist and Mormon that makes it much more than just a sum of its parts. Mormon feminism is a discursive relationship, not just an adjective-noun pairing. It challenges stereotypes of both Mormons and feminists.
9 responses so far ↓
1 amelia // Jan 10, 2007 at 3:18 pm
i’m interested in that designation “cultural feminism.” it seems to me that the very feminists it purports to describe would object to the label as the term “cultural” implies that any differences would be a product of culture and would therefore disallow the notion of innate differences arising out of psychology or biology. even if the word “cultural” arises out of the idea that such innate differences lead to the development of a uniquely female culture, the notion continues to seem problematic because it naturalizes what are constructed differences (if a difference is cultural, it must be to a certin extent constructed rather than natural).
it would make more sense to me if the idea is that the culture in which a woman exists ascribes to or instills into women certain characteristics that should be valued and incorporated into the wider culture in an effort to create greater equity and justice. but in that instance, the idea of difference feminism seems to disappear, as “woman” becomes a culturally created idea rather than a natural (problematic word in the first place) result of differences. in such a scenario, both women and men would begin as a sort of tabula rasa upon which culture inscribes certain conceptions of what it means to be “woman” and “man”. accordingly, each distinct culture would have a different version of “difference” between “woman” and “man” and there could be no universal version of feminism (not that i think there is or should be such a universal; i honestly don’t know what i think about that).
this last point–that both “man” and “woman” would be a culturally defined identity–seems particularly important. for centuries in western history “man” has been the normative being (by which, of course, we understand at the very least white man, and probably also white, upper class, landowning man). every other identity has been defined in terms of deviation from that norm. for a concept like “cultural” feminism to work, it seems there would have to be some acceptance of the notion that “man” is as culturally constructed as “woman” is. i do see our society moving in that direction.
interesting. i hadn’t heard that particular nomenclature before. hope you don’t mind my musing on it for a moment.
2 John // Jan 10, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I agree with you that the name seems counterintuitive when you think of how culture is used in academic feminist discourse today. My guess is that the label has its roots in Jane Addams’ writings (she was publishing in the turn of the 19th/20th centuries), when ‘culture’ had much broader (even universalizing) connotations than it does now. After Foucault and Butler worked over the gender/culture connection, it just hasn’t been the same.
I put “cultural feminism” in there because many LDS women are essentially (pun intended) cultural feminists. I thought they would identify with it. In academic circles and among younger feminists (who are more in tune to cultural, race, and class influences), difference feminism is definitely out of vogue.
3 Jonathan // Jan 11, 2007 at 10:44 am
This is quite interesting to me. This is why I’ve always been so wary of the term “Feminism” because it can mean so many things.
4 John // Jan 11, 2007 at 11:08 am
This is why it’s so important to define terms (though it can be laborious). All the stuff I like to talk about: feminism, Christianity, god, religion, spirituality, even atheism–seem to encourage strong preconceptions in spite of their malleability.
5 C. L. Hanson // Jan 11, 2007 at 11:16 am
I’ve thought about this some more since I replied to this same post on fMh
and what I’d like to say about “equality feminism” vs. “difference feminism” is the following:
There’s a natural tension in the feminist movement between wanting to value feminine traits/roles (seeing them as positive and not negative), versus wanting to keep negative traits from being seen as feminine (female stereotypes).
This tension will always exist because different people have different traits (as you learned in your fMh post about stereotypes!!!
). So women who have a particular trait or role will want to see it valorized, whereas women who don’t often have a natural inclination to want the opposite to be a valid option for women.
As a result, I think feminists need to make a very careful effort to try to be understanding and see things from the perspective of people who are different from themselves.
I’ve discussed this tension in my post the differences between girls and boys.
6 aerin // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I’ve heard cultural feminism described as second wave feminism. A typical quote from a cultural feminist was that if women ruled the world there would be no war. Men could not be included in cultural feminism (because they just couldn’t understand - tongue in cheek).
Liberal feminism (like the Seneca Falls conference) was first wave feminism (we need the vote to make us better mothers).
I took a course about post modern (third wave) feminism and I still don’t understand the definition. I do know Camile Paglia is sometimes thought of as one. From my limited knowledge, all different types of women could be included in this definition. Women who decided to wear makeup could be part of this group. Men (finally) could be allowed into group and considered feminists.
I agree that there are many different definitions out there. Thanks for your post!
7 Miko // Jan 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I guess that makes me an eco-liberal-judeo-christian-atheistic-pagan-feminist. :-p I think that any label applied so broadly has as many definitions as there are people who have that label applied to them. It’s part of the whole “self-identify” thing. And just like a fagot is stronger than a stick, feminism (in this case) is all the stronger for having so many components. As a (blahdy-blahdy-blu) feminist, I value the input of everyone who self-identifies as feminist. And some who many not self-identify as such (it seems to be a big, scary term to some people) but nonetheless are. Hooray for multiplicity!
8 John // Jan 12, 2007 at 8:59 am
Aerin, I wrestled with the same confusion over postmodern feminism, and this is what I came up with: the one common bond that seems to be shared by all feminists is that they recognize some kind of social, political and/or economic inequity between women and men (and women are losing out) and that they seek to empower women. At the same time, postmodern feminism rejects universal notions of equity and gender and recognizes the need to look at how other influences (like religion, culture, class, race) interact with gender.
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to Mind on Fire!
Miko, sometimes I feel like we’re wearing identity scramble suits.
9 Miko // Jan 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm
that reminds me, I need to see that movie…this is going to sound bad, but I have loved everything Keanu does involving Dick!
Leave a Comment