Essay Grade

Chapter 5 Feminist Theory
This chapter was coauthored with Bréne Brown, PhD and with contributions by Beverly
McPhail, PhD.
The feminist struggle continues
in countries all over the world
You can change the name but the problem’s the same
Oppression of women and girls
Let’s get all fired up
like feminists will
and we’ll stay fired up
’cause we’re feminists still
© ANNE HILLS
2008, RAVEN HEART MUSIC
Feminist Theory
•
•
helps us understand the connection between the personal and the political
provides an analytical framework to examine social arrangements that contribute to the
oppression and marginalization of people
• describes the interrelationship between material, social, intellectual, and spiritual facets of
human existence
• provides a gender lens that can be used to examine and deconstruct systems of power
• can be used as a framework for both micro and macro practice
Feminist theory is a mode of analysis that involves specific ways of thinking and acting,
designed to achieve women’s liberation by eliminating the oppression of women in society.
Although feminism encompasses different perspectives, it draws on some common
empowerment-related themes. In general, feminist theory incorporates a holistic view of the
interrelationships between material, social, intellectual, and spiritual facets of human existence.
Central to feminist thought is the idea that it is necessary to critique one’s social context and
deconstruct its discriminatory aspects. Its primary focus is on patriarchy, the domination of the
major political, economic, cultural, and legal systems by men. Feminist theory stresses the need
to identify and name the attitudes, expectations, language, behaviors, and social arrangements
that have contributed to the oppression and marginalization of people. It embraces the idea of
unity in diversity within community life. Feminist theory recognizes the existence of multiple
experienced realities, based in different vantage points, and supports women and other oppressed
groups in the formation of their own self-understandings and life aspirations. E. Lewis
(1992) held that “the potency of feminist perspectives lies in that they have drawn attention to
the subtle, unconscious, and daily exercise of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors which define and
reinforce a despised status” (p. 281).
Feminist theory shares many of the same concerns of conflict and empowerment theories and
addresses the way people use power to resist or create change as well as the dynamics of
discrimination and oppression. Feminist theory offers robust explanations for human behavior at
both the micro and macro levels, embodied in the idea that “the personal is the political.”
Although born out of political resistance to the historical subjugation of women, feminist theory
has applications to all genders. Feminist theory is not limited to “women’s issues,” but
encompasses all human issues. Feminist theory offers critiques of theories developed by and for
men (androcentric), but are often applied to women. It also creates new ways to better describe
both the female and male experience.
Historical Context
The roots of feminism and feminist theory can be found in the 17th century “revolutionary
bourgeois tradition that had equality of mankind as its highest goal” (Phillips, 1987, p. 31).
The ideological concept of equality was first introduced in 17th-century revolutionary England
and was furthered in the 18th century era of enlightenment. Enlightenment principles eschewed
notions of rights rooted in inherited wealth or position and instead focused on individual
capacities and merit, which called for governments to be based on the will of its citizens.
However, the concept of citizen was slow to include women.
North America’s first feminist is often identified as Juana Inés de La Cruz (1648–1695) an
intellectual, a poet, philosopher, playwright, and nun who held that all girls and women should
be educated, and argued for the right of women to comment on and interpret scripture (Paz,
1988). Another early feminist, Abigail Adams, spoke out for the inclusion of women in the
Declaration of Independence. Her husband, John Adams, soon to be the nation’s second
president, made light of her demand, scoffing at the notion of a “petticoat rebellion” (CullenDuPont, 1996).
The first women’s rights convention in the United States was held in Seneca Falls, New York in
1848, convened by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and others. Emerging from this
convention, a Declaration of Rights and Sentiments became the founding document of the
American women’s rights movement (Cullen-DuPont, 1996). Historically, women were barred
from education and the professions, could not vote, serve on juries, keep their wages or property,
or obtain custody of their children. This document articulated their demands that included
the education of women, admission into the trades and professions, the right to speak in public,
and the most controversial claim, the right to vote.
Wagner (1996) posits that this convention reflects the little known story of the Iroquois
women’s influence on early feminists. Although early European American women had few, if
any, rights, Iroquois women could divorce their husbands, mothers gained custody in the event
of a divorce, property was handed down through the mother’s family, and women could
nominate and counsel the male chiefs who represented their clan in the Grand Council. Women
of color, such as Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, joined the demand for women’s rights
while also working for the abolition of slavery. Women of all colors and classes gained the right
to vote in 1920, after a 72-year struggle that culminated in the passage of the Nineteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.
The contemporary wave of feminist thought is frequently attributed to the pioneering work of
French existentialist and socialist Simone de Beauvoir. In her book The Second Sex (1953) she
argued that women have been subjugated to a “second status” that dates back to the stone-age
technology of hunter-gatherer societies. She noted that women were “made, not born,” that is
they were shaped by cultural processes rather than limited by biology. Her analysis of
differential evaluations of male and female roles led her to conclude that women are treated and
described as objects of men’s wishes rather than subjects of their own experiences (Ferree &
Hess, 1985).
The Civil Rights and New Left movements of the 1950s and 1960s gave rise to the next wave of
the American women’s movement. In her book The Feminine Mystique (1963), American
feminist Betty Friedan critiqued the gender role inequality that was inherent in the socially
constructed role imperative of mother and housewife as the only socially acceptable career for
women. She also criticized Freudian theory that labeled women’s impulses to achieve as neurotic
“masculinity striving” and deficient mothering. She argued for gender role equality, stressing the
importance of education and career commitment.
The history of the women’s movement in the United States is frequently broken into three waves
or time periods. The First Wave (1848–1920) focuses on women organizing to obtain the vote
and the right to keep their property and wages. The Second Wave (1960s–1980s) is considered
the modern women’s movement. Despite gains in the early 20th century, women still could not
gain credit in their own name or access to birth control, and were limited to lesser paid femaleidentified professions, jobs they often were forced to give up when they married or became
pregnant. Oftentimes they could not wear pants in public, and violence directed against them was
often not taken seriously by the criminal justice system. Changes during this period were
typically legislative, incremental, and challenged discriminatory practices.
The Third Wave (1990s–present) is viewed as a generational response to failures of the Second
Wave, while broadening the feminist agenda to include issues of race, class, and nation, and
more fluid notions of gender and sexual identities. Third Wave feminism criticizes the use of a
generic category of woman and focuses instead on a number of differences that include
inequality in the distribution of goods and services that are based on one’s position in the global
economy, as well as “class, race, ethnicity, and affectional preference” and their interaction with
gender stratification (Lengermann & Niebrugge-Brantley, 1992, p. 480).
However, Morgan (2003) and others criticize the notion of three historical waves, arguing that
it defines history too narrowly. They contend that its limited focus on political activities that
achieved a small number of equal rights by White middle-class women in the United States has
served to marginalize international feminist movements (Morgan, 2003).
Not surprisingly, feminism and feminist theory gained prominence in the field of social work, a
profession founded and dominated by women. However, despite the major role that women have
played, there has been ongoing concern about the lack of women in leadership positions (cited
in Giovannoni & Purvine, 1974). Historically, women rarely served on boards of directors, as
politicians, or as paid agents, a privilege reserved for men (Rauch, 1975). In fact, in the 1950s,
men were actively recruited into the profession in an attempt to professionalize and defeminize
social work. During the 1960s and 1970s, the social work literature drew attention to sexism
within the profession and decried ongoing sex role stereotyping, sexist assumptions about the
nature of the profession, and gendered pay inequities (reviewed in Sakamoto, Anastas,
McPhail, & Colarossi, 2008). Ongoing concerns about sexism in the profession are bolstered
by current research that shows continued gender inequality, as discussed later in this chapter.
In response to sexism within the profession and to create more women-friendly models and
practices, feminist social workers have been prolific authors, theorists, researchers, writers,
educators, and activists. Important works within social work include: Feminist Visions for Social
Work Practice (N. Van Den Bergh & Cooper, 1986), Feminist Practice in the 21st
Century (Van Den Bergh, 1995), Building on Women’s Strength (Peterson & Lieberman,
2001), Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Power (Pinderhuges, 1989), The Role of Gender in
Practice Knowledge (Figueira-McDonough, Netting, Nichols-Casebolt, 1998); Regulating
the Lives of Women (Abramovitz, 1988), to name only a few. What was first a trickle is now a
rich knowledge base that demonstrates how feminist theory can challenge and inform social
work practice.
Key Concepts
Understanding feminism as a theory is complex and multidimensional because there are multiple
feminisms that are both contested and evolving. Marie Shear (1986) defines feminism as “the
radical notion that women are people.” In 1913, British author Rebecca West noted that she was
called a feminist when expressing “sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a
prostitute” (Marcus, 1982, p. 219). According to bell hooks (2000), feminism is a
movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Second Wave feminist Nancy
Hartsock sees feminism as a “mode of analysis, a method of approaching life and politics, rather
than a set of political conclusions about the oppression of women” (1981, p. 35). Susan Faludi
(1991) contends, “Its agenda is basic: It asks that women not be forced to ‘choose’ between
public justice and private happiness. It asks that women be free to define themselves—instead of
having their identity defined for them, time and again, by their culture and their men.” (p. xxiii).
And Eleanor Smeal, a former president of the National Organization for Women, states: “As its
core, feminism is a multi-issue movement committed to extremely long-term goals: the ending of
patriarchy; the achievement of economic, political, and social equality for all women; and the
creation of a world free from sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ageism, ableism, violence,
and environmental exploitation” (2003, p. 542). In sum, feminism is a theory of power relations
that examines male dominance and female subordination, while working to achieve equality and
opportunity for women. It is essentially a libratory enterprise, a social justice, empowermentseeking social movement, that espouses equality of the sexes.
When people are asked about their understanding of the word feminism, a very bleak and ugly
picture sometimes emerges. Typical negative descriptors include “man-haters, angry, ugly,
feminazis, shrill, militant, and radical” (personal communication, Beverly McPhail, May 6,
2010). The number of young women who self-identify as feminist varies, and one research study
found that nonfeminist women were more likely to report higher levels of hostility toward men
than feminists, contrary to the stereotype that feminists are “man haters” (K. J. Anderson,
Kanner, & Elsayegh, 2009). Despite the fact that the feminist movement has literally
transformed the lives of both women and men, negative stereotypes and misperceptions
abound. Feminist and gender are often viewed as synonymous with women, but men have a
gender too, and can also be feminists. Feminism is an ideology that seeks to free men from rigid
stereotypes of masculinity, as it seeks to free women from rigid stereotypes of femininity.
There are a number of schools of feminist thought that differ in their analysis of what
causes gender inequalities and what actions can be taken to end those inequalities. As
shown in Table 5.1, Liberal feminism holds that men and women are equal, advocates
for a rights-based approach, and works to have women join existing institutions in equal
numbers to men (Saulnier, 1996). Radical feminism, a term borrowed from the Civil
Rights and New Left movements, asserts that women are an oppressed class and that
patriarchy is at the root of this oppression; patriarchy is enforced through violence
against women, and society must be completely altered to eliminate male supremacy
and other hierarchies (Saulnier, 1996). Difference or cultural feminism (discussed in
more detail in Chapters 7,8, and 9) takes a different view and posits that men and
women are uniquely different and that the distinctive characteristics of women may be
superior to male qualities, such as being more nurturing or pacifist. Ecofeministtheory
(discussed in more detail in Chapter 2) sees women as being closer to nature than men
and argues that the association between women and nature has been used to
disempower women. It also creates hierarchies of man over women and people over
nature, including the earth and animals. Women of Color Feminisms, also known
individually as Womanist, Chicana/Latina, Asian American, and Native American
feminisms, focus on the intersectionality of oppressions. They examine the ways in
which race and class intersect with gender to produce matrices of oppression and
theorize that the three cannot be considered separately because they are experienced
simultaneously. Lesbian feminism’s primary concern is the intersection of gender and
sexual identity and the way in which homophobia constrains sexual identity and serves
as a weapon of sexism. It also decries heterosexism as a key oppressive system
(Saulnier, 1996). Postmodern feminismquestions essentialism in all its forms, describes
gender as a social construct, and resists categorizations such as woman or
lesbian. Marxist or socialist feminism examines how capitalism and patriarchy act to
subordinate women. It focuses on women’s relationship to the means of production and
as a source of reproduction, whose labor is often devalued and whose bodies are often
commodified (Saulnier, 1996). Global and International feminism believes in the right of
women in each country to define feminism for themselves, while also examining
economic, colonization, and globalization issues as they relate to gender. This includes
resisting Western imperialism and working toward the elimination of women’s
oppression worldwide (Saulnier, 1996).
Despite the multiple feminisms, there are themes and concerns that are central to all
feminist thought. These include the centrality of gender, gender schemas, and
developing critical gender awareness; the personal is political, dismantling patriarchy,
and confronting oppression; separating gender and sex; and addressing
intersectionality.
The Centrality of Gender, Gender Schemas, and Developing Critical Gender
Awareness
Immediately upon the birth or adoption of a baby, the first question posed is: Is it a boy or a girl?
This is not without consequence, for the answer will determine the child’s name; gifts given and
clothing worn; how family, friends, and others will interact with the child; and even the choice of
occupations, pay differentials, and risks of poverty. As Kimmel and Messner note that as one of
the organizing principles of social life, gender joins class and race “. . . as one of the three central
mechanisms by which power and resources are distributed in our society” (2004, p. ix).
Acknowledging the importance and CENTRALITY OF GENDER is a key concept in feminist theory
that leads to an examination of all facets of life in order to understand what gender means, how
gender works, and the ramifications of both.
The centrality of gender is further perpetuated by gender schemas, or mental constructs that we
hold, often implicit and unconscious, about an individual, group of people, or events (Valian,
1999). Similar, but not identical to stereotypes, they can be accurate, inaccurate, positive,
negative, or neutral. For instance, in Western, middle-class, White society men are often seen as
independent, autonomous and action oriented, while women are viewed as expressive, nurturing,
and concerned about others. The problem with such schemas is that they oversimplify.
These schemas are often so ingrained in people’s thinking that they are rarely challenged or
changed. If new or contradictory information is observed or experienced, it is often treated as
exceptional or ignored, often by supplying a different interpretation. For example, when we
encounter a strong woman leader, we are apt to see her as an exception, rather than changing our
schema to acknowledge that both men and women can be strong leaders. According to Valian,
gender schemas tend to overrate men and underrate women. So when many women say they
have to be twice as good as a man to get ahead, this may be true, for they have to overcome
unconscious negative beliefs about their capabilities.
Gender schemas are usually unarticulated; we don’t talk about them and may not even be aware
that they exist in our repertoire of beliefs. We may even deny that we hold such beliefs,
particularly if we see ourselves as being fair and wanting to treat others equally. Despite this, our
reactions to an individual are, inevitably, affected by the group the person belongs to and our
socially ingrained, unconscious schemas. It is important, then, to discover a schema’s content if
we are to evaluate people more fairly.
Related, and equally important, is developing critical gender awareness. People are so immersed
in the gendered culture that they often do not see the gendered assumptions and ramifications
that make up the world. B. Brown (2004) defines critical awareness as the ability to understand
how social-community forces shape people’s lives and experiences. She notes, “Awareness is
knowing something exists. Critical awareness is knowing why it exists, how we’re impacted by
it, and who benefits from it” (p. 77). As an example, Brown examines how women face many
expectations about their physical appearance including their body shape, weight, hair texture,
and body odor. Although most women are aware of these expectations on a personal level, they
rarely develop critical awareness or consciousness that connects the personal expectations to
larger societal demands and influences. Developing critical awareness means asking questions to
deepen our understanding of the issues. Similarly, gender consciousness means applying a
gender lens to a critical analysis. As seen in Table 5.2, a gender lens is an overlay of questions
and concerns that can be used to examine and deconstruct systems of power. Like glasses, they
provide a lens through which the world can be viewed more clearly.
The Personal Is Political
The personal is political is an early feminist mantra that provides a more complex analysis of
women’s concerns. Issues that people might identify as personal inadequacies or individual
problems often have their roots in political or societal structures that are beyond an individual’s
ability to control. Thus, identifying problems, developing solutions, and organizing for change
must occur at political and institutional levels as well as the personal level. The way in which a
problem is defined is critical, for it leads to how solutions are framed and sought.
For example, women often struggle alone with caring for children, often after being told that if
they choose to have children it is their personal responsibility to raise them. However, viewing
this as a political, rather than personal issue, reveals gendered sex roles in which women are
believed to be naturally suited to raising children. Such gendered roles allow men, governments,
businesses, and economic systems to not only minimize their child care responsibilities but also
benefit from the unpaid and underappreciated work of women. This also hinders the
consideration and implementation of policies that would support women and all parents with
family-friendly work policies, including paid maternity/paternity leaves, paid days off,
subsidized quality child care, and child allowances.
Dismantling Patriarchy and Confronting Oppression
Historically and in the present, the dominant gendered system in most societies is
patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to “rule of the father,” but A. G. Johnson (2005) refines this by
noting that a society is patriarchal “to the degree that it promotes male privilege by being male
dominated, male identified, and male centered” (p. 5, italics in the original), and is also
organized around an obsessive control of women that results in the oppression of women.
According to Enloe (2004), patriarchal systems are enduring and adaptable due to the fact that
“they make many women overlook their own marginal positions and feel instead secure,
protected, and valued” (p. 6).
In patriarchal systems, positions of authority are largely held by men in political, economic,
legal, religious, educational, and military institutions. Male dominance is maintained by
power differences, with men holding greater power and viewed as superior to women. A maleidentified society is one in which the core cultural ideas about what is desirable, preferable,
normal, or valued are associated with men and masculinity. Being male-centered means that the
focus of attention is primary on men and what they do. Men, for example, typically star in the
protagonist role in life as well as in film and theater, while women have limited supporting roles
as girlfriends, wives, prostitutes with hearts of gold, or damsels in distress. A final characteristic
of a patriarchy is male control, over themselves and women (A. G. Johnson, 2005). Men largely
control countries, their own emotions, and women. Women’s lives are often constrained by male
power and control, and sometimes held in place by violence or threats of violence.
It is important to note that not all men are similarly advantaged in patriarchy because patriarchy
intersects with other systems of oppression including race, class, nation, and sexual identity. For
example, a poor Black gay man is often not in a privileged position compared to a wealthy White
heterosexual woman. Importantly, patriarchy is a system of social arrangements, and this
illustrates the necessity of changing systems and institutions, as well as individuals, in order to
dismantle patriarchy.
Oppression is the primary tool used to maintain the system of patriarchy, which Frye defines as,
“a system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize, and mold people who
belong to a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group” (1983, p. 33). Along
with her definition she provides a helpful metaphor, a birdcage. She suggests that only looking at
one wire in the birdcage makes it impossible to see why the bird is securely trapped. However,
when stepping back to see how the wires in the cage relate to one another, it becomes clear that
the bird is “surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be
the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relation to each other, are as confining as the
solid walls of a dungeon” (p. 5). The wires that restrict women are economic, political and social
in nature and involve the institutions of marriage, school, and work, to name a few. Thus, it is
also important to recognize and confront oppression in order to dismantle patriarchy.
Separating Gender and Sex
As discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 8, it is important to understand the difference
between gender and sex when considering issues related to either. Sex is the physiological
composition of a person and refers to one’s biological or natal sex. Gender or gender role is an
expression of masculinity and femininity that is socially constructed, dictated, and
enforced. Gender identityis a person’s self-concept of their gender, which may or may not be at
odds with their biological sex. Sexual orientation is one’s sexual preference and emotional
attraction (Lev, 2004). In its oversimplified and baldest terms, “Gender is what is between your
ears and sex is what is between your legs” (Dozier, 2005, p. 298). Significantly, the separation
of sex and gender was a major turning point in theorizing about gender.
Addressing Intersectionality
In the early days of the Second Wave of the women’s movement, there was a call for a universal
sisterhood based upon the shared oppression of women. The premise was that all women had
common experiences due to their membership in a subordinate class. Theory, practice, and
activism moved forward on that assumption and women were called to work together to
overcome their shared discrimination.
However, the notion of shared sisterhood was challenged, primarily through the work of women
of color both in and outside of the United States (Collins, 1991; Lorde, 1984; Moraga &
Anzaldúa, 1981; Mohanty, 2003). The primary concern was that White, middle-class women
ignored the significant differences in oppression-related race, sexual preference, class, and age.
Lorde noted that “There is a pretense to a homogeneity of experience covered by the
word sisterhood that does not in fact exist.” (1984, p. 116, italics in the original). This led
women of color to call for a method of analysis that integrates race, class, and gender, as well as
nation. Terms used for addressing these interlocking systems of oppression include multiple
oppressions, intersectionality (Crenshaw, 2003), and matrix of domination (P. H. Collins,
2000). The metaphor of an intersection was chosen to illustrate the interactive effects of
discrimination that include both structure and process.
Feminist Theories
The growth of feminist thought has expanded and now reflects three distinct orientations with
different foci: theories of gender differences, theories of gender inequality, and theories of
gender oppression (Ritzer, 1988). This “feminist enlightenment” (J. Bernard, 1981) reflects
the diverse perspectives of an “interdisciplinary community” comprising sociologists,
anthropologists, social workers, psychologists, political scientists, philosophers, historians,
biologists, economists, lawyers, literary authors, and theologians. While their particular interests
and viewpoints may differ, they write from a woman-centered perspective and reject many of the
assumptions inherent in androcentric science and research.
Theories of gender difference focus on psychological and relational differences in the way
women and men experience both the world and themselves. Basic values, interests, ways of
knowing, identity construction, and relational interactions are seen as distinctive from those of
men (J. B. Miller, 1986; J. Bernard, 1981; Gilligan, 1982; Ritzer, 1988; Rossi,
1983; Ruddick, 1980). The “different voice” and different vision that women bring to the
construction of reality is the main tenet of this set of theories. Although these theories are viewed
as conservative by more radical feminists, these theories have made influential contributions to
contemporary feminist thought (Ritzer, 1988). They attempt to recast women’s development in
a positive light rather than accept the deficiencies attributed to women in androcentric theories.
We discuss these theories in greater detail in Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
Theories of gender inequality largely reject the idea of personality differences between men and
women and point instead to commonalities in all humans. Specifically, people are seen as
adaptable and characterized by “a deep need for freedom to seek self-actualization” (Ritzer,
1988, p. 296). Differences that exist are seen as structural in nature and are tied to the
organization of a society that fosters and perpetuates inequality. In addition, most theories of
gender inequality assume that broad-scale systematic change is possible. Chafetz (1989, p.
136), for example, asserted that:
superior male power, which exists by definition in gender-stratified societies, allows men
to coerce women into assuming work roles that reinforce their disadvantaged status, both
at the macro and micro levels. . . . Undergirding . . . the process is a gender division of labor
that provides unequal power resources to men and women.
It follows, then, that pivotal targets for change are “superior male power” and the “gender
division of labor” or the public sphere of social activity. Here lie the true rewards of social life—
those of power, status, money, and opportunities for self-actualization. They argue that access to
the public sphere is open for men and restricted for women. The private sphere, to which women
are relegated, is bound to the role of mother and wife, and the dependency inherent in this
limited role denies women the opportunity for self-realization.
Structural change, then, is necessary for the elimination of gender inequality. While theorists
with a Marxist orientation may advocate revolutionary action, most take a more conservative
liberal stance and advocate working within the system to bring about a more egalitarian social
structure.
Theories of gender oppression focus more directly on the role of power and domination in
creating gender differences and gender inequality. The basic structure of domination and
oppression is the patriarchy—a primary power structure that is used deliberately and purposively
to control and subjugate women. Ritzer (1988)identified three major strains of feminist theory
that focus on oppression: psychoanalytical feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism.
Psychoanalytic feminism focuses simultaneously on gender differences and gender oppression. It
accepts many of Freud’s fundamental assumptions about the nature of the unconscious and the
importance of early childhood experiences in personality formation. It rejects, however, his
conclusions about the inherent psychological inferiority of women and recasts the differences
between men and women as a function of the patriarchy and oppression (Chodorow, 1978).
We discuss this more fully in Chapter 7.
In radical feminism, patriarchy is understood to be the root of oppression in all spheres of
society. Gender oppression, however, is primary (Al-Hibri, 1981; Deckard, 1979). Violence
against women, both physical and psychological, is created and maintained through the lack of
control that women are allowed over their lives and choices. Abolishing patriarchy and
encouraging sexual freedom are primary goals that require a fundamental change in women’s
consciousness (Nes & Iadicola, 1989). A new consciousness based on self-worth and strength
is necessary if women are to confront and defeat patriarchal domination. Banks
(1986) and Valeska (1981) argued for separation and the formation of separate structures that
are woman centered (Nes & Iadicola, 1989).
Socialist feminism encompasses a diverse group of theorists who attempt to combine Marxist
and radical feminism. Here we see