The concept of gender justice has been an ongoing and rather intense debate in the recent decades. Dating all the way back to ancient times, civilizations were established upon the principle of patriarchal standards, in which male dominance and female submission were key to smooth-running communities and successful dynasties. Patriarchy, as well as society’s lack of understanding in distinguishing the term ‘sex’ from the term ‘gender’, paved the way to gender injustice. For centuries, the absence of a female voice from the political sphere and confinement into a domestic lifestyle, instilled a sense of belittlement into female minds. Until the first wave of feminism in the 19th century, inequalities remained unmentioned. Contemporary dialogues to resolve gender-based issues have created a new era of persistent efforts towards the elimination of gender discrimination, for the purpose of allowing females to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as males. A critique of what gender justice looks like can be demonstrated through the examination of liberal feminism, as well as radical feminism. In today’s world, it can be said that a certain sense of opportunistic possibility is being promoted to young females across many developed nations. Nevertheless, as they attempt to achieve what is being promoted to them, it becomes apparent that the realities faced outnumber their chances to a complete state of equality. Regardless of whether one is a liberal or radical feminist, they both believe that the same principles should be applied to men and women, ultimately aiming for gender justice. However, liberal feminism has been proven to be more effective in doing so than radical feminism, hence its higher number of followers. What gender justice looks like will be determined through the analysis of both of these theories.
Liberal feminism is immensely relevant to what gender justice looks like, as it was the first notion to be supported by such a large number of advocates. Gaining an understanding of the development of liberal feminism will provide an insight into the origin, as well as the progress of gender justice over time. Beginning with the first wave of feminism towards women’s suffrage in the early 19th century, it was clear that the idea of liberal feminism promoted and made individual liberty a prime goal. This individualistic stance revolves around the lack of legal and political equality of women in comparison to men, and liberal feminists believe that such autonomy deficits are due to the gender system (Okin, 1989). Liberal feminism focuses on the difference between sex and gender; while sex refers to the biological differences between man and woman, gender is a social construction that is reinforced in social institutions controlled by legal establishments. Liberal feminists will therefore advocate for changes in gender norms, through changes to socialization and creation of more equal policies. Viewing gender as being socially constructed, allows for a choice between gender roles, and implies that both sexes can fulfil both roles successfully when given the opportunity to do so (Lindsey, 2005). According to liberal feminism, the social construct surrounding the female gender, is the reason for the high disregard towards their fundamental rights. One of the first to address this injustice was proto-feminist Mary Wollstonecraft in her book ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, which she wrote in response to a report made in 1791 to the French National Assembly. The report supported that only males should receive out-of-home education, however Wollstonecraft argued that women’s role in society is far too important to be treated with such disrespect. She supported that women are not only mothers to their children, but also their educators, and they are not only their husbands’ wives, but their companions (Wollstonecraft, 1792). Wollstonecraft raised women’s standing by addressing a female’s function in a society that viewed them as domestic enhancements, sold off by their fathers to their husbands. Although Wollstonecraft does not openly claim that men and women are equal, her writings signalled the uprise of gender justice.
The effects of this consistent societal oppression are evident when examining the general dissatisfaction and unfulfillment felt by women in the 1950s. The sociological discipline of the time that confined each group of people within a defined function in the social hierarchy based on a sexual and biological role, supported that doing otherwise would upset social balance. Consequently, women’s basic need to grow and fulfil their potential as a human, was supressed, leading to a manifesto of dehumanization. This sex-directed curriculum supported that women were kept satisfied through housework, marriage and motherhood, however it soon became obvious to them that total fulfilment could not be reached through such means. This is further embodied in feminist activist Betty Friedan’s ‘The Feminine Mystique’, a book believed to have instigated second-wave feminism in the early 1960s. Friedan used her research into suburban women over the course of five years to create analytical dialogue about “the problem that has no name” (Friedan, 1963: 21). She did this through discussing the prevalent dissatisfaction amongst women of the time; “As she made the beds, shopped for groceries…she was afraid to ask herself the silent question – is this all?” (Friedan, 1963:26). This timeline of liberal feminism and the prominent mindsets that existed during the first two waves of feminism, are vital to gaining a proper understanding of the theory. Not only did this theory prompt the advocating of gender justice, but it also proved severity of the issue by exemplifying its correctness through the immensely supportive response of the public sphere.
In today’s society liberal feminism is very much alive within every debate regarding gender justice. Liberal feminist philosopher Susan Okin, supports that the responsibility of bearing children should not ostracise women in the public and social sphere. For instance, there has been a swift change in the way single mothers are thought of now, compared to how they were thought of a few decades ago, due to the financial help they are now able to receive from social welfare agencies. This is a direct demonstration of liberalism altering sexist and stereotypical mindsets, however, due to the socially constructed and deeply entrenched institutionalization of sexual differences, women cannot always be granted equal superiority (Okin, 1989) and will rarely be entirely free of judgement. This results to contemporary theories of justice being about men with wives at home, which is an immense step-back, not only in feminist philosophy, but also in the theory of the principle of justice. Okin aligns her beliefs regarding justice with those of liberalist philosopher John Rawls; justice is the first virtue of social institutions, and thus ought to govern the family (Rawls, 1971). Rawls’ method of objectively examining issues through the hiding of sex, characteristics and aims, for the purpose of determining the fairest outcome possible, also known as the veil of ignorance, is a potent theory that can confront gender structure. Once combined with liberal feminist principles, Rawls’s model can therefore be used as a device that will assist with reflections regarding the achievement of gender justice, domestically and publicly. In response to this pressure for reform, numerous policies have in fact been amended or abolished for the purpose of seeking gender equality in areas such as education, divorce and representation in the media. An example of liberal feminism put in action would be that women and men are now allowed to share paid parental leave, hence liberating women from the stigma of being the only one responsible for the child and freeing men from the impression that being a source of finance is more important than taking part in their offspring’s upbringing. Liberal feminism acknowledges the issues between men and women and explains them as the product of laws that fundamentally favour men. The use of equality in policies signals for a shift away from socially constructed genders, and a bold move towards gender justice.
Regardless of the large consensus behind liberal feminism, it can also be criticized for being too expectant. Liberal feminists have been condemned for seeing gender injustices as only the products of individual discrimination and archaic policies. British sociologist Sylvia Walby supports that the liberal theory of feminism does not offer an explanation regarding the overall nature of gender inequality (Walby, 1995). It can be argued that amendments and propositions for new laws cannot address the root cause of gender inequality. This is exemplified through a male employer’s decision to hire a male employee instead of a female employee, purely due to his sexist mindset. The employer will camouflage his decision by claiming that the male candidate was better suited for the position, and face no consequences for not having adhered to the Commonwealth Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, which was specifically created to eliminate discrimination by the employer against women. The liberal model is therefore unable to address all the factors that contribute to the occurrence of inequalities, and is rather a methodology that acknowledges their existence and suggests techniques in which gender justice can be reached.
The contrasting theory of liberal feminism is known as radical feminism. It is a concept that emerged with the second wave of feminism in the early 1960s, calling for the restructuring of a society in which the supremacy of males is abolished in every social and economic aspect (Willis, 1995). The concept of patriarchy conveys a society that is dominated by and run for the benefit of males. Patriarchy runs on three principles: universality, societal division and the oppression of women. This patriarchal oppression is thought to not only occur in the public, but also in the private sphere, such as personal relationships and family life. Marriages are supposedly another way in which males seek to dominate women, bringing into focus sexual politics, in which women are controlled through violence or the threat of it (Brownmiller, 1975). Exemplifying this, is the stereotype of safety when it comes to women going out at night alone, or wearing items of clothing considered to be revealing. The fear of rape acts as a deterrent, and radical feminists use this to prove that sexuality is constructed by patriarchy to satisfy men. Given the different nature of this theory, it becomes apparent that the road to change will be much more different than that of liberal feminists. Radical feminists seek to end patriarchy and reach gender justice through challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a political process like liberal feminism (Crow, 2000). According to radical feminists, the three main ways to move towards a gender-just society are separatism, consciousness raising and political lesbianism. Separatism supports that men and women cannot live together without oppression and should separate, promoting female-centred households (Greer, 1976). Consciousness raising expects that women share their experiences with each other, using direct action to raise awareness, such as the 1968 protests against the Miss America pageant that aimed to tackle sexist beauty ideals and expectations. Lastly, political lesbianism gained popularity in the second wave of feminism, encouraging lesbian relations for the purpose of challenging the assumption of heterosexuality and promoting sexual freedom for women (Willis, 1984). One of the first public efforts of the radical feminism movement was the female demand of the right to abortion. It was argued that women should have a fundamental right to pick their fertility and the life they want to live. Subsequently, the blame was put on a patriarchy that viewed women as being preordained to prioritise only one of their capabilities as a human being; reproduction. According to radical feminists, using the immoral extermination of a baby as reason to not allow abortion, was merely a way for the patriarchy to avoid having women removed from their bodily purpose (Echols & Willis, 2009). This demonstration of radical feminism put in action, as well as the overall principles of radical feminism, clearly demonstrate that according to this model, patriarchal standards need to be removed in order for gender justice to be achieved.
There are however, many criticisms surrounding the effectiveness of the methodology radical feminism uses to achieve gender justice. Firstly, it does not address capitalism, failing to explain why female oppression moulds differently in different societies, and ignores individual factors such as social class, ethnicity and personal experiences when it comes to different women. For example, a young girl living in a developing country would have more similarities with a boy from the same country, rather than with a wealthier, middle-aged woman from a developed country. Furthermore, radical feminism does not exactly address how the abolishment of patriarchy can occur, unlike liberal feminism that puts forward ideas surrounding the amendment of policies. Essentially, the radical theory focuses far too much on impracticable philosophies, as concepts like separatism and political lesbianism are highly unrealistic once the impact of heterosexual attraction and model of the nuclear family are considered (Somerville, 2000). Hence it is established, that this heavily anti-patriarchal theory of radical feminism may sound operative, however once it is put into action, it fails to deliver the promised outcome of gender justice.
In its succeeding progression through centuries as a nationally diverse movement, feminism has continued to work towards gender justice while it simultaneously stimulates the male prejudices that impacted on the means in which philosophies were put into place. Considering both of the contrasting theories of feminism, assists in decorously hypothesising the effects that would follow if the different principles were applied. The liberal model is based upon the standard of change through the revolutionary modification of societal norms, effectively controlled by socioeconomic policies. The progress of women’s status over the past centuries has significantly increased, reason being the implementation of new laws that directly attempt to elevate the fundamental rights of women. Not only does the passing of such policies provide women with more justices, but it also subliminally furthers their acceptance into society. On the other hand, the radical model centres around the resentment of patriarchy and supports that the abolition of female-to-male relations, as well the abolition of status provided to males, will create a gender-just society. Though the theory of that can be accredited as rational, there are in fact way too many factors that would inhibit its attainment, such as heterosexual attraction and the requirement for both genders’ genetic material to effectively reproduce. While both the liberal and radical theory believe men dominate society, it is important to note that overcoming women’s subservience can only be achieved through action, not theory. Hence, changing laws and socialization patterns is the more rational method in achieving gender justice. Throughout the past decades, such changes in policies following suffrage have proven to create a steady progress in women’s lives in numerous nations, suggesting the decline of patriarchy and the rise of equality. The appearance of gender justice can vary depending on which model is followed, and looking at the different views on the spectrum promotes a greater understanding of gender-just goals and the road to their achievement.