To what extent do feminists believe that the personal is political?
1) Agree
2) Liberal & radical
3) Socialist (differences within) & radical
4) All vs postmodern
This term was popularised by second wave feminist Carol Hanisch in 1969 - referring to how
personal experiences are inherently political, impacting not just the private sphere but the
public too. Traditional notions of what is ‘political’ locate politics in the arena of public rather
than private life. 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. Whereas, family life and personal relationships have normally been thought to be
part of a ‘private sphere’, and therefore to be ‘non-political’. All feminists agree as they
sought to challenge the divide between ‘public man’ and ‘private woman’ & women should
have a role beyond the private realm. But overall to a large extent they disagree that the
personal is political. Even if they accept the concept (which most do), they have different
views about the extent, and what to do about it - and some even disagree fully.
All feminists can be seen to agree to a limited extent as they have sought to challenge the
divide between ‘public man’ and ‘private woman’. They argue that women should not be
confined to the private sphere - and the traditional assignment of women to the private
sphere, which includes household and caregiving responsibilities, has been a means of
marginalising and restricting women's agency and influence. Instead they should have an
active role in the public sphere - including allowing them to have access to education,
politics, and employment etc. This is because the division between public and private
spheres is not natural or inevitable but is constructed by patriarchal norms and power
structures which they aim to reform or fully remove…
For example, both liberal and radical feminists believe in improving the public sphere &
legal equality. However, they differ more as liberals limit themselves to the public sphere,
whereas radicals focus on the private as well… Based on the ideology of liberalism, liberal
feminists like Wollstonecraft argue that choice and freedom matter, and also call for limited
government where the state doesn't interfere on private matters. So although they
sometimes criticise choices women make in the private sphere, they do not seek political
interference to the individual choices women make at home. However, later liberal feminists
started to be more concerned about the family structure and accept that patriarchy had crept
into the private sphere. Friedan’s ‘Feminine Mystique’ thought it was a cultural myth that
women seek security and fulfilment in domestic and family life; this serves to discourage
women from entering employment, politics and public life in general - which is a more
radical belief. Yet, unlike radicals they do not wish to undo the traditional family structure
and mainly focus on the public sphere - believing that changes to legal and educational
equality will create more opportunities in the public sphere, and be enough to enable women
to make the choices they believe to be right for themselves in the private realm. Therefore,
although liberal feminists object to restrictions on women’s access to the public sphere and
hope that legal and political changes will impact personal choices, they do not believe the
personal should be political. Instead, they do not wish to abolish the distinction between the
public and private spheres of life, but focus on discrimination in the public sphere and reform
e.g. establishing equal rights - suffrage, pursue a career, representation etc. This completely
contrasts radical feminists who fully believe that ‘the personal is the political’. They believe
that even though a woman could have legal rights in the public sphere, she can still be
oppressed in the home - as female oppression by men occurs in both the public and private
spheres. Millet argues this can be seen in literature (e.g. authors Norman Mailer and Henry
Miller had dominant male and compliant women) and originates in the family - which she
argues in 'Sexual Freedom' "family is patriarchy's chief institution" - as it is here young girls
are socialised to accept the role of a housewife as natural and fulfilling when seeing gender
, roles enforced by their parents. They believe that to break down the public/private divide, the
responsibilities of private life should be transferred to the state or other public bodies - which
liberal feminists disagree with due to their belief in limited state intervention. For example,
the burden of child-rearing on women could be relieved by more generous welfare support
for families, or the provision of nursery schools. Likewise, this is similar to an extent to
socialist feminists like Charles Fourier who favoured the kibbutz system of collective child
rearing or Gilman who in 'Women and Economics' advocated communal living arrangements
to share housework - but differ on their reason, as this is so men and women would be
economically independent, allowing for marriage to occur without changing women's
economic status. Moreover, radical feminists believe the patriarchy is a system of
politicocultural oppression and this power imbalance in the public sphere also manifests in
the private sphere. This is illustrated by Kate Millett who argued 'politics' is found wherever
there is an imbalance of power e.g. relationships between: government and its citizens,
employers and workers, and also in the family - husbands and wives, or parents and
children. Therefore, unlike liberal feminists who believed the idea that women were unhappy
in their roles as housewives and mothers was a private issue, radical feminists strong belief
in "the personal is political'' means that women's personal issues (e.g sex, childcare, not
being content with their lives at home) are all political issues that need political intervention
and a sexual revolution - in which structures like the family are overthrown and replaced to
create change and female liberation.
Patriarchy or else? & method = Socialist feminist views overlap with the radicals as they
also see the patriarchy as an issue - although this is secondary to capitalism - and view the
private sphere as political too. However, traditional socialist feminists / Orthodox marxists
('class war' took precedence over sexual politics/'sex war') contrast with radicals as they
have linked women’s roles within the conventional family to the maintenance of the capitalist
economic system. Women are forced into domesticity to help reproduce the labour force
(Rowbotham reserve army of labour) and support the functioning of capitalist economies.
The ‘bourgeois family’ is patriarchal and oppressive - e.g. men wish to ensure that their
property will be passed on only to their sons. Yet, women are offered compensatory benefits
by the development of a ‘cult of femininity’ and ideals of romantic love, but in reality this is a
capitalist ploy and organised hypocrisy designed to protect male privileges & property and
maintain the existing gender order. Gilman argued that this subjugation of women could be
overcome through the reform, rather than the abolition, of marriage. They call for the end to
the patriarchal family primarily by ending capitalism. This differs with radical feminists who
see patriarchy as a fundamental priority rather than a consequence, and want a 'sexual
revolution'. However, modern socialist feminists have found it increasingly difficult to
accept the primacy of class politics over sexual politics. For example, Juliet Mitchell in 'Living
Estate' criticises Marx and Engels for arguing women's oppression is nothing more than an
aspect of the bourgeois family and women are oppressed through: reproduction, sexuality,
socialisation of children & production. While capitalism is responsible for some of these,
some are unrelated to capitalism. Like radicals, they instead want to have a revolution.
Therefore, this shows the differences on 'the personal is political' in the branch in socialist
feminism, and the similarities between modern socialist feminists and radicals that patriarchy
is important.
Extent of intersectionality = Socialists are similar to postmodern feminists to an extent,
as both strands extend their ideas even further than just gender and do not believe that
patriarchy is the main or sole issue. Like socialist feminists postmodernists recognise that
economy/class oppresses women, as well as gender like liberal, radical, and socialist
feminists. They agree the personal is political, as other personal aspects of women's lives
impact the extent to which patriarchy impacts them. However, they extend their views even
further as they believe there are multiple oppressions and challenge/argue there is no
private public divide. Instead hooks in 'Aint I a Woman' suggested that women face a series
of oppressions that intersect. For women of colour, the act of claiming the specificity of their
