What do you think?
Rate this book
Colorful Classics #2
Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement
Ghandy's vital text that outlines the history of the world's feminist movements and critiques them to create the foundation for proletarian feminism.
112 pages, Paperback
First published October 16, 2016
48 people are currently reading
1782 people want to read
About the author
Anuradha Ghandy
3 books39 followersAnuradha Ghandy (28 March 1954 – 12 April 2008) was an Indian communist, writer, and revolutionary leader. She was a member of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). She was mostly involved in propaganda, and in CPI's insurgency into urban areas. She was one of the founding members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist), in Maharashtra.
Among the policy papers drafted by the Marxist movement, Anuradha had contributed significantly to the ones on castes and 'Feminism and Marxism'. She made the guerillas realise the potential of worker cooperatives in areas like agricultural production, in Dandakaranya. She was also critical on shifting patriarchal ideas that were then dominant in the party.
In her obituary for Anuradha, with whom she was friends from the days when the latter was still a college student in the 1970s, Jyoti Punwani wrote: "'The Naxalite menace', says Manmohan Singh, 'is the biggest threat to the country'. But I remember a girl who was always laughing and who gave up a life rich in every way to change the lives of others".
Among the policy papers drafted by the Marxist movement, Anuradha had contributed significantly to the ones on castes and 'Feminism and Marxism'. She made the guerillas realise the potential of worker cooperatives in areas like agricultural production, in Dandakaranya. She was also critical on shifting patriarchal ideas that were then dominant in the party.
In her obituary for Anuradha, with whom she was friends from the days when the latter was still a college student in the 1970s, Jyoti Punwani wrote: "'The Naxalite menace', says Manmohan Singh, 'is the biggest threat to the country'. But I remember a girl who was always laughing and who gave up a life rich in every way to change the lives of others".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
October 12, 2021
I am fairly embarrassed and ashamed that I hadn't known of Anuradha Ghandy until I saw this book referenced in an article on sex work recently. But I'm also not beating myself up over it as I normally would since she was a guerrilla revolutionary and a member of the currently banned CPI-Maoist. Of course there's active suppression of any discourse on her work and mainstream Indian liberal Indian feminism would rather have nothing to do with her.
Ghandy approaches feminism through a historical materialist framework. In this book, she analyses several prominent trends within feminist movement and explains their shortcomings. For instance, she criticizes liberal feminism for being ahistorical in nature, regarding the state as neutral and for focusing on extreme individualism rather than collective action.
Some of her most scathing remarks are on radical feminism. She criticizes radical feminists for treating their notion of the man-woman contradiction as the principle contradiction and for only offering solutions that are reformist. Throughout the book, Ghandy emphasizes that womens' liberation is not possible through a mere reformation of the existing system. She rightly accuses the radical feminists of encouraging lesbian separatism since their criticism of patriarchy was entirely centered around heterosexual relations. She condemns them for providing only abstract arguments in support of pornography and the global sex tourism industry, the latter of which is an imperialist construct that exploits millions of women from oppressed ethnic communities and third world countries.
My mind immediately contrasted this Nivedita Menon's take on sex work that she outlines in Seeing Like a Feminist. Not only does she uphold the crude Marxist statement of 'under capitalism all work is exploitation and sex work is no different' as truism, but she goes so far as to state that forced sex-work is precisely like bonded labour. I read Seeing Like a Feminist last year and thought of it highly, but if I were to re-read it (which I'm not inclined to do) I would definitely be more critical of Menon's arguments which is simply an extrapolation of the radical stance with a Marxist disguise.
Ghandy approaches feminism through a historical materialist framework. In this book, she analyses several prominent trends within feminist movement and explains their shortcomings. For instance, she criticizes liberal feminism for being ahistorical in nature, regarding the state as neutral and for focusing on extreme individualism rather than collective action.
Some of her most scathing remarks are on radical feminism. She criticizes radical feminists for treating their notion of the man-woman contradiction as the principle contradiction and for only offering solutions that are reformist. Throughout the book, Ghandy emphasizes that womens' liberation is not possible through a mere reformation of the existing system. She rightly accuses the radical feminists of encouraging lesbian separatism since their criticism of patriarchy was entirely centered around heterosexual relations. She condemns them for providing only abstract arguments in support of pornography and the global sex tourism industry, the latter of which is an imperialist construct that exploits millions of women from oppressed ethnic communities and third world countries.
My mind immediately contrasted this Nivedita Menon's take on sex work that she outlines in Seeing Like a Feminist. Not only does she uphold the crude Marxist statement of 'under capitalism all work is exploitation and sex work is no different' as truism, but she goes so far as to state that forced sex-work is precisely like bonded labour. I read Seeing Like a Feminist last year and thought of it highly, but if I were to re-read it (which I'm not inclined to do) I would definitely be more critical of Menon's arguments which is simply an extrapolation of the radical stance with a Marxist disguise.
February 1, 2020
Muy buen libro para seguir pensando en el feminismo, o feminismos. Habla sobre las distintas ramas filosóficas que cada grupo de feministas ha defendido. Desde el feminismo liberal, el feminismo radical, anarco-feminismo, feminismo socialista. Y hace crítica a cada uno. Lo que me queda claro es que el feminismo es algo que se debe seguir repensando todo el tiempo, es complejo, y está bueno seguir leyendo teoría, cada país tiene sus propias complejidades (ghandy era una escritora y activista comunista de la India que murió en el 2008), y está bueno seguir pensando y reflexionando. Cita un montón de autoras que no conocía, así que me dio material para seguir buscando, y ese es el valor que resalto, que me empuja a seguir aprendiendo.
August 10, 2021
A brilliant, succinct and easily understandable analysis. Academics should learn to write as simply as Anuradha Ghandy has written this essay if they want their research to reach the masses.
May 22, 2024
I should've read this sooner. Not only the best introduction to feminist philosophy/theory I've ever read but also one of the best introductions to leftist theory generally that I wish I read. The foreword provides some good context of Ghandy but it feels pretty unnecessary otherwise because I don't think it's as "didactic" and "repetitive" as they propose it to be.
Ghandy is an extremely succinct and organized writer that clearly has a great grasp on the history of feminist philosophy, its theorists, and how it interacts with praxis as she only wrote so little because of how much she contributed to the cause in India and CPI(Maoist) specifically and dying for it (may she rest in power). Basically, each chapter goes over a different strain of feminism: liberal, radical, anarchist, eco, socialist, and postmodernist. Each chapter is split into a summary of the type of feminism and a critique of it by Ghandy. Thus, you can assume much of what she'll talk about, no need for me to summarize. One highlight is her amazing exposition of anarcho-feminism (as it was probably the clearest summary of what anarchism actually is/what it wants to achieve, which speaks multitudes on anarchism's flaws and disparate nature). Otherwise, the crux of what more advanced readers would gain from is the Socialist Feminism section that includes psychoanalytic feminists and Marxist feminists. Ghandy does a great job of giving a charitable account of feminists who try to argue that patriarchy presupposes the base-superstructure dialectic (or that it's part of the base itself with the mode of reproduction being the basis for oppression), but also amazingly critiques it from the Maoist point of view that patriarchy and class oppression function and are intertwined on the same law, they are not separate phenomena, and that both traditional socialist feminist and radical feminist praxis leads to unproductive forms of material change.
I highly recommend this short read for literally anyone.
Ghandy is an extremely succinct and organized writer that clearly has a great grasp on the history of feminist philosophy, its theorists, and how it interacts with praxis as she only wrote so little because of how much she contributed to the cause in India and CPI(Maoist) specifically and dying for it (may she rest in power). Basically, each chapter goes over a different strain of feminism: liberal, radical, anarchist, eco, socialist, and postmodernist. Each chapter is split into a summary of the type of feminism and a critique of it by Ghandy. Thus, you can assume much of what she'll talk about, no need for me to summarize. One highlight is her amazing exposition of anarcho-feminism (as it was probably the clearest summary of what anarchism actually is/what it wants to achieve, which speaks multitudes on anarchism's flaws and disparate nature). Otherwise, the crux of what more advanced readers would gain from is the Socialist Feminism section that includes psychoanalytic feminists and Marxist feminists. Ghandy does a great job of giving a charitable account of feminists who try to argue that patriarchy presupposes the base-superstructure dialectic (or that it's part of the base itself with the mode of reproduction being the basis for oppression), but also amazingly critiques it from the Maoist point of view that patriarchy and class oppression function and are intertwined on the same law, they are not separate phenomena, and that both traditional socialist feminist and radical feminist praxis leads to unproductive forms of material change.
I highly recommend this short read for literally anyone.
March 16, 2018
One of the most enlightening texts on feminism I've read. Anuradha manages to synthetize some of the most relevant philosophical trends in Western feminism in barely a 100 pages, along with her marxist-leninist critique of them.
Unlike other reviewers, I would not recommend this book as an introductory text to Marxism nor feminism. The book manages to be so brief because she does not need to go into deep details of many of the controversies. While it might be a good way for a novel reader to learn of the existence of these controversies, the nuance of her analysis will be lost without a deeper knowledge of them than the one presented here.
I found the discussion on the origin of women's oppression, and her dialectical approach to it, particularly eye-opening. It did require a lot of thinking and re reading of key sections to grasp the subtleties and realize the she was not a "class determinist", in part because the book is very brief and leaves part of the work to the reader and in part because I think it's not a finished work: as the introduction says, the book is created from some of her notes, but lacks some final polishing.
The only negative remark I have is that she characterizes radical feminism as pro porn and pro prostitution (or at least neutral), and that doesn't match the information I've found anywhere else.
All in all, an indispensable read for any marxist-leninist who wants to grasp the complexities of a dialectical approach to the different feminist trends.
Unlike other reviewers, I would not recommend this book as an introductory text to Marxism nor feminism. The book manages to be so brief because she does not need to go into deep details of many of the controversies. While it might be a good way for a novel reader to learn of the existence of these controversies, the nuance of her analysis will be lost without a deeper knowledge of them than the one presented here.
I found the discussion on the origin of women's oppression, and her dialectical approach to it, particularly eye-opening. It did require a lot of thinking and re reading of key sections to grasp the subtleties and realize the she was not a "class determinist", in part because the book is very brief and leaves part of the work to the reader and in part because I think it's not a finished work: as the introduction says, the book is created from some of her notes, but lacks some final polishing.
The only negative remark I have is that she characterizes radical feminism as pro porn and pro prostitution (or at least neutral), and that doesn't match the information I've found anywhere else.
All in all, an indispensable read for any marxist-leninist who wants to grasp the complexities of a dialectical approach to the different feminist trends.
September 29, 2022
DE LO MEJOR QUE HE LEÍDO DE FEMINISMO EN EL AÑO (junto The Dialectcs of Sex).
http://www.neapoulain.com/2018/01/aut...
Recomendado como texto introductorio en formación feminista por mí y mi autoridad de feminista que ya lo leyó
Finalmente, les recomiento otro texto corto. Si Feminismo para principantes expone diversas corrientes feministas, el texto de la comunista Anuradha Ghandy les ayudará a reafirmar todo eso y además realiza una crítica muy importante en prácticamente todas las corrientes. Muchas veces se tiende a encasillar al feminismo como uno solo y no es cierto, hay muchas corrientes, son varios y saber donde están sus puntos fuertes y sus puntos débiles es muy importante. Conocer sus aportaciones al mismo tiempo que se puede hacer autocrítica es muy importante. Este texto tiene apenas 40 páginas, pero recorre la historia del feminismo pasando por el feminismo liberal, el feminismo radical, el anarcofeminismo, el llamado feminismo socialista, el posmodernismo en el feminismo...
Me impresionó la claridad de Anuradha Ghandy para exponer sus ideas y sus críticas, especialmente al feminismo liberal, radical y al posmodernismo. Lo leí también hace poco porque lo ví recomendado en twitter y no era demasiado largo y la verdad es que fue una de las mejores lecturas de feminismo del año (en un año que tuve muchas buenas). También me parece un libro muy bueno para leer en grupo y apoyar el debate. Anuradha Ghandy lo escribe desde la realidad de la India (un país en el que ya viví, por lo que puedo entender muchas cosas sobre sus conclusiones), pero no por eso deja de ser increíblemente relevante en el resto del tercer mundo.
Critica al feminismo especialmente como un movimiento interclasista, al menos a la mayoría de sus corrientes. Expone muy fácilmente como el feminismo es un movimiento que en sus inicios falló en ver como la clase era un eje de opresión que se intersectaba con el género. Creo que eso es algo de lo más valioso que tiene este libro. De momento, es el último que voy a recomendar, porque quiero llevarme esta sección con calma. Escribiré en ella al menos una vez al mes o una vez cada mes y medio, por si quieren ir medio siguiendo las lecturas (cada quien con los tiempos que quiera). Cualquier duda, en los comentarios (siempre y cuando la sepa contestar).
http://www.neapoulain.com/2018/01/aut...
Recomendado como texto introductorio en formación feminista por mí y mi autoridad de feminista que ya lo leyó
Finalmente, les recomiento otro texto corto. Si Feminismo para principantes expone diversas corrientes feministas, el texto de la comunista Anuradha Ghandy les ayudará a reafirmar todo eso y además realiza una crítica muy importante en prácticamente todas las corrientes. Muchas veces se tiende a encasillar al feminismo como uno solo y no es cierto, hay muchas corrientes, son varios y saber donde están sus puntos fuertes y sus puntos débiles es muy importante. Conocer sus aportaciones al mismo tiempo que se puede hacer autocrítica es muy importante. Este texto tiene apenas 40 páginas, pero recorre la historia del feminismo pasando por el feminismo liberal, el feminismo radical, el anarcofeminismo, el llamado feminismo socialista, el posmodernismo en el feminismo...
Me impresionó la claridad de Anuradha Ghandy para exponer sus ideas y sus críticas, especialmente al feminismo liberal, radical y al posmodernismo. Lo leí también hace poco porque lo ví recomendado en twitter y no era demasiado largo y la verdad es que fue una de las mejores lecturas de feminismo del año (en un año que tuve muchas buenas). También me parece un libro muy bueno para leer en grupo y apoyar el debate. Anuradha Ghandy lo escribe desde la realidad de la India (un país en el que ya viví, por lo que puedo entender muchas cosas sobre sus conclusiones), pero no por eso deja de ser increíblemente relevante en el resto del tercer mundo.
Critica al feminismo especialmente como un movimiento interclasista, al menos a la mayoría de sus corrientes. Expone muy fácilmente como el feminismo es un movimiento que en sus inicios falló en ver como la clase era un eje de opresión que se intersectaba con el género. Creo que eso es algo de lo más valioso que tiene este libro. De momento, es el último que voy a recomendar, porque quiero llevarme esta sección con calma. Escribiré en ella al menos una vez al mes o una vez cada mes y medio, por si quieren ir medio siguiendo las lecturas (cada quien con los tiempos que quiera). Cualquier duda, en los comentarios (siempre y cuando la sepa contestar).
April 10, 2021
Comrade Anuradha Ghandy dedicated a significant part of her life in forests organising the oppressed peasantry against the imperialist class as part of the People's Liberation Guerilla Army, strengthening and expanding "the extraordinary women’s organization, perhaps the biggest feminist organization in India — the Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sanghatan (KAMS) that has more than 90,000 members."
In this book, the late revolutionary details the theoretical trends in the various feminist movements that developed in the West (and whose influence spread to different parts of the world).
Starting with liberal feminism, which developed in the 18th and 19th centuries in response to feudal patriarchal values, Ghandy reveals the class limitations among feminist thinkers of this period. For instance, Mary Wollstonecraft, who belonged to the aristocracy, wrote that "respectable women are the most oppressed". The liberal philosophy was based on extreme individualism rather than collective effort. The question of class differences and their effect on opportunities available to people weren't taken into consideration by liberal feminists, argues Ghandy.
On the other hand, radical feminists "have stood Marxism upon its head", she says. By taking the role of reproduction and the man-woman relationship as the central contradiction in society, they "ignore the role of history, ignore the political-economic structure and concentrate only on the social and cultural aspects of advanced capitalist society and projects the situation there as the universal human condition", argues Ghandy. Here too the class differences are completely ignored and the needs of poor women are neglected, she says.
Ghandy goes on to emphasise the tendency of socialist and radical feminists from Europe and the U.S. to universalize the experience and structure of advanced capitalist countries to the whole world. The solutions brought out by them have benefited only a section of bourgeois, elite and middle class women, while excluding the majority of the oppressed and exploited women.
On those lines, Comrade Ghandy emphasises the need to revisit and adapt feminist movements to connect it with the wider, exploitative socio-economic and political structure; to imperialism itself, in order to overthrow it.
In this book, the late revolutionary details the theoretical trends in the various feminist movements that developed in the West (and whose influence spread to different parts of the world).
Starting with liberal feminism, which developed in the 18th and 19th centuries in response to feudal patriarchal values, Ghandy reveals the class limitations among feminist thinkers of this period. For instance, Mary Wollstonecraft, who belonged to the aristocracy, wrote that "respectable women are the most oppressed". The liberal philosophy was based on extreme individualism rather than collective effort. The question of class differences and their effect on opportunities available to people weren't taken into consideration by liberal feminists, argues Ghandy.
On the other hand, radical feminists "have stood Marxism upon its head", she says. By taking the role of reproduction and the man-woman relationship as the central contradiction in society, they "ignore the role of history, ignore the political-economic structure and concentrate only on the social and cultural aspects of advanced capitalist society and projects the situation there as the universal human condition", argues Ghandy. Here too the class differences are completely ignored and the needs of poor women are neglected, she says.
Ghandy goes on to emphasise the tendency of socialist and radical feminists from Europe and the U.S. to universalize the experience and structure of advanced capitalist countries to the whole world. The solutions brought out by them have benefited only a section of bourgeois, elite and middle class women, while excluding the majority of the oppressed and exploited women.
On those lines, Comrade Ghandy emphasises the need to revisit and adapt feminist movements to connect it with the wider, exploitative socio-economic and political structure; to imperialism itself, in order to overthrow it.
August 2, 2019
A very basic history; definitely helpful - I learned a lot of things that I did not know - but none of the rhetoric that really gets me gassed up to read history. This book reads like a lecture from a "fine" professor: yes, you get the information, but you almost might have been reading down a very detailed wikipedia page.
I would recommend this book/essay for anyone looking for an overview both generally - from a Western perspective - of the early women's movement as well as for someone looking for the most basic info on India's women's rights situation. For people particularly well-versed in women's liberation theory and history there will be nothing new here.
I would recommend this book/essay for anyone looking for an overview both generally - from a Western perspective - of the early women's movement as well as for someone looking for the most basic info on India's women's rights situation. For people particularly well-versed in women's liberation theory and history there will be nothing new here.
March 16, 2021
For what this text is and the circumstances of how it came together, this is an incredibly concise introduction to the general trajectory of the principal feminist movements in the West as we have known them. In no way a profound exploration of any one theory, nor a manifesto for a unifying proletarian feminism, but a very useful text for orienting ourselves towards a more advanced theorization of the issue and away from the errors and pitfalls of past strategies.
May 5, 2022
Just read Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement by Anuradha Ghandy. The book traces the long evolution of the feminist movement beginning from the feminist movement in the West under Liberal Feminism to that of Radical and Revolutionary Feminism. The book while tracing the long lineage of the movement across the world looks into the ways in which the Feminist Movement developed and what have been the success and limitations in each form of the movement. The author stresses the need for an overthrow of imperialism which has structured and held the forces of capitalism and patriarchy, as the final victory of the feminist movement in the world. She says that the forces of capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy are interlinked and the movement should be geared towards overthrowing all the three. Anything less would be to misunderstand the feminist movement.
February 28, 2025
Este libro es un análisis muy bueno y breve de las corrientes ideológicas tras los diferentes movimientos feministas que crearon el concepto de feminismo en el siglo XX. La autora cómo una escritora con pensamiento M-L-M analiza las diferentes perspectivas detrás de las diferentes olas de feminismo con una gran habilidad crítica para analizar desde la perspectiva propia.
June 25, 2020
“There is a tendency to universalize the experience and structure of advanced capitalist countries to the whole world.”
January 8, 2022
A very good critique of the various non Marxist trends in feminist philosophy. Explains the necessity to maintain a materialist analysis of all social structures, including patriarchy, and also the central role of fighting against oppression of women in any revolutionary struggle. A quick read, more of a booklet than a full book, but an excellent Marxist primer on the subject.
November 5, 2023
5☆ — brilliant collection of writings that gives a concise overview of different schools of feminism, their central concepts and critiques. would recommend for anyone looking for a brief introduction to feminist theory.
April 18, 2025
trop trop intéressant!! hyper clair et concis, la structure du livre était top et elle aide bien à comprendre les points forts et les points faibles de chaque féminisme
June 1, 2024
Somebody recommended this to me a while ago, so I decided to give it a try. Even though Ghandy herself was famously radical, this book would actually be a fantastic introduction to intersectional feminism and feminist theory. It is a little dated, but that just makes it a cool look at what radical feminism was like in the late 20th century.
I'm also particularly a fan of the way this book is layed out. Ghandy identifies different schools of feminism, explains what she objectively understands them to be, and then puts their ideas in conversation with her own ideas and with the other schools. This framework is so cool because it allows us to look critically at different ways of thinking and recognize that each has its strengths and its contributions to feminism, even if they all also have flaws. I'm already seeing my brain using this framework all the time when I'm processing theory, and I love it.
Ghandy is admittedly not great on sex-positivity and sex work, in my opinion. However, I think she's coming out of a temporal and cultural context where it makes sense that she would be anti-sex work and anti-p*rn. Admittedly, she does make a lot of fair points. She is operating under the assumption that these industries are inherently non-consensual and exploitative, which is honestly something that has also changed a lot over time, and her ideas make a lot more sense for what was happening in her time.
Still, this was a really interesting read and a cool snapshot of this era of feminism.
I'm also particularly a fan of the way this book is layed out. Ghandy identifies different schools of feminism, explains what she objectively understands them to be, and then puts their ideas in conversation with her own ideas and with the other schools. This framework is so cool because it allows us to look critically at different ways of thinking and recognize that each has its strengths and its contributions to feminism, even if they all also have flaws. I'm already seeing my brain using this framework all the time when I'm processing theory, and I love it.
Ghandy is admittedly not great on sex-positivity and sex work, in my opinion. However, I think she's coming out of a temporal and cultural context where it makes sense that she would be anti-sex work and anti-p*rn. Admittedly, she does make a lot of fair points. She is operating under the assumption that these industries are inherently non-consensual and exploitative, which is honestly something that has also changed a lot over time, and her ideas make a lot more sense for what was happening in her time.
Still, this was a really interesting read and a cool snapshot of this era of feminism.
October 30, 2021
Very interesting and useful for someone like me who doesn't have formal training in philosophy but is interested in the philosophical trends underpinning varying strands of feminism.
Could use a bit more copy-editing, particularly in the sections on Socialist Feminism and Post-Modernism, but the text itself is incredibly useful.
Could use a bit more copy-editing, particularly in the sections on Socialist Feminism and Post-Modernism, but the text itself is incredibly useful.
May 6, 2021
(like 4.5)
https://anchor.fm/foreign-languages-p...
listened to this book via the Foreign Language Press audiobook platform (for free!). It was a very thorough and illuminating analysis of several movements in feminism.
https://anchor.fm/foreign-languages-p...
listened to this book via the Foreign Language Press audiobook platform (for free!). It was a very thorough and illuminating analysis of several movements in feminism.
August 24, 2020
Avanti critiques the trends present in Western movements, and offers some really interesting bits and pieces on the feminist/proletarian/environmentalist struggles in India. It’s (super) short and holistic, so it is a little dry and dense, but there’s a great foreword that gives useful context for Avanti’s life and this particular book.
Notably, the (unnamed?) author of the foreword writes:
“It has been hard to work out how to read these writings. Clearly, they were not written with a view to be published as a collection. At first reading, they could seem somewhat basic, often repetitive, a little didactic. But a second and third reading made me see them differently. I see them now as Anuradha’s notes to herself. Their sketchy, uneven quality, the fact that some of her assertions explode off the page like hand-grenades, makes them that much more personal.
Reading through them you catch glimpses of the mind of someone who could have been a serious scholar or academic but was overtaken by her conscience and found it impossible to sit back and merely theorize about the terrible injustices she saw around her.”
Also a great intro to lots of different authors and figures—hoping my Dialectic of Sex copy comes in soon. Will have to close-read this again.
Notably, the (unnamed?) author of the foreword writes:
“It has been hard to work out how to read these writings. Clearly, they were not written with a view to be published as a collection. At first reading, they could seem somewhat basic, often repetitive, a little didactic. But a second and third reading made me see them differently. I see them now as Anuradha’s notes to herself. Their sketchy, uneven quality, the fact that some of her assertions explode off the page like hand-grenades, makes them that much more personal.
Reading through them you catch glimpses of the mind of someone who could have been a serious scholar or academic but was overtaken by her conscience and found it impossible to sit back and merely theorize about the terrible injustices she saw around her.”
Also a great intro to lots of different authors and figures—hoping my Dialectic of Sex copy comes in soon. Will have to close-read this again.
April 18, 2021
The description of this book reads: "This text, written in clandestinity by Anuradha Ghandy, also known as Avanti, provides a clear and concise analysis and critique of the different main feminist trends" and it is indeed VERY concise.
This pamphlet reads more like a short set of notes that can sometimes seem unrevised, like they were not meant for publication, due to little, unimportant mistakes disseminated throughout the text. Yet, it offers an excellent example of application of dialectical materialism in its exposition of the woman's question and in the critique of the feminist movement's history and the trends that arose within it.
Comrade Avanti's writing is very comprehensive, making this an extremely enjoyable reading.
Not enough shitting on post-modernism though.
This pamphlet reads more like a short set of notes that can sometimes seem unrevised, like they were not meant for publication, due to little, unimportant mistakes disseminated throughout the text. Yet, it offers an excellent example of application of dialectical materialism in its exposition of the woman's question and in the critique of the feminist movement's history and the trends that arose within it.
Comrade Avanti's writing is very comprehensive, making this an extremely enjoyable reading.
Not enough shitting on post-modernism though.
June 16, 2023
Wonderful short and dense overview over different feminist trends (liberal, radical, anarcha-, eco-, socialist and post-modern feminism) in non-academic language.
Especially the critiques of radical and socialist feminisms were strong and insightful.
I only wish the summary was longer and the book should have ended with a conclusion—what could we learn from the different trends and their analytical/practical mistakes? Nevertheless, everyone interested in feminism should read this short book!
Especially the critiques of radical and socialist feminisms were strong and insightful.
I only wish the summary was longer and the book should have ended with a conclusion—what could we learn from the different trends and their analytical/practical mistakes? Nevertheless, everyone interested in feminism should read this short book!
November 11, 2024
“If we do not find some social, material reasons for inequality we are forced into accepting the argument that men have an innate drive for power and domination. Such an argument is self-defeating because it means there is no point in struggling for equality.”(98)
A crucial read during an era of spotlighting threats to reproductive freedom. This was a sparknotes version of all feminist theory from a class lens.
A crucial read during an era of spotlighting threats to reproductive freedom. This was a sparknotes version of all feminist theory from a class lens.
January 13, 2022
a nice quick gloss as well as critique of different types of feminist thought, written by someone who seems to have walked the talk. i appreciated her addressing various strains by choosing a few key representative thinkers whose works i can then look up further
Read
January 24, 2022feels weird to give nonfiction star ratings so i'm simply not going to anymore :) anyway i enjoyed reading this I thought each trend she describes is summarized well and all of the critiques were good. fun time!
July 7, 2025
Excellent introduction. Manages to give a simple yet sufficiently detailed overview of the major philosophical trends in the feminist movement. I will definitely be referring to this as a refresher every time I encounter new feminist literature to place it within a comprehensible framework.
December 31, 2025
Would recommend as a starting point in understanding different branches of feminism + understanding the critiques of them from a revolutionary and Indian perspective. Historical analysis and critiques of anarca-feminism + eco-feminism were extra juicy.
Unfortunately took me so long to read because I was stuck in the clutches of AO3 T.T Had to finish the book at work because I wanted my total books read in 2025 to be a nice number.
Unfortunately took me so long to read because I was stuck in the clutches of AO3 T.T Had to finish the book at work because I wanted my total books read in 2025 to be a nice number.
January 4, 2022
great concise summary and critiques of feminist trends
August 6, 2022
Great introduction in the distinction and criticism of many feminist movements from a maoist position.
January 12, 2025
hindutva is a real threat we must fight on all fronts
June 12, 2021
I found this to be a really excellent text. It’s exactly the sort of writing I most enjoy. It’s very direct, written with great clarity and concision, and comments on various feminist currents, largely focusing on the more radical spectrum of theory and practice, and does so with a critical lens that provided a lot to chew on [end of run-on sentence].
Firstly, I really enjoyed the introduction by Arundhati Roy. Roy focuses on how Ghandy has a reputation as a Naxalite terrorist, as many Maoists do in India. Communist politics can be quite contentious and factional in South Asia (maybe everywhere). I did my master’s thesis on Nepal, and a lot of the recent political history I read up on focused on various factions of communists battling it out with each other after they had toppled the monarchy. In India, I know the parliamentarian communists who get elected (e.g. in Kerala) have a very dim view of Maoists. I don't know enough to wade into this discourse so... I won't.
I want to keep my own comments short here, so I can share as many excerpts as possible, especially those where Ghandy focuses her criticisms on fellow comrades, whether radical, queer, separatist, anarchist, socialist, eco-feminist, and so on. I’ll start with her comments on ‘radical feminists’:
“…in the late 70s, one section of radical feminists rejected the goal of androgyny and believed that it meant that women should learn some of the worst features of masculinity. Instead they proposed that women should affirm their “femininity”. Women should try to be more like women, i.e. emphasise women’s virtues such as interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace and life. From here onwards their entire focus became separatist, women should relate only to women, they should build a women’s culture and institutions. With this even their understanding about sexuality changed and they believed that women should become lesbians and they supported monogamous lesbian relations as the best for women. Politically they became pacifist. Violence and aggression are masculine traits according to them, that should be rejected. They say women are naturally peace loving and life-giving. By building alternative institutions they believed they were bringing revolutionary change. They began building women’s clubs, making women’s films and other forms of separate women’s culture. In their understanding revolutionary transformation of society will take place gradually. This stream is called the cultural feminist trend because they are completely concentrating on the culture of society. They are not relating culture to the political-economic structure of society. But this became the main trend of radical feminism and is intertwined with eco-feminism, postmodernism also. Among the well known cultural feminists are Marilyn French and Mary Daly.”
“Radical feminists have treated historical development and historical facts lightly and imposed their own understanding of man-woman contradiction as the original contradiction and the principal contradiction which has determined the course of actual history. From this central point the radical feminist analysis abandons history altogether, ignores the politicaleconomic structure and concentrates only on the social and cultural aspects of advanced capitalist society and projects the situation there as the universal human condition. This is another major weakness in their analysis and approach. Since they have taken the man-woman relationship (sex/gender relationship) as the central contradiction in society all their analysis proceeds from it and men become the main enemies of women. Since they do not have any concrete strategy to overthrow this society they shift their entire analysis to a critique of the super structural aspects – the culture, language, concepts, ethics without concerning themselves with the fact of capitalism and the role of capitalism in sustaining this sex/gender relationship and hence the need to include the overthrow of capitalism in their strategy for women’s liberation. While making extremely strong criticisms of the patriarchal structure the solutions they offer are in fact reformist. Their solutions are focused on changing roles and traits and attitudes and the moral values and creating an alternative culture. Practically it means people can to some extent give up certain values, men can give up aggressive traits by recognizing them as patriarchal, women can try to be bolder and less dependent, but when the entire structure of society is patriarchal how far can these changes come without an overthrow of the entire capitalist system is a question they do not address at all. So it ends up turning into small groups trying to change their lifestyle, their interpersonal relations, a focus on the interpersonal rather than the entire system.”
“By making heterosexualism as the core point in their criticism of the present system they encouraged lesbian separatism and thus took the women’s movement to a dead end. Apart from forming small communities of lesbians and building an alternative culture they could not and have not been able to take one step forward to liberate the mass of women from the exploitation and oppression they suffer. It is impractical and unnatural to think that women can have a completely separate existence from men. They have completely given up the goal of building a better human society. This strategy is not appealing to the large mass of women.”
On post-modernists:
“Post-modemist feminists are glorifying the position of the “Other” because it is supposed to give insights into the dominant culture of which she is not a part. Women can therefore be critical of the norms, values and practices imposed on everyone by the dominant culture. They believe that studies should be oriented from the values of those who are being studied, the subalterns, who have been dominated. Post-modernism has been popular among academics. They believe that no fixed category exists, in this case, woman. The self is fragmented by various identities – by sex, class, caste, ethnic community, race. These various identities have a value in themselves. Thus this becomes one form of cultural relativism.”
“Looked at in this way there is no scope to find common ground for collective political activity. The concept woman, helped to bring women together and act collectively. But this kind of identity politics divides more than it unites. The unity is on the most narrow basis. Post-modernists celebrate difference and identity and they criticize Marxism for focusing on one “totality” – class. Further post-modernism does not believe that language (western languages atleast) reflects reality. They believe that identities are “constructed” through “discourse”. Thus, in their understanding, language constructs reality. Therefore many of them have focused on “deconstruction” of language, hi effect this leaves a person with nothing – there is no material reality about which we can be certain. This is a form of extreme subjectivism. Post-modemist feminists have focused on psychology and language. Post-modernism, in agreement with the famous French philosopher Foucault, are against what they call “relations of power”. But this concept of power is diffused and it is not clearly defined.”
“In effect post-modernism is extremely divisive because it promotes fragmentation between people and gives relative importance to identities without any theoretical framework to understand the historical reasons for identity formation and to link the various identities.”
On Socialist feminists:
“Both radical feminists and socialist feminists have come under strong attack from black women for essentially ignoring the situation of black women and concentrating all their analysis on the situation of white, middle class women and theorizing from it. For example, Joseph, points out the condition of black slave women who were never considered “feminine”. In the fields and plantations , in labour and in punishment they were treated equal to men. The black family could never stabilize under conditions of slavery and black men were hardly in a condition to dominate their women, slaves that they were. Also later on, black women have had to work for their living and many of them have been domestic servants in rich white houses. The harassment they faced there, the long hours of work make their experience very different from that of white women. Hence they are not in agreement with the concepts of family being the source of oppression (for blacks it was a source of resistance to racism), on dependence of women on men (black women can hardly be dependent on black men given the high rates of unemployment among them) and the reproduction role of women (they reproduced white labour and children through their domestic employment in white houses). Racism is an all pervasive situation for them and this brings them in alliance with black men rather than with white women. Then white women themselves have been involved in perpetuating racism, about which feminists should introspect she argues. Initially black women hardly participated in the feminist movement though in the 1980s slowly a black feminist movement has developed which is trying to combine the struggle against male domination with the struggle against racism and capitalism. These and similar criticisms from women of other third world countries has given rise to a trend within feminism called global feminism.”
On anarcha-feminists:
“They envisaged a society in which human freedom is ensured, but believe that human freedom and community go together. But the communities must be structured in such a way that makes freedom possible. There should be no hierarchies or authority. Their vision is different from the Marxist and liberal tradition but is closest to what the radical feminists are struggling for, the practice they are engaged in. For the anarchists believe that means must be consistent with the aims, the process by which revolution is being brought about, the structures must reflect the new society and relations that have to be created. Hence the process and the form of organisation are extremely important. According to the anarchists dominance and subordination depends on hierarchical social structures which are enforced by the State and through economic coercion (that is through control over property etc). Their critique of society is not based on classes and exploitation, or on the class nature of the State etc, but is focused on hierarchy and domination. The State defends and supports these hierarchical structures and decisions at the central level are imposed on those subordinate in the hierarchy. So for them hierarchical social structures are the roots of domination and subordination in society.”
“Within a hierarchical organization we cannot learn to act in non-authoritarian ways.” Anarchists give emphasis to “propaganda by deed” by which they mean exemplary actions, which by positive example encourage others to also join. The Anarcha-feminists give examples of groups that have created various community based activities, like running a radio station or a food cooperative in the US in which nonauthoritarian ways of running the organization have been developed. They have given central emphasis on small groups without hierarchy and domination. But the functioning of such groups in practice, the hidden tyrannical leadership (Joreen) that gets created has led to many criticisms of them. The problems encountered included hidden leadership, having headers’ imposed by the media, overrepresentation of middle class women with lots of time in their hands, of lack of task groups which women could join, hostility towards women who showed initiative or leadership. When communists raise the question that the centralized State controlled by the imperialists needs to be overthrown they admit that their efforts are small in nature and there is a need of coordinating with others and linking up with others. But they are not willing to consider the need for a centralized revolutionary organization to overthrow the State.”
“In the era of monopoly capitalism it is an illusion to think that such activities can expand and grow and gradually engulf the entire society. They will only be tolerated in a society with excess surplus like the US as an oddity, an exotic plant. Such groups tend to get coopted by the system in this way. Radical feminists have found these ideas suitable for their views and have been very much influenced by anarchist ideas of organization or there has been a convergence of anarchist views of organization and the radical feminist views on the same.”
On eco-feminists:
“There is one stream among eco-feminists who are against the emphasis on nature-women connection. Women must, according to them, minimize their socially constructed and ideologically reinforced special connection with nature. The present division of the world into male and female (culture and nature); men for culture building, and women for nature building (child rearing and child bearing) must be eliminated and oneness emphasized. Men must bring culture into nature and women should take nature into culture. This view has been called social constructionist ecofeminism. Thinkers like Warren believe that it is wrong to link women to nature, because both men and women are equally natural and equally cultural. Mies and Shiva combined insights from socialist feminism (role of capitalist patriarchy), with insights from global feminists who believe that women have more to do with nature in their daily work around the world, and from postmodernism which criticizes capitalism’s tendency to homogenizing the culture around the world. They believed that women around the world had enough similarity to struggle against capitalist patriarchies and the destruction it spawns. Taking examples of struggles by women against ecological destruction by industrial or military interests to preserve the basis of life they conclude that women will be in the forefront of the struggle to preserve the ecology. They advocate a subsistence perspective in which people must not produce more than that needed to satisfy human needs, and people should use nature only as much as needed, not to make money but satisfy community needs, men and women should cultivate traditional feminine virtues (caring, compassion, nurturance) and engage in subsistence production, for only such a society can “afford to live in peace with nature, and uphold peace between nations, generations, and men and women”. Women are non-violent by nature they claim and support this.”
On Vandana Shiva (I’ve in the past been quite a fan of Shiva, and she was one of the people who attracted me towards environmental issues, and I attended a talk she gave at Guelph; I think Ghandy’s critiques of her here though are quite valid):
“…the theoretical basis for Vandana Shiva’s argument in favor of subsistence agriculture is actually reactionary. She makes a trenchant criticism of the green revolution and its impact as a whole but from the perspective that it is a form of ”western patriarchal violence” against women and nature. She counterposes patriarchal western, rational/science with non-western wisdom. The imperialists used the developments in agro-science to force the peasantry to increase their production (to avoid a Red revolution) and to become tied to the MNC sponsored market for agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers, pesticides. But Shiva is rejecting agro-science altogether and uncritically defending traditional practices. She claims that traditional Indian culture with its dialectical unity of Purusha and Prakriti was superior to the Western philosophical dualism of man and nature, man and culture etc etc.”
“In actual fact what Shiva is glorifying is the petty pre-capitalist peasant economy with its feudal structures and extreme inequalities. In this economy women toiled for long hours in backbreaking labor with no recognition of their work. She does not take into account the 40 condition of Dalit and other lower caste women who toiled in the fields and houses of the feudal landlords of that time, abused, sexually exploited and unpaid most of the time.”
I really appreciated this critical commentary because Ghandy isn’t afraid to criticize her fellow feminist comrades. She raises important questions that have helped me better think through these theoretical currents within feminist history. I don’t know that much about the history of feminist ideas, so I can’t comment on how good or accurate this was in that respect, but I found it useful for myself. And also a very engaging read.
Firstly, I really enjoyed the introduction by Arundhati Roy. Roy focuses on how Ghandy has a reputation as a Naxalite terrorist, as many Maoists do in India. Communist politics can be quite contentious and factional in South Asia (maybe everywhere). I did my master’s thesis on Nepal, and a lot of the recent political history I read up on focused on various factions of communists battling it out with each other after they had toppled the monarchy. In India, I know the parliamentarian communists who get elected (e.g. in Kerala) have a very dim view of Maoists. I don't know enough to wade into this discourse so... I won't.
I want to keep my own comments short here, so I can share as many excerpts as possible, especially those where Ghandy focuses her criticisms on fellow comrades, whether radical, queer, separatist, anarchist, socialist, eco-feminist, and so on. I’ll start with her comments on ‘radical feminists’:
“…in the late 70s, one section of radical feminists rejected the goal of androgyny and believed that it meant that women should learn some of the worst features of masculinity. Instead they proposed that women should affirm their “femininity”. Women should try to be more like women, i.e. emphasise women’s virtues such as interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace and life. From here onwards their entire focus became separatist, women should relate only to women, they should build a women’s culture and institutions. With this even their understanding about sexuality changed and they believed that women should become lesbians and they supported monogamous lesbian relations as the best for women. Politically they became pacifist. Violence and aggression are masculine traits according to them, that should be rejected. They say women are naturally peace loving and life-giving. By building alternative institutions they believed they were bringing revolutionary change. They began building women’s clubs, making women’s films and other forms of separate women’s culture. In their understanding revolutionary transformation of society will take place gradually. This stream is called the cultural feminist trend because they are completely concentrating on the culture of society. They are not relating culture to the political-economic structure of society. But this became the main trend of radical feminism and is intertwined with eco-feminism, postmodernism also. Among the well known cultural feminists are Marilyn French and Mary Daly.”
“Radical feminists have treated historical development and historical facts lightly and imposed their own understanding of man-woman contradiction as the original contradiction and the principal contradiction which has determined the course of actual history. From this central point the radical feminist analysis abandons history altogether, ignores the politicaleconomic structure and concentrates only on the social and cultural aspects of advanced capitalist society and projects the situation there as the universal human condition. This is another major weakness in their analysis and approach. Since they have taken the man-woman relationship (sex/gender relationship) as the central contradiction in society all their analysis proceeds from it and men become the main enemies of women. Since they do not have any concrete strategy to overthrow this society they shift their entire analysis to a critique of the super structural aspects – the culture, language, concepts, ethics without concerning themselves with the fact of capitalism and the role of capitalism in sustaining this sex/gender relationship and hence the need to include the overthrow of capitalism in their strategy for women’s liberation. While making extremely strong criticisms of the patriarchal structure the solutions they offer are in fact reformist. Their solutions are focused on changing roles and traits and attitudes and the moral values and creating an alternative culture. Practically it means people can to some extent give up certain values, men can give up aggressive traits by recognizing them as patriarchal, women can try to be bolder and less dependent, but when the entire structure of society is patriarchal how far can these changes come without an overthrow of the entire capitalist system is a question they do not address at all. So it ends up turning into small groups trying to change their lifestyle, their interpersonal relations, a focus on the interpersonal rather than the entire system.”
“By making heterosexualism as the core point in their criticism of the present system they encouraged lesbian separatism and thus took the women’s movement to a dead end. Apart from forming small communities of lesbians and building an alternative culture they could not and have not been able to take one step forward to liberate the mass of women from the exploitation and oppression they suffer. It is impractical and unnatural to think that women can have a completely separate existence from men. They have completely given up the goal of building a better human society. This strategy is not appealing to the large mass of women.”
On post-modernists:
“Post-modemist feminists are glorifying the position of the “Other” because it is supposed to give insights into the dominant culture of which she is not a part. Women can therefore be critical of the norms, values and practices imposed on everyone by the dominant culture. They believe that studies should be oriented from the values of those who are being studied, the subalterns, who have been dominated. Post-modernism has been popular among academics. They believe that no fixed category exists, in this case, woman. The self is fragmented by various identities – by sex, class, caste, ethnic community, race. These various identities have a value in themselves. Thus this becomes one form of cultural relativism.”
“Looked at in this way there is no scope to find common ground for collective political activity. The concept woman, helped to bring women together and act collectively. But this kind of identity politics divides more than it unites. The unity is on the most narrow basis. Post-modernists celebrate difference and identity and they criticize Marxism for focusing on one “totality” – class. Further post-modernism does not believe that language (western languages atleast) reflects reality. They believe that identities are “constructed” through “discourse”. Thus, in their understanding, language constructs reality. Therefore many of them have focused on “deconstruction” of language, hi effect this leaves a person with nothing – there is no material reality about which we can be certain. This is a form of extreme subjectivism. Post-modemist feminists have focused on psychology and language. Post-modernism, in agreement with the famous French philosopher Foucault, are against what they call “relations of power”. But this concept of power is diffused and it is not clearly defined.”
“In effect post-modernism is extremely divisive because it promotes fragmentation between people and gives relative importance to identities without any theoretical framework to understand the historical reasons for identity formation and to link the various identities.”
On Socialist feminists:
“Both radical feminists and socialist feminists have come under strong attack from black women for essentially ignoring the situation of black women and concentrating all their analysis on the situation of white, middle class women and theorizing from it. For example, Joseph, points out the condition of black slave women who were never considered “feminine”. In the fields and plantations , in labour and in punishment they were treated equal to men. The black family could never stabilize under conditions of slavery and black men were hardly in a condition to dominate their women, slaves that they were. Also later on, black women have had to work for their living and many of them have been domestic servants in rich white houses. The harassment they faced there, the long hours of work make their experience very different from that of white women. Hence they are not in agreement with the concepts of family being the source of oppression (for blacks it was a source of resistance to racism), on dependence of women on men (black women can hardly be dependent on black men given the high rates of unemployment among them) and the reproduction role of women (they reproduced white labour and children through their domestic employment in white houses). Racism is an all pervasive situation for them and this brings them in alliance with black men rather than with white women. Then white women themselves have been involved in perpetuating racism, about which feminists should introspect she argues. Initially black women hardly participated in the feminist movement though in the 1980s slowly a black feminist movement has developed which is trying to combine the struggle against male domination with the struggle against racism and capitalism. These and similar criticisms from women of other third world countries has given rise to a trend within feminism called global feminism.”
On anarcha-feminists:
“They envisaged a society in which human freedom is ensured, but believe that human freedom and community go together. But the communities must be structured in such a way that makes freedom possible. There should be no hierarchies or authority. Their vision is different from the Marxist and liberal tradition but is closest to what the radical feminists are struggling for, the practice they are engaged in. For the anarchists believe that means must be consistent with the aims, the process by which revolution is being brought about, the structures must reflect the new society and relations that have to be created. Hence the process and the form of organisation are extremely important. According to the anarchists dominance and subordination depends on hierarchical social structures which are enforced by the State and through economic coercion (that is through control over property etc). Their critique of society is not based on classes and exploitation, or on the class nature of the State etc, but is focused on hierarchy and domination. The State defends and supports these hierarchical structures and decisions at the central level are imposed on those subordinate in the hierarchy. So for them hierarchical social structures are the roots of domination and subordination in society.”
“Within a hierarchical organization we cannot learn to act in non-authoritarian ways.” Anarchists give emphasis to “propaganda by deed” by which they mean exemplary actions, which by positive example encourage others to also join. The Anarcha-feminists give examples of groups that have created various community based activities, like running a radio station or a food cooperative in the US in which nonauthoritarian ways of running the organization have been developed. They have given central emphasis on small groups without hierarchy and domination. But the functioning of such groups in practice, the hidden tyrannical leadership (Joreen) that gets created has led to many criticisms of them. The problems encountered included hidden leadership, having headers’ imposed by the media, overrepresentation of middle class women with lots of time in their hands, of lack of task groups which women could join, hostility towards women who showed initiative or leadership. When communists raise the question that the centralized State controlled by the imperialists needs to be overthrown they admit that their efforts are small in nature and there is a need of coordinating with others and linking up with others. But they are not willing to consider the need for a centralized revolutionary organization to overthrow the State.”
“In the era of monopoly capitalism it is an illusion to think that such activities can expand and grow and gradually engulf the entire society. They will only be tolerated in a society with excess surplus like the US as an oddity, an exotic plant. Such groups tend to get coopted by the system in this way. Radical feminists have found these ideas suitable for their views and have been very much influenced by anarchist ideas of organization or there has been a convergence of anarchist views of organization and the radical feminist views on the same.”
On eco-feminists:
“There is one stream among eco-feminists who are against the emphasis on nature-women connection. Women must, according to them, minimize their socially constructed and ideologically reinforced special connection with nature. The present division of the world into male and female (culture and nature); men for culture building, and women for nature building (child rearing and child bearing) must be eliminated and oneness emphasized. Men must bring culture into nature and women should take nature into culture. This view has been called social constructionist ecofeminism. Thinkers like Warren believe that it is wrong to link women to nature, because both men and women are equally natural and equally cultural. Mies and Shiva combined insights from socialist feminism (role of capitalist patriarchy), with insights from global feminists who believe that women have more to do with nature in their daily work around the world, and from postmodernism which criticizes capitalism’s tendency to homogenizing the culture around the world. They believed that women around the world had enough similarity to struggle against capitalist patriarchies and the destruction it spawns. Taking examples of struggles by women against ecological destruction by industrial or military interests to preserve the basis of life they conclude that women will be in the forefront of the struggle to preserve the ecology. They advocate a subsistence perspective in which people must not produce more than that needed to satisfy human needs, and people should use nature only as much as needed, not to make money but satisfy community needs, men and women should cultivate traditional feminine virtues (caring, compassion, nurturance) and engage in subsistence production, for only such a society can “afford to live in peace with nature, and uphold peace between nations, generations, and men and women”. Women are non-violent by nature they claim and support this.”
On Vandana Shiva (I’ve in the past been quite a fan of Shiva, and she was one of the people who attracted me towards environmental issues, and I attended a talk she gave at Guelph; I think Ghandy’s critiques of her here though are quite valid):
“…the theoretical basis for Vandana Shiva’s argument in favor of subsistence agriculture is actually reactionary. She makes a trenchant criticism of the green revolution and its impact as a whole but from the perspective that it is a form of ”western patriarchal violence” against women and nature. She counterposes patriarchal western, rational/science with non-western wisdom. The imperialists used the developments in agro-science to force the peasantry to increase their production (to avoid a Red revolution) and to become tied to the MNC sponsored market for agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers, pesticides. But Shiva is rejecting agro-science altogether and uncritically defending traditional practices. She claims that traditional Indian culture with its dialectical unity of Purusha and Prakriti was superior to the Western philosophical dualism of man and nature, man and culture etc etc.”
“In actual fact what Shiva is glorifying is the petty pre-capitalist peasant economy with its feudal structures and extreme inequalities. In this economy women toiled for long hours in backbreaking labor with no recognition of their work. She does not take into account the 40 condition of Dalit and other lower caste women who toiled in the fields and houses of the feudal landlords of that time, abused, sexually exploited and unpaid most of the time.”
I really appreciated this critical commentary because Ghandy isn’t afraid to criticize her fellow feminist comrades. She raises important questions that have helped me better think through these theoretical currents within feminist history. I don’t know that much about the history of feminist ideas, so I can’t comment on how good or accurate this was in that respect, but I found it useful for myself. And also a very engaging read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews