To what extent do feminists disagree about the role of the state

To what extent do feminists disagree about the role of the state?



Feminists hold different views on the state, whereas some such as radical and socialists feminists
view the state as perpetrator for the patriarchy and as such suspects the role of the state, others
such as liberal feminists see that the state can play a beneficial role in advancing women’s right such
as with legislation. Socialists feminists suspect the state just as the radical feminists do, and argue
that capitalism plays a part in oppressing women. This essay will explain that despite some of the
agreements feminists have, there are far many disagreements among feminists on the role of the
state.



Socialists feminists argue that the state serves the interests of capitalists and as such, the role of the
state is detrimental to women. Socialists feminists such as Charlotte Gilman provides evidence,
suggesting that women are economically dependent on men and as such, they are vulnerable to
male oppression. Socialists feminist therefore argue that only a social and economic revolution can
stop the patriarchy, by removing the capitalist ideas that help perpetuate it. Liberal feminists on the
other hand, such as Simon Beauvoir disagree with these statements, arguing instead that the state
can be beneficial to women. This is because women are not oppressed, as socialist feminists argue,
but rather discriminated against. As such, this means that legislations passed by the state itself will
remove unfair obstacles faced by women and lead to further changes in society to the benefit of the
feminist movement and women’s rights. However, this argument can be considered weak. This is
because socialists feminists and liberal feminists agree that the state does, in some way, put women
at a disadvantage because it is not doing enough to balance the equality between men and women.
Despite this, the fundamental difference between socialists advocating for a revolution to abolish the
state and liberal feminists calling for the state to implement legislations highlights the large
disagreement about the role of the state.



Separatists feminists of the radical branch are dissatisfied with the state. This is because separatists
feminist argue for a complete divide between men and women rather than looking to achieve
equality between the two. Separatists feminists argue that men are predisposed to oppressing
women, and as such the state by virtue of advocating for de-segregation between the sexes, is
oppressive to women and must be eradicated. Socialists feminists are alarmed at these views
because they it as an over-reaction that will cause more problems than good. Socialist feminists such
as Charlotte Gilman argue that men are not predisposed to oppressing women, but rather the
economic dependence of women towards their husbands make them vulnerable to oppressive
measures. Gilman argues that the state must not segregate, but rather equalise the economic wealth
among men and women which would be enough to stop oppression. However, this argument can be
seen as weak. This is because both separatists feminists of the radical branch and socialist feminists
agree that a large reaction must be taken in order to achieve full equality for women, additionally,
they also argue that the state does play a role in oppressing women. Despite this, socialist feminists
disagree highly with the separatists feminists’ idea on how the state must achieve equality and this
therefore, symbolises the large disagreement on the role of the state.Difference feminists of the
radical movement argue that feminism has led women to adopting a more ‘masculine’ role rather
than embracing their true femininity. Difference feminists argue that the state, patriarchal in its
nature, has played a role in making women hate their femininity hence their desire to become more