Few political words are used as often, or understood in as many different ways, as “feminism.” Some people hear a simple demand for fairness; others hear hostility to men or to tradition. This course tries to show what feminists have actually argued, where they disagree with each other, and what their critics say.

A working definition

There is no single official definition, but most feminists share a core claim: women have faced unjust disadvantages because of their sex, and those disadvantages should be ended. Beyond that, feminists disagree about almost everything: how large the disadvantages are today, what causes them, and what should be done.

It helps to separate two kinds of claim. A descriptive claim says how things are: for example, that women hold a certain share of seats in a parliament. A normative claim says how things should be: for example, that women ought to have an equal chance of being elected. Many arguments about feminism go in circles because people mix the two.

Where the word came from

The French word féminisme was popularized in the 1880s by Hubertine Auclert, a French campaigner for women's suffrage, and it entered English in the 1890s. The ideas are much older. In The Book of the City of Ladies (1405), Christine de Pizan, a writer at the French royal court, answered male authors who portrayed women as morally weak by building an imaginary city of virtuous women from history. In 1706 the English writer Mary Astell asked: “If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?”

The waves

Feminist history is often told in waves. The first wave (roughly the 1840s to the 1920s) focused on legal rights, education and the vote. The second wave (roughly the 1960s to the 1980s) turned to work, family, sexuality and law. A third wave emerged in the 1990s and a fourth around the 2010s, shaped by the internet. The metaphor was popularized in a 1968 magazine article that described a “second feminist wave.”

Historians find the image useful but limited. It implies quiet periods between waves, when activism in fact continued, and it centers the story of Western, mostly white, middle-class women. Working-class women, women of color and women outside Europe and North America often had different timelines and priorities.

Sex and gender

Since the 1970s many writers have distinguished sex, meaning biological differences, from gender, meaning the social roles and expectations attached to being a woman or a man. The distinction lets people ask which differences are natural and which are customs that could change. How sharply to draw it, and what follows from it, has become one of the most heated debates within feminism today (Level 7).

Many feminisms

Feminism is better thought of as a family of views than a single doctrine. Later levels look at liberal, radical, socialist and difference feminism, intersectional approaches, and feminisms rooted in Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions. Some people support equal rights for women but do not call themselves feminists, because they associate the label with positions they reject; others use the word for views far apart from each other.

How to approach this course

Each level aims to present feminist arguments as their best defenders would, and then to give fair criticisms. Some questions, especially the debates in Level 7, are live disputes among thoughtful people. The goal is that you can explain each position well enough that its own supporters would recognize it.

Worked example: sorting the claims

Imagine three friends arguing over dinner about a town council where women hold two of twelve seats.

Priya says: “Women are a little over half the town, but they hold one-sixth of the seats. That's a fact. And it's unfair, because voters and party leaders still don't take women candidates seriously. The parties should recruit more women.”

Tom says: “I agree it's a fact. But I'm not sure it's unfair. Maybe fewer women want to run, because council meetings are at night and many have young children. If nobody is blocking them, I don't see an injustice.”

Elena says: “If the meeting times keep mothers out, that's not just a free choice. The council could change its schedule. I'd call myself a feminist, but I don't think quotas are the answer.”

Sort the claims. The share of seats is descriptive, and all three accept it. Priya's explanation (voters and party leaders do not take women seriously) is also descriptive, but disputed; it could be tested by studying how voters respond to otherwise similar candidates. Tom's explanation (fewer women want to run) is another descriptive claim that could be tested. Whether the result is unfair, and what should be done, are normative questions.

Notice that the three may disagree less about values than they seem to. If evidence showed that night meetings were the main barrier, Tom might agree to change them. If voters were shown to be biased, he might see an injustice after all. Separating the two kinds of claim does not end the argument, but it shows where evidence can help and where the disagreement is truly about values.