AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

ISSN Print: 2156-1540, ISSN Online: 2151-1559, doi:10.5251/ajsms.2014.5.2.33.38

© 2014, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS

A critique of feminism
Bisong, Peter Bisong and Samuel Aloysius Ekanem
Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar Calabar – Nigeria

ABSTRACT
Feminists are on a daily basis transforming the way women are viewed in the world. Today,
thanks to the effort of the feminists, women are no longer seen as good only for the kitchen and
the bed. They have been liberated from the shackles that held them bound to the homes. We see
them now everywhere, contributing their quota to the development of the society. While this is
commendable, this paper sees some demands of the feminists as too extravagant, destructive
and unfounded. If these demands are attained it would have dysfunctional effects on both the
women and the society at large. This paper using critical reasoning is therefore, aimed at showing
the feminists where they got it right and more especially where they got it wrong. They got it right
when they demand for freedom from all forms of discriminations and when they campaign for
their inalienable rights but they got it wrong when they seek political, economic and social
equality. These rights are alienable and thus cannot be granted but attained. The rights that are
fundamentally human, can be granted but there are others that can only be developed by the
individual. The feminists are wrong to demand for such rights. The feminists are therefore advised
to work hard to attain equality, for it is a product of hard work and not something that is to be
granted. However, while working to attain this equality they should be mindful of the
consequences of this struggle.
KEYWORDS” FEMINISM, CRITIQUE

INTRODUCTION that they were in, as a result of societal imbalance.

Feminist activists take campaign for women's rights
as their central aim. These rights include: right to
enter into contract, right to own property, right to
voting, rights to bodily integrity, autonomy, and
reproductive rights amongst others. These Feminist
campaigns are yielding enormous results; for there
have transformed the societal structure, especially in
the West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender
neutrality in English, equal pay, reproductive rights
for women, and the right to enter into contracts and
own property (Butler, 30). Feminists have also helped
to protect women and girls from domestic violence,
sexual harassment, and sexual assault.They have
also advocated for and gained workplace rights, like;
maternity leave, and discrimination against women
(Messer-Davidow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism). In Africa
feminists have achieved much in areas like; female
circumcision and genital mutilation, widowhood, girl-
child education et cetera.
From the foregoing therefore, it could be said without
mincing words that feminism has actually achieved
much in the liberation of women from the shackles
However, although Feminism is mainly focused on
women's issues, it has perhaps unknowingly, also
liberated men from some of the burdens placed on
them by the societal structure. According to Gloria
Jean Watkinsbut popularly known as Bell Hooks,
because feminism seeks gender equality, men's
liberation is a necessary part of feminism, since men
are also harmed by sexism and gender roles
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism).
This paper avers that in spite of the achievement and
importance of the feminist movement in the
reshaping of our society, it still needs to be looked at
with critical eyes. This paper therefore, raises some
criticisms and pointed some dangers to be posed to
the society if the demands of feminism are totally
met.
Meaning of feminism: Feminism according to the
Meridian-Webster Dictionary refers to the theory of
the political, economic, and social equality of the
sexes. Thus feminism is a collection of movements
and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and
defending equal political, economic, and social rights
for women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism).

Feminism, describes a culture in which women,
because they are women, are treated differently than
men, and that, in this difference of treatment, women
are at a disadvantage. Feminism asserts, that such
treatment stems from culture and thus possible to
change and not simply "the way the world is and
must be". Feminism therefore, sees a different culture
as a possibility, and strives towards the attainment of
that culture. A feminist according to The Oxford
English Dictionary is therefore, "an advocate or
supporter of the rights and equality of women"
(Online Ed.).
History of feminist movement: The Utopian
Socialist and French philosopher Charles Fourier is
credited with having originated the word "feminism" in
1837 (Goldstein, 92). The words "feminism" and
"feminist" is purported to have first appeared in
France and the Netherlands in 1872, Great Britain in
the 1890s, and the United States in 1910 (Cott, 13).
The Oxford English Dictionary lists 1894 as the year
of the first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for
"feminism". During much of its history, feminist
movements and its theoretical developments were
driven mainly by middle-class white women from
Western Europe and North America. However,
women of other races also proposed their own
variants of feminism (Walker 37).
Traditionally, the history of feminism is divided into
the three waves of feminism. The first wave of
feminism hits the world in the nineteenth and early
parts of the twentieth century. This wave of feminism
tackled issues like: contractual rights and property
rights for women, opposition to chattel marriage,
women suffrage and the treatment of women as
properties. The second wave of feminism span the
period of 1960 to 1980s. The main demands of this
wave include: civil rights, sexual liberation, childcare,
health, welfare, education, work and reproductive
rights. This wave of feminism specifically campaigned
against social and cultural stereotyping of the female
gender as only good for the kitchen and bed. They
therefore advocated for equal rights for both women
and men to pursue a career of their choice. Thus,
while first-wavers focused on absolute rights, such as
suffrage, second-wavers largely concentrated on
other issues of equality, such as the end to
discrimination
The Third-wave of feminism began in the early
1990s, continuing the campaign of the second wave
and also amending its perceived failures. The third-
wave feminists seek to challenge or avoid what it
deems the second wave's "essentialist" definitions of
34
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 33-38
femininity, which (according to them) over-
emphasized the experiences of upper middle class
white women. The third wave therefore expanded
their ideology to cover; race, gender and feminism.
The wave also witnessed the involvement of different
shades of feminism from different societies and
culture. They argue that the feminist movement
should address global issues (such as rape, incest,
and prostitution) and culturally specific issues (such
as female genital mutilation in some parts of Africa
and the Middle East and glass ceiling practices that
impede women's advancement in developed
economies) in order to understand how gender
inequality interacts with racism, homophobia,
classism and colonization in a "matrix of domination
(Harding 12). Third-wave feminism also contains
internal debates between difference feminists, who
believe that there are important differences between
the sexes, and those who believe that there are no
inherent differences between the sexes and contend
that gender roles are due to social conditioning
(Galligan, 184).
Kinds of feminism: There are several variants of
feminism; we would however briefly discuss the most
popular ones. There include:
Liberal Feminism: Liberal feminism advocates for
equality between men and women through political
and legal reforms without altering the structure of
society. This variety of feminism works within the
structure of mainstream society to integrate women
into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social
contract theory of government instituted by the
American Revolution.
Radical Feminism: Radical feminism sees the male-
controlled capitalist hierarchy as the root cause of
women's oppression and thus advocates for a total
uprooting and reconstruction of society (Echol,
416). The reason this group gets the "radical" label is
that they view the oppression of women as the most
fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across
boundaries of race, culture, and economic
class. This is a movement intent on social change.
Cultural Feminism: As radical feminism died out as
a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. As various
1960s movements for social change fell apart or got
co-opted, some people got pessimistic about the very
possibility of social change. Many of them therefore,
turned their attention from radical feminism to
building alternatives, so that if they couldn't change
the dominant society, they could at least avoid it as
much as possible. These alternative-building efforts

were accompanied with reasons justifying the
abandonment of working for social change. Notions
that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are
one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and
remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by
some cultural feminists is that while various sex
differences might not be biologically determined, they
are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable.
Marxist and Socialist Feminism: Marxist feminism
recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes
the oppression to the capitalist/private property
system. Thus, they insist that the only way to end the
oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist
system. Socialist feminism distinguishes itself from
Marxist feminism by arguing that women's liberation
can only be achieved by working to end both the
economic and cultural sources of women's
oppression(Ehrereichhttp://www.feministezine.com/fe
minist/modern/socialist-feminism.html).
Eco-Feminism: Ecofeminists see men's control of
land as responsible for the oppression of women and
destruction of the natural environment. This branch of
feminism is much more spiritual than political. Its
basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will always
exploit its resources without regard to long term
consequences as a direct result of the attitudes
fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical
society. Parallels are often drawn between society's
treatment of the environment, animals, or resources
and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal
culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting
plundering and destroying the Earth
(http://www.landfield.com/faqs/feminism/).
Critique of feminism: This work agrees with some
important ideas of feminism; there are a lot of
ideologies of the feminists that are faultless and just,
there include: (1) some masculine and feminine
behaviours are not simply determined by biology but
by socialization. (2) Women have suffered variously
from different kinds of oppression and mistreatment
throughout the course of history; this oppression is
unjust and dehumanizing. (3) Males sometimes have
unjust advantage over the female. (4) Pornography is
damaging to both it users and its participants – it is
dehumanising. (5) Beauty standards and
objectification can be damaging to female self-
esteem. (6) Patriarchy is damaging to both the
female and the male alike.
We acknowledge the contribution of the feminists in
curbing the above societal injustice. Today because
of the effort of feminism, women are better
35
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 33-38
appreciated and accommodated than they used to be
in time past. More women are today asserting
themselves in all spheres of life imparting their
hitherto hidden treasures (talents) to the lubrication of
the wheels of societal development. The society in
this last decade has therefore, benefited
tremendously from the efforts of the women, thanks
to the campaign of feminism. However, in spite of the
seeming contributions of feminism to the
development of the society, it is not without criticisms.
These criticisms are as follows:
Feminism does not have a sound basis: The
central tenet on which feminism built its argument is
that both the male and female gender are equal.
Since they are equal by nature, they share the same
rights and privileges. But the question is; what is the
basis for the postulation that the male and female
genders are equal. Are they equal because they
share the same human nature? If this is so, then
animals could also claim to be equal with human
since, they share the same ‘animality’ with the
humans. Even the stones and other non-living things
could have a claim for equality, since there share the
same existence with human. If the feminists are right
to claim, that the both sexes are equal because they
share the same nature; the same argument could be
used to justify our equality with the animals, the
plants and the non-living things. This argument by the
feminist is clearly faulty, since the conclusion does
not follow from the premises, sharing the same
nature does not preclude equality. Where then lies
the basis of the equality claim by the feminists; if we
postulate rationality as the basis, the animals could
also point to something (like sensibility) there share in
common with humans as a basis for equality, and the
stones could also do the same. For me sharing in a
feature does not tantamount to sharing in equality.
Although the male and female gender share some
features in common; that does not make them equal.
The animal and the human also share a lot of
features in common which also does not make them
equal like some animal right activists would claim.
The conclusion derived from here is that the feminists
have no sound basis for their argument for equality.
Also, if there is no basis, for the claim of equality,
then there can be no basis for the feminists’ agitation
for equal opportunities. How can opportunities be
equal if we are not equal? The feminists are
therefore, challenged to provide a sound rational
basis for their claims.
The demand for equal opportunities in itself is an
admittance of inequality: An equal does not beg to

be equal; his equality would shine for all to see. The
male and female were created the same time, how
come it is the female who is struggling to be equal.
Why was it the female that was subjugated and not
the male? And why was this scenario evident in all
societies of the world? Why was it the female sex that
was subjugated in all societies of the world? It is clear
to me that the male has something inbuilt in them that
make them occupy the position they take in any
relationship they enter with the female. It is my belief
that even if the world should be destroyed and
recreated, the male would still rise and dominate the
female. This is because, even though the male and
female share the same substance (nature), they differ
in accidents (characteristics). It is this accidental
difference that gives the man the leverage over the
female. Nature created the man more free than the
woman. The woman is chained down by a lot of
manacles like; menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth,
child rearing et cetera. Thus as long as the female
sex continues to carry these chains around, they can
never claim to be completely equal with the male sex.
No wonder some avowed feminists are refusing
marriage to avoid suffering subjugation. This actually
has little effect, because the male would still have
advantage over the female even if there are no
marriages to limit the female. This advantage would
come from the brute strength a male has over the
female. This brute strength enables a man to do a lot
of things the woman cannot do. Thus whether the
chains that inhibit a woman are removed, she may
still find herself struggling to catch up with the man as
a result of differences in brute strength.
Feminism demands are too extravagant: Feminists
demand equal economic, political and social
opportunities of the male and female sexes. This
seems to be contrary to Nature’s design; for it was
not for nothing that she gifted the male folks with
more potential, needed to take the upper hand in the
struggle to acquire these opportunities. This Nature’s
gift to man, is actually the reason the male are
dominating these opportunities even when both the
male and female sexes were created the same time.
Since in the beginning of time, these opportunities
were open and equal for all sexes, it is clear
therefore, that the male got to his present position
now through Nature’s grand design. Even when
opportunities are made equal, a man because he is
more gifted by nature would always win a race, no
matter how much the rest may run. If we observe the
male and female sexes critically, we will discover the
intent of nature for each of them. To each of the
sexes, nature has assigned a primary role. To the
36
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 33-38
woman, it has assigned reproductive duties; this is
evident from the reproduction functions she is gifted
with. The woman is fashioned in such a way that, she
has to carry a baby for nine months before delivery.
After delivery she would be confined for several
months nursing the baby. It is clear from this
arrangement of nature that economic activities were
not to be the primary responsibility of the female.
Nature would not have intended this for her and at
the same time still restrain her so much by pregnancy
and child rearing. If nature had intended this to be her
primary duty, then she would have fashioned her like
some animals that would deliver and in few minutes
the baby would be strong and need little or no
parental care. Unlike these animals, the human baby
needs constant nurturing for several years before it
could be independent. And without being bias, it is
clearly the intent of nature that this nurturing should
be the primary responsibility of the female. Being
gifted with the mammary gland is one clear sign that
nature intents her to nurture the infant. It is rationally
impossible for her to nurture her baby well and still
take economic activities as her primary responsibility.
Since nature has not made the female in such a way
that she would be capable all round the clock to be
economically active, then it is clear that, it is the man
who has been entrusted with this responsibility as his
primary duty. The man is free and not inhibited by
nature and thus quite able to provide for himself and
the female at her point of inactivity. If this is so, why
would feminists want to thwart Nature’s design by
demanding an equal share in the primary
responsibility that has been entrusted to men? This
demand for equal economic opportunities is simply
outrageous! Is it justified? They could at most
demand for a share in economic opportunities and
not an equal share in it. This demand for equal
opportunities would require an employer who enters
into business to make profit, not be entitled to select
employees that would best guarantee his attainment
of that dream. Why should he be forced to give equal
opportunities to the female, when we all know the
woman is likely not to give the same output like the
male? The chains that entangle a woman as we have
already discussed would set in, diminishing her
output. For instance, when a woman gives birth, the
employer would be forced to give her maternity leave
for some months. Is this not loss of labour hours?
Who bears the cost of this loss, – the employer. Is
this loss being forced on the employer justified? Is it
justified for a woman to receive the same salary as
the man, even when it is obvious that the man
contributes more labour? It seems to me that the man

is not treated fairly here. The feminists seem to have
pushed the woman to the position of advantage over
the man as regards work and payment. However,
even if (as it is already being done in the world)
economic opportunities are opened and made equal
for everybody, the female folk would still not be able
to compete equally with the male because of the
accidental advantage a man has been gifted by
nature over the woman. The natural chains the
woman carry would always drag her behind. The
freedom the man possesses plus his superior brute
strength would still make him economically superior.
This is clear from the fact that even though there is in
existence today, that equality of economic
opportunities the feminists have always craved for,
the male are still the most economically vibrant – a
list of the richest people in the world would show this.
For a woman to be completely economically equal
with the man, she would need to abdicate her
womanhood. The same goes with political and social
equality. Since the woman might not be able to be
economically equal with the man, she may also never
be politically equal with the man. This is because
political power is to a large extent derived from
economic power and to a certain extent derived from
military power. The man has more economic power
than the woman and of course more brute (military)
power. This is perhaps why in Nigeria; no female has
ever won a governorship election since the inception
of democracy in 1999, even when political
opportunities are freely and equally opened to all the
sexes. The demand for equal economic and political
opportunities seems to me to be a demand that may
never be attained, no matter how hard the feminist
may struggle to grasp it. This demand entails fair
competition for available opportunities by both sexes
– males have more chances of winning the
competition because of the advantages (freedom and
strength) nature has blessed them with.
Feminism is indirectly a shot at the woman:
Feminism claims to be fighting for the rights of
women but when these rights are attained, I believe it
is the women that will be at the losing end. I said
earlier on that the patriarchal structuring of the
society limits not only the woman; it is rather more
damaging to male folks. Patriarchy demands too
much from the males, leading them to take more risk
than the females; this risk translates to more death of
the male folk than the female.. In Africa for instance,
a young man would be expected to pay the bride
price and provide funds for traditional and church
weddings. He would be expected to own a house and
perhaps a car. He would need to provide a decent life
37
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 33-38
for his family; pay school fees and other bills. All
these for an average Nigerian are not things that are
easily attainable. Thus the average male in Africa
would have to work very hard to be able to achieve
this. And in a lot of occasions, (no matter how hard
one works) these are not achieved by a lot of them,
making them to resort to arm robberies, kidnappings,
bombings and other risky and dehumanising ways of
getting money. Some die while trying to get this
money, others are maimed and still others suffer from
one or more sicknesses which result from frustrations
and worry. I believe that if the feminists work hard to
achieve equality for all genders, then this strain on
men would reduce. At least the feminist would soon
realize that one major cause of their subjugation by
men is the bride price system. The male sees himself
as the head of the family and the female as
somebody under him, since he is the one that did all
the paying. I am of the belief that very soon, the
bride-price system would be abolished or at best
adjusted so as the female and the male would
contribute equally to it. This would be one big step to
getting equality and I believe the indefatigable female
activists would soon realize it and campaign against
it. The abolishment of dowry system and all other
responsibilities that is heaped on the man by the
society would bring true equality between the
genders – this also would liberate the man, while
attaching additional strings to the already loaded
female. It is my belief that true equality would favour
the male more. It is like making a ten years boy to run
the same distance like a twenty five year old boy. The
small boy would feel the strain more than the big boy.
It also follows that when the society makes the
female and the male equal, the female would feel the
strain more. The female is not as strong and free as
the male, what the male can achieve at a given time,
the female would need to strain more to achieve that
same feat at the same time. By craving for gender
equality, the female are therefore, doing a disservice
to themselves. Patriarchy, the feminists are fighting
against, has provided enough for female protection, if
they destroy it as they will, judging by the way they
are going, the females would be more vulnerable to
death and other ailments than they are presently.
Patriarchy provides for instance, that in a taxi, the
male should be the one to sit nearer the door
allowing the woman to sit inside; this is aimed at
protecting the woman in cases of accident. This
arrangement is evident in all spheres of relationships
between the man and the woman. The man is
supposed to take the riskier jobs and positions and
the woman would take the less risky ones. This is

why the men die more than the women. However, the
females are trying to overturn this arrangement, is it
not a shot at the self? It is postulated that we have
more women than men now, but I know in the near
future with the trend the feminists are going, that the
reverse would be the case. Women are increasingly
beginning to refuse protection.
Feminism corrodes the family system: The worth
of informal education to a child is invaluable. This
education is better done before the formal education.
This will help the family values to be inculcated in the
child. The woman is more fitted to perform this role
since she is closer to the child in its infancy than the
man. The rise of feminism, which has seen the
women rushing out to work almost immediately after
delivery, is gradually throwing aboard, the rich benefit
of informal education to the child; the family and the
society at large. The fate of the children is now made
to rest on the shoulders of strangers (teachers),
thanks to the handiwork of feminism. A woman
abandons the primary duty she is gifted by Nature
with, in pursuit of the primary duty of a man (equal
economic opportunities). This would result to the
child growing up with wild ideas extraneous to the
family value system. The Bible’s admonition that we
should train up a child the way he should go, so that
when it grows up it would not depart from it, is now
falling on deaf ears – the father and the mother are
out there in the field muscling it out for equal
economic, political and social opportunities. I know
scientists would soon come up with an experiment
that would measure the effect; this would have on the
child as well as the society at large.
Evaluation and conclusion: Every human in so far
as he/she is a human has rights. The female as a
member of the human species has inalienable rights.
There is nothing wrong in fighting for such rights. But
when the fight goes beyond the ring, it may
tantamount to a destruction of the self. Fighting for
rights is different from fighting for equality. Having the
same rights does not amount to equality. We could
demand for rights and not equality. Equality is not
something we demand for, rather it is something we
must work for, if we must achieve it. This is because
equality is not a result of our existence but lies in our
essence (how we develop ourselves). Thus to gain
equality we need to work out our essence to
correspond to that of the person you want to be equal
with. The woman must work out her essence to
correspond to that of a man if she desires equality
and need not just sit and cry for it. If I want to be
equal to a first class student for instance, I would only
38
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 33-38
need to work hard. I may not be a natural first class
brain but I can work hard to attain a first class
degree. I would not attain this first class like the other
student if I just sit and cry for equality. The male is
like the natural first class. The female would need to
work hard to attain that first class if she desires it.
The man is gifted by nature more than the female
with those qualities needed for easy success in life.
The female is limited in this aspect by nature, but can
attain it by sheer hard work. A man through hard
exercise could become equal or ‘more equal’ to
someone who was naturally stronger than him. The
female could also attain her goal through like means.
But while doing this (striving for equality), it should be
kept in mind that there are consequences. It would be
better to work within the bounds of one’s nature, than
to attempt to work in another’s. A goat is happy
because it is content in being a goat. But when it
attempts to become a dog, it is indirectly driving away
its happiness. A woman can never attain happiness if
she struggles to become equal to a man and likewise
the man. Each of them would do better if they
operate by the bounds set for them by nature.
REFERENCES
Barbara Ehrenreich. (2013). What is Socialist Feminism".
http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/socialist
-feminism.html. Retrieved 27 April, 2013.
Butler, Judith (March 1992). Feminism in Any Other Name.
Differences 6 (2–3): 30.
Cott, N. F. 1987. The Grounding of Modern Feminism. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1987 at 13-5.
Echols, A. (1989). Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in
America, 1967–1975. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press. p. 416.
Goldstein, L. (1982). Early Feminist Themes in French
Utopian Socialism: The St.-Simonians and Fourier,
Journal of the History of Ideas, vol.43, No. 1.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: psychological
theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. p.184.
Harding, S. (2003). The Feminist Standpoint Theory
Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies.
London: Routledge. pp. 1–16, 67–80.
Messer-Davidow, E. (2002). Disciplining Feminism: From
Social Activism to Academic Discourse. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-2843-7.
Oxford English Dictionary (2012). (online ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Walker, A. (1983). In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens:
Womanist Prose. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich. p. 397.