I’m writing this because I’m supposed to be studying but all I want to do is blog.
So I’m going to combine the two. Bear with me. You might find this boring. But if you’ve got any inclination towards feminist legal jurisprudence, then you’ll find it interesting. I’m going to tell you about the different feminist theories in relation to contemporary South Africa, as well as give as give a brief background to the history of feminism.
Feminism first saw it’s emergence with Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication on the Rights of Women, where she wrote about how women were not primitive and as less-developed than men were. Indeed, they were equal in all manner and form. We then saw Olive Schreiner releasing her ‘manifesto’ that rejected the idea of women being confined to the home and not being allowed to work. She saw this idea as being absurb, especially since most of the labour force were women in any case.
We then began to see the first wave of feminism, which was essentially a political movement. It was one that was largely spearheaded by white, educated middle-class women who were arguing for political participation. It is necessary here to note the numerous female enfranchisement movements across the world.
The second phase was more of an economic movement that developed after World War II. During the war, circumstances saw women being employed in jobs that were traditionally occupied by men. Once the men returned from the war, however, women were confined back to their homes. Women therefore started advocating for being active members in the economic labour force.
The third phase is one that is currently taking place, and one that concentrates for more on the role of women in the ’third-world.’ It focuses (I think) on how development needs to ensure participation by women, because it recognises that development is inherently linked with participation by women. (Note: really not too sure about this third phase…. And I cannot check my notes right now, for that would be cheating…)
Throughout these phases numerous branches of feminism starting appearing. It is perhaps necessary to view these theories on a scale, with radical feminism being on the more ‘leftist’ side of the spectrum, and liberal feminism being on the more… erm… ‘rightist’ side of the spectrum.
Liberal Feminism: liberal feminism is perhaps more of a conservative theory because it argues that men and women are essentially equal, and they accordingly should be treated as such. It therefore advocates for the notion of formal equality, whereby the law should view men and women as equal because they are equal. Liberal Feminism believes that discrimination of women is a result of socialisation, ie boys being brought up to believe they are stronger than girls. The theory views legal institutions as being a successful aide in remedying differences between men and women. It also views education as being a successful aide in this regard. The problem with this theory, of course, is that it doesn’t recognise the inherent differences between men and women: that women start off in a disadvantaged position because of the structure of society. It also is too trusting of legal institutions, that other feminists say is too masculine in its outlook and therefore will not remedy differences between men and women.
In South Africa, you can see how female judges in particular have been sympathetic towards female accused. In the case of S v Engelbrecht, Judge Satchwell (a fabulous lesbian High Court judge) found that Mrs Engelbrecht had exhausted all her legal remedies to stop her husband from abusing her. She had eventually killed me because she saw no way out. The court, instead of just viewing the matter as a simple murder trial, recognised that the position that she, as a woman, found herself in in society. Accordingly, Satchwell convicted her to a jail term lasting until the rising of the court – meaning that once court had adjourned, she was free to go. THREE CHEERS for Satchwell!!! 
A male judge would not likely to have taken those factors into account, and indeed our legislation at the time did not even deal with domestic violence, nor did it say that it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing.
Radical Feminism: Radical feminism says that because legal institutions are too ‘masculine,’ you need to take proactive steps in uplifting women to positions of equality, ie affirmative action. Law needs to be seen from a gender perspective, and should not be ‘By men, for men, but about women.’ It is therefore silly to expect legal institutions to adopt gender-empowering views, because this can really be done by women – they argue that only women are affected by abortion, by domestic violence, rape laws etc. They therefore believe in small-scale engagement with the law, because the law doesn’t really help them anyway. They believe in completely transforming legal institutions by proactively taking steps in empower women. They therefore believe in the concept of substantive equality, which recognises that women are at an inherent disadvantage and therefore must be elevated to positions of equality with men in order for the differences between men and women to be eradicated.
In South Africa, I believe our courts have been more favourable towards radical feminism. Our constitutional jurisprudence has embraced substantive equality, as can be seen in Harksen v Lane, our seminal case on equality, as well as government initiatives to empower women and ensure gender equality. However, there are still instances where our courts have not been as ‘radical’ as one may think them to be, as will be seen below. And indeed, in popular culture, women are still very much seen as being ‘below’ men: examples include nightclubs charging men a higher entrance-fee than ladies (I boycott such clubs on principle). This creates the idea that men must chaperone women. Must they, really? Or the directors of a lesbian pornographic movie scheduled to show at the Out In Africa Film Festival banning men from three of the performances out of fear that you’re going to get a whole bunch of slobbering straight men pitching up to watch the film. Clearly, women are very much seen as sexual objects for men, and not as being sexual ‘objects’ in their own right.
Marxist Feminism: Marxist feminism views gender oppression as being a direct result of class struggle. They argue that if there weren’t any differences between classes, then there wouldn’t be any gender discrimination. I do not agree with this approach, however, because whilst it might take care of economic and political discrimination, it does not provide for discrimination by men on a ‘personal’ level.
Socialist Feminism: This theory says that society + gender = gender discrimination. Bozzoli describes it as being a patchwork quilt of patriarchy, meaning (I think) that patriarchy is patched together in society to form gender discrimination. Not too sure about this one, though.
Both Marxist and Socialist theory could perhaps be interpreted in light of South Africa, in that the migrant system of labour during apartheid was very much a masculine construct, and one that left women back home in the ‘bantustans.’ As a result, the legacy remains of men going to work and women staying at home.
Relational Feminism: This feminism is more of a… ‘motherly’ type of feminism. It recognises that law is a masculine concept, and that it needs to be understood from a feminine understanding – not a feminist understanding, but a feminine one. They believe that women are more nurturing and caring than men are, and have a far more mature sense of ethics too. Robin West talks about the ‘connection thesis’ that says that women are more connected to human life than men are. The critique of this theory is that it plays into stereotypical constructs of women, and is essentialist in that it disregards the views of women who are not of the…. ‘nurturing’ or ‘ethical’ kind.
One can see the aspect of this thinking in the case of S v Jordan, where the Constitutional Court unfortunately took quite a moralistic and high-ground approach towards prostitution. It held that prostitutes degrade themselves through their own actions, and not by how society viewed them. The court seemed to hold that a women’s place is in the home and to produce offspring. Prostitution went against this, and for this reason too, it was morally reprehensible. Surely therefore the court played into sterotypical constructs of women, and said that women need to be more ethical and nurturing? Indeed the court didn’t make a moral judgement about men who pay for the sex, but they did make a moral judgement against women who sell themselves, because for women to do this was just plain incorrect.
Postmodernist Feminism: This form of feminism is closely related to Queer Legal Theory because of it’s rejection of the classification of women. It seeks to unbox traditional stereotypes of women and see all women as being individuals. It holds that the law shapes women into homogenous categories, and that these must be deconstructed. Law and society assume that women are a particular way, and women believe this because that is just what’s done. It would therefore reject classifications of a feminine women being straight. It would further reject classifications of that women (if she weren’t actually heterosexual) being a ‘lipstick lesbian.’ The problem with this theory is that it deconstructs identities, but once we have done that, our natural inclination as human beings is to give the person a new identity. Our sense of reason and order (see the post, ‘Piling and Filing’ below) makes us want to categorise things. Postmodernist theory does, however, play an important role in rejecting gender stereotypes and I believe goes a long towards gender empowerment.
I think our courts have largely been cogniscant of boxing all people, and the fact that our gay and lesbian jurisprudence recognises the plethora of families that are present in South Africa perhaps leads us to believe that courts are willing to unbox and recognise the individuals within.
Critical Race Feminism: This form of feminism responds to other forms of feminism as being too exclusionary, in that it only really looks at matters from a white, middle class and educated female perspective. Patricia Collins talks about the ‘matrix of discrimination’ that is inherent in the experiences of black women, who suffer prejudice not only as women, but as black persons.
In South Africa, Albertyn talks about how black domestic workers suffer a form of double discrimination: on the one hand, they are classed into a category that discriminates against them on the basis of race. On the other hand, they are also discriminated on the basis of gender too because they are seen as being worthy only of looking after the home etc. Of course, this is all generally speaking, but numerous references to such women as being ‘the girl’ talk about how they are seen as being unworthy individuals incapable of being on a par with white South Africans OR white women.
Conclusion:
The above views all reflect that women are still at a disadvantage in society. I think that perhaps each approach has it’s own role in eliminiating gender discrimination, although I’m a little circumspect about Relational Feminisim.
And that’s where I’ll end off. Crap conclusion, but I’m rather tired. Zzzzz.
I’ll end off with these pictures too!!
From http://wc.studentaffairs.duke.edu/wc/programs/major_events/five_women.html
Five Women @ Duke
In spring 2006, members of the Women’s Center staff “discovered” a treasure that had been hiding in the Duke University Archives: two photos with the title “Five Women,” one taken in 1946 and the other 1976, each a group portrait of five Duke women taken near Clock Tower Quad. Other than the backdrop of gothic architecture and the overall concept of a photo of five women, the images couldn’t be more different. The 1946 photo depicts five white women in pinafores, smiling and looking to the left, posed as if stepping forward; the 1976 photo shows four white women and one African American woman standing much closer together, looking at each other, and wearing—exactly what you would expect from a college campus in the 1970’s. Especially poignant is that the African American woman, Goldie Evans, was the Union’s bookkeeper–a staff member–while the others in the photo were students involved in the Union.
1946, 1976, 2006…it’s time for another “Five Women” photo. At this moment in Duke’s history, however, it seems especially important that we acknowledge the wonderfully diverse community of women at Duke—including staff, faculty, and both graduate and undergraduate students—by providing an opportunity for multiple images to be created. In that spirit, the Women’s Center and the Mary Lou Williams Center for Black Culture invite all members of the Duke community to participate in a photo exhibit and contest. The exhibit will open at the Porch Gallery at the Center for Documentary Studies on March 21, 2007.
Hope you didn’t find it too boring. It’ll certainly help me in my exam tomorrow morning!
p.s. I have problably made countless grammatical errors in this piece. Please ignore them. Thank you. And have a nice day. I love you, and I wish to produce your babies.
