STATE --> To what extent does the state have a key role in securing feminist goals?

INTRO/JUDGEMENT

AGREE —> agree that it’s possible for the state to help women through some reform

DISAGREE —> the state can’t have a KEY role as its intrinsically patriarchal

DISAGREE —> the state is unable/yet to to help ALL women to the same extent

PARA 1 - AGREE

agree that after the state has reformed (to an extent), it can help women

• all agree that the state needs to change in some way in order to enhance the position of women in society and help feminism’s goals

• liberal fems argue that although the state is often complicit in maintaining patriarchal oppression, it’s central in securing legal/political rights for women through legislation in order to battle gender inequality

• socialist fems argue that due to the state’s links with the patriarchy and capitalism, it helps in enabling the oppression of women. BUT they agree w libs that the state, after some change and reform, can improve equality between men and women

• radical fems view legal/political developments as welcome but it’s still deeply patriarchal, so needs change

• post modern fems think that if the state can try to introduce reforms to try and battle gender inequality

overall decent agreement that the state will be able to play a role in achieving feminist goals once its been reformed/changed to an extent. the extent to which that would be is up for debate

PARA 2 - DISAGREE

Radical and socialist feminists argue the state cannot fully achieve feminist goals because inequality is structurally embedded, which liberal fems disagree with

• radicals and socialists both quite critical of the state

• socialists argue that due to the state being deeply interlinked with capitalism, serving in its interests, protecting class inequalities. it oppresses women and can’t play a key role in helping feminism unless there is structural change

• radicals argue that even if the state passes reforms they dont address the fundamental problem of the systematic nature of discrimination against women. the state can’t play a role

• liberal fems would DISAGREE, arguing that the state CAN and HAS played a role (equality laws, enfranchisement etc), and the patriarchy isn’t helplessly embedded in the state. view the state as a neutral arbiter that can be reformed to protect women's rights and achieve equality

• both Millett and Rowbotham agree that the state can’t be changed by simple engagement with politicsl w Rowbotham arguing a sort of revolution is needed before the state can play any significant role

although both radical and socialist fems agree on the nature of the state and how this means it can’t play too key of a role; libs disagree on the state being intherently patriarchal

PARA 3 - DISAGREE

feminists disagree on the extent to which it can help/represent ALL women equally

• post modern fems argue that state reflects intersectional inequality. laws and institutions often reflect interests of white, male, economically privileged groups. Women experience the state differently depending on race, class and sexuality

• earlier forms of feminism, mainly liberal feminism, universalised female interests, focusing on white middle class women, and therefore overemphasised the capacity of the state to play a role in advancing the goals of feminism

• hooks criticises earlier forms of feminism for their lack of recognition of several other groups of women, advocating for legal/political equality although this wouldn’t actually benefit all women

key disagreement about whether the state can represent diverse female interests. the state currently fails to do so, so they are unable to play a key role in feminism