Two modes of argumentation have been used onbehalf of women's emancipation in Western societies.Arguments in what could be called the "relational"feminist tradition maintain the doctrine of "equality indifference," or equity as distinct for equality. Theyposit that biological distinctions between the sexesresult in a necessary sexual division of labor in thefamily and throughout society and that women's procreative labor is currently undervalued by society, tothe disadvantage of women. By contrast, the individualist feminist tradition emphasizes individual human rightsand celebrates women's quest for personal autonomy,while downplaying the importance of gender roles andminimizing discussion of childbearing and its attendantresponsibilities.
Before the late nineteenth century, these viewscoexisted within the feminist movement, often withinthe writings of the same individual. Between 1890 nd1920, however, relational feminism, which had been thedominant strain in feminist thought, and which still predominates among European and non-Western feminists,lost ground in England and the United States. Becausethe concept of individual rights was already well established in the Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition,individualist feminism came to predominate in Englishspeaking countries. At the same time, the goals of thetwo approaches began to seem increasingly irreconcilable. Individualist feminists began to advocate a totallygender-blind system with equal rights for all. Relationalfeminists, while agreeing that equal educational andeconomic opportunities outside the home should be available for all women, continued to emphasize women'sspecial contributions to society as homemakers andmothers; they demanded special treatmentincluding protective legislation for women workers,state-sponsored maternity benefits, and paid compensation for housework.Relational arguments have a major pitfall: becausethey underline women's physiological and psychologicaldistinctiveness, they are often appropriated by politicaladversaries and used to endorse male privilege. But theindividualist approach, by attacking gender roles, denying the significance of physiological difference, andcondemning existing familial institutions as hopelesslypatriarchal, has often simply treated as irrelevant thefamily roles important to many women. If the individualist framework, with its claim for women's autonomy,could be harmonized with the family-oriented concernsof relational feminists, a more fruitful model for contemporary feminist politics could emerge.
Before the late nineteenth century, these viewscoexisted within the feminist movement, often withinthe writings of the same individual. Between 1890 nd1920, however, relational feminism, which had been thedominant strain in feminist thought, and which still predominates among European and non-Western feminists,lost ground in England and the United States. Becausethe concept of individual rights was already well established in the Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition,individualist feminism came to predominate in Englishspeaking countries. At the same time, the goals of thetwo approaches began to seem increasingly irreconcilable. Individualist feminists began to advocate a totallygender-blind system with equal rights for all. Relationalfeminists, while agreeing that equal educational andeconomic opportunities outside the home should be available for all women, continued to emphasize women'sspecial contributions to society as homemakers andmothers; they demanded special treatmentincluding protective legislation for women workers,state-sponsored maternity benefits, and paid compensation for housework.Relational arguments have a major pitfall: becausethey underline women's physiological and psychologicaldistinctiveness, they are often appropriated by politicaladversaries and used to endorse male privilege. But theindividualist approach, by attacking gender roles, denying the significance of physiological difference, andcondemning existing familial institutions as hopelesslypatriarchal, has often simply treated as irrelevant thefamily roles important to many women. If the individualist framework, with its claim for women's autonomy,could be harmonized with the family-oriented concernsof relational feminists, a more fruitful model for contemporary feminist politics could emerge.