By Ismail
Adam Patel
THE
FEMINIST MOVEMENT

---

It is very important
to
study and understand the feminist movement, because it claims to
represent
the emancipation and welfare of women in these times. A need to
appraise
its logic, practical implications and viability is required, all of
which
will be addressed in this chapter.

The word “feminism”
itself
is very subjective and has been used indiscriminately, which has led to
a certain measure of confusion and the existence of several
definitions.
Among the current definitions of feminism are:

Any
groups that
have tried to
change the position of women, or the ideas about women, have been
granted
the title of feminist.

• • • A doctrine
      advocating social
      and political rights equal to those of men.

• • • Feminism means
      we seek for women
      the same opportunities and privileges the society gives to men, or that
      we assert the distinctive value of womanhood against patriarchal
      denigration.
      While these positions need not be mutually exclusive, there is a strong
      tendency to make them so. Either we want to be like men or we don’t.

• Feminists must not
  only work
  towards the elimination of male privileges but the sex distinction
  itself;
  genital differences between human beings would no longer matter
  culturally.
  The tyranny of the biological family would be broken and with it the
  psychology
  of power.

The emergence of
feminism
in
the West was mainly due to the dual standards of law in favour of men,
which were based on the teachings of Christianity. The earliest
feminist
campaigners demanded an end to the double standard of sexual morality,l
but this did not mean that they sought an overall lowering of moral
standards:
the early feminists saw chastity not as oppressive, but as both natural
and necessary.

Until fairly
recently,
Western
political systems were open to men only (and there were restrictions on
precisely which men were allowed to take part, namely socio-economic
class).
Women had no say whatsoever. The suffragettes campaigned for women’s
rights
to vote and participate in the political process.

As late as the
nineteenth
century, oppressive marriage laws were still restricting women with
regard
to earnings. In the event of a divorce, women were further humiliated
by
being denied access to their children and being cut off from any source
of maintenance. The divorce laws were heavily biased in favour of men.

The development of
the
factory
system drew women out of the home, and the oppression perpetrated by
employers
who saw women as cheap labour led to the emergence of a women’s
movement
that demanded equal pay and fair treatment. The struggle for equal pay
lasted ostensibly until 1975, when a law was finally passed in Britain.
However, as women are still being exploited in the work place, and it
is
not unknown for women to be paid less than men for the same work, the
struggle
is clearly not yet over.

The existence of all
these
oppressive laws and practices led to omen coming together to demand
equal
rights and justice. However, as time passed, capitalism and men in
positions
of power diverted Western women onto a different track. The early
feminists’
attack on injustice evolved into a movement in which women looked at
and
accused themselves. So what began with a struggle to change society’s
(in
most cases, men’s) attitudes and laws ended up changing women, arguably
to the delight of men.

The feminist movement
has
become an academic quagmire which has spawned nearly a dozen schools of
thought. These may be grouped under the headings of Marxist (or
Socialist),
Liberal, Sexual and Radical feminism. These will be examined and their
theories and practical implications discussed.

MARXIST
FEMINISM

The socialist or
Marxist
tradition has its roots in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
However, the idea of socialism predates both, and had already been in
circulation
among philosophers, economists and politicians. The thought of Marx and
Engels is exemplified in the following quotation:

“As individuals
express
their
life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their
production,
both with what they produce and with how they produce. Hence what
individuals
are depends on the material conditions of their production”.’

Marx’s concept of
labour
and value may be summarised as follows: The value and power of labour
contained
within this product can be realized only if others want the commodity -
if it has an exchange value in the marketplace. In return for such
productive
labour, the worker receives a wage, which has within it two components
- one a measure of profit or the surplus value appropriated by the
capitalist,
and the other, the product of necessary labour, is used by the workers
to sustain themselves, their family and the next generation. Marx’s
depiction
of capitalism includes a further class, a group which is only tenuously
linked to the production process at any given time: the unemployed, the
immigrant workers, and the women (italics mine). This group
comprises
various parts of the reserve army of labour ready to be mobilised when
production needs to be expanded rapidly, and then demobilised during
times
of recession.

Marxist theory
emphasises
the idea that what makes us human is the fact that we produce our means
of subsistence. We are what we are because of what we do or, more
specifically,
what we do to meet our basic needs in productive activities. What is
distinctive
about Marxist feminism is that it invites every woman, whether
proletarian
or bourgeois, to understand women’s oppression not so much as the
result
of the intentional actions of individuals, but as the product of the
political,
social and economic structures associated with capitalism.

Prior to the
introduction
of industrial capitalism, the family or household was the site of
production.
Parents, children and relatives all worked together to produce whatever
was needed for the family’s survival. Women’s work – planting,
preserving,
canning, cooking, weaving, sewing, childbearing and childrearing – was
as essential to the economic activity and success of the family unit as
was the work of men. But with industrialisation and the transfer of
production
from the home to the factory or other public workplace, women who for
the
most part did not enter the public workplace, at least in the
beginning-
came to be viewed as “non productive,” in contrast to “productive” wage
earning men.

This is basically
Engels’
theory of the cause of women’s inferior status, which he blamed on the
capitalist system, the family and marriage. In order to bring about an
end to the oppression of women, Engels proposed extending legal
equality
to women and then introducing them en masse to the workplace.
Such
a move would be a prelude to the alliance of all women with the working
class to socialise the means of production, abolish private property,
and
usher in an age of monogamous sexual love.

It was thought that
women’s
primary oppression lay in their role as unpaid domestic workers. This
analysis
implies that the benefits to male wage earners directly offset the
disadvantage
inherent in their class position. This points to one solution: the
abolition
of housework as it is now known.

What angered Marxist
women
most about women under capitalism was the trivialization of women’s
work.
Women were increasingly regarded as mere consumers, as if the role of
men
was to earn wages and that of women was simply to spend them on “the
right
products of capitalist industry”.

A prominent Marxist
feminist,
Benston concluded that unless a woman is freed from her heavy burden of
domestic duty, including child care, her entrance into the workforce
will
be a step away from, rather than towards, liberation. Marxist women
therefore
worked towards moving the women onto the factory work floor and towards
earning a living of their own, as a means of proving independence and
equality.
Another socialist, Warrior, argued that in general, males benefit from
women’s labour and capitalist males benefit twice. Women are the source
of all labour in that they are the producers of all labourers. Their
labour
creates the first commodity, male and female labourers, who in turn
create
all other commodities and products. Men, as the ruling class, profit
from
this commodity through its labour. The male capitalist class makes a
profit
when it buys this labour power and then receives the surplus value of
its
visible economic production.

Marxist feminists
believe
that all women in the capitalist system are subordinate. Middle class
women
are subordinated in general to the men with whom they live and work,
but
as members of the middle class they enjoy material and social
advantages
over both male and female members of the working class. Working class
women,
on the other hand, bear the dual burden of their subordinate gender and
class identities. In the family, as wives and mothers, they are the
principal
reproducers of the labour power from which capitalism extracts its
surplus,
for which service they receive no payment. In addition, many of them,
even
mothers with children, are in paid employment, which permits the direct
extraction of surplus value, while the wages they earn serve to meet
family
needs, created in increasing number by capitalism itself, for which the
income of the male “breadwinner” no longer suffices.

Yet another theory
within
Marxist feminism suggests that it is not childbearing, physical
weakness
or any other presumed biologically determined differences that are the
basis of women’s subordination in capitalist societies; it is the
social
allocation to women of responsibility for children. The obstacles to
changing
this connection lie in the capitalist system of production.

In Capitalism,
the
family
and personal life, Zaretsky3 detailed Marxist feminist theory
regarding
public/private conceptualisation. She argues that patriarchal ideology
is vital in the reproduction of capitalism and further that the
illusion
of a private sphere wherein one’s “personal life” is conducted is an
integral
part of this philosophy. This introduces an entirely new factor: the
concept
of a personal life, a subjectivity that is self consciously seeking
personal
fulfilment. This had not been a factor in the analyses of non
capitalist
modes of production. Indeed, one of Zaretsky’s arguments is that this
search
is specific to capitalism.

Zaretsky has two main
arguments.
The first is that the rise of industrial capitalism promoted a new
search
for personal identity outside the social division of labour. The second
is that the expansion of this “personal life” beyond the place of work
created a new basis for women’s oppression, since the responsibility
for
maintaining a refuge from an impersonal society was given to women, or
at least to wives and mothers.

Zaretsky traces the
particular
process of the proletarianization of the pett) bourgeoisie, which gave
rise to a need for a search for personal identity outside the sphere of
work. This became increasingly so as capitalism required a rationalised
labour process undisturbed by community sentiment, family
responsibilities,
personal relations and feelings.

In 1973, Vogel
introduced
an idea that represented a shift from the original Marxist
understanding
of domestic work. Vogel wrote: “In short, domestic labour is neither
productive
nor unproductive… Women’s productive activity in the family does not
fall under the capitalist mode of production strictly defined. The
common
characteristic of women, that of being domestic labourers is
significant.
Thus women who perform domestic labour form a group whose labour is
appropriated
in a distinct way in capitalist society, in a mode of production whose
social relations differ from those of capitalist production. This means
that an autonomous women’s movement is necessary to represent the
oppression
which women share as domestic labourers”.

What Marxist
feminists
have
tried to highlight is how women’s domestic work is trivialised in
comparison
with wage-earning work, and how women are given the most boring and
low-paying
jobs.

Dallas Costa
published
an
article ‘The Power of Woman and the Subversion of the Community’ (1973)
which carried an introduction by Selma James and made the unorthodox
Marxist
claim that women’s domestic work is productive not in the colloquial
sense
of being “useful” but in the strict Marxist sense of creating surplus
value.
No women have to enter the productive labour force, for all women are
already
in it, even if no one recognises the fact. Women’s work is the
necessary
condition for all other labour, from which in turn, surplus value is
extracted.
By providing current (and future) workers not only with food and
clothes,
but also with emotional and domestic comfort, women keep the cogs of
the
capitalist machine running.

Given the view of
women’s
domestic work as productive work, a “wages for housework” campaign
painted
a picture of women who enter the public workplace as carrying a double
load which meant that the day started with paid, recognised work on the
assembly line and ended with unpaid, unrecognised work at home. The way
to end this inequity, suggested Costa and James, is for women to demand
wages for housework. They proposed that the state – not individual men
(fathers, husbands) – should pay wages to housewives.

The practical
application
of Marxism has itself dealt the death blow to its theories, for if
Marxism
truly intended to save women from oppression, then the people of the
Eastern
bloc countries would not have risen up as they did in recent years. The
failure of Marxism in Eastern Europe is sufficient proof against this
theory.
However, we should also look at some of the practical issues:

• Wages for
  housework
  is an idea
  that is neither feasible or desirable as a strategy for the liberation
  of women. It is not feasible because if the state pays wages to
  housewives,
  it will only do so in a way that preserves its own interests. The state
  would most likely impose a special tax on married men, which would be
  used
  to pay wages to their wives. Depending on how large a bite was thus
  taken
  out of the husband’s income – and there is reason to believe that it
  would
  be a hefty sum – the wife’s pay cheque would most likely represent
  nothing
  more than a rise in status, as there would be no real rise in the
  family’s
  real income. The housewife’s pay cheque would have the further,
  undesirable,
  effect of imprisoning women in the home.
• To regard
  childbirth
  as the
  production of people to be evaluated as a financial asset is a failure
  to understand and appreciate the value of human beings. In chapter III,
  we saw numerous ayat of Qur’an and ahadith which
  indicate
  the higher status of the female due to her gender and unique ability to
  bring forth and nurture children. Islam has elevated women beyond the
  narrow,
  worldly concerns of the workplace and earning a wage, and has decreed
  that
  her production and nurturing of children gives her a status that
  equals,
  if not exceeds, that of men. If Allah and His Prophet have told us that
  the value of a mother is even greater than that of a father, then the
  status
  of motherhood must be reinstated to its proper, elevated position.
• The underlying
  Marxist theory
  assumes equality between individuals in terms of financial
  independence:
  people are only equal if they earn independently to support themselves.
  Far from liberating women, Marxism has in fact served the interests of
  the bosses by supplying them with a surplus of workers which makes it
  easy
  for them to demand cheap labour. Real-life experience has shown that
  few
  who do get financial independence have gained it by sacrificing their
  own
  physical and mental health. However, the majority have become the
  victims
  of rather than the winners of the society. From Chapter II we can
  deduce
  the ills befalling women in the non Islamic societies of today.
• Zaretsky suggests
  that the family
  is seen as not only a haven for men but also the arena for the personal
  fulfilment of fathers and husbands, this can only happen at the expense
  of mothers and wives.’ This view is contrary to Islamic teachings,
  which
  advocates the family as a place where both man and woman obtain
  serenity
  and peace. The family thus is the arena which provides both partners
  with
  personal fulfillment and protection.
• The assumption
  that
  child-care
  duties in the home form the basis of oppression implies a need to
  create
  communal nurseries, canteens and sleeping quarters. Feminists have
  falsely
  assumed that all women would rather be on the shop floor or in the
  office
  than spend time with their children. In fact it is highly improbable
  that
  women would like to be whisked straight from the labour ward to the
  factory
  floor, thus losing the opportunity to nurture their infants. As far as
  communal living is concerned, there are not many people who would
  willingly
  exchange their privacy and personal space for an open kibbutz style
  life.
  Another consideration is that in a communal environment, it would no
  doubt
  be the women who would be employed to take care of the nurseries and
  canteens,
  no doubt at unsociable hours and with the lowest status in the
  hierarchy
  of roles. (This is in fact the case in many Israeli kibbutzim where
  women
  tend to be stuck with the menial tasks and childcare whilst the more
  interesting
  and prestigious jobs go to the men).

It may be argued that to
expect
the state or commune to take care of children is absurd. Since parents
choose to have children, they should take the responsibility for their
upbringing. If we think of children as valued possessions, we should
not
say that it is unfair that a family of four should live on the same
income
as a family of two: we should say that one couple chooses to spend its
income on children, whilst the other chooses to spend its money on
holidays
or furniture. There is no justification for expecting the state to care
for children. In a capitalist system, money has become the reward for
everything.
The feminists have lowered women’s value by demanding financial
compensation
for an asset which they should be proud of.

Marxist theory
appears
to
have little room for questions that deal directly with women’s
reproductive
and sexual concerns: contraception, sterilisation, abortion,
pornography,
prostitution, rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

Marxist feminists try
to
retain their loyalty to both socialism and feminism. Consequently, they
continue to give priority to the issue of class, although – unlike
orthodox
socialists – they no longer see feminism as a necessary consequence of
a socialist victory.4 They agree, however, that feminism without
socialism
is impossible (Mitchell, 1971) and for this reason, if no other, the
struggle
for socialism is given prominence. At the same time, these women find
that
they can only do so by means of what amounts to a very radical critique
of orthodox Maviews on the position of women.

If the oppression of
women
is based on the economic and legal power that men have over them, and
if
that power is class-based, then it follows that abolishing private
property
and socialising production destroys the economic foundation of women’s
position.’ However, the experience of socialist countries has been used
to question this logic. Women under Marxist regimes throughout the
world
have been the unfortunate victims of oppression in the home, the
workplace
and in the educational and political spheres. As far as the liberation
of women goes, Marxism has offered nothing more than the illusion of
justice.

LEBERAL
FEMINISM

Liberal feminists see
working
towards the elimination of the differences between the sexes as the
first
step towards true equality.

Modern liberal
feminist
theories
of gender equality are based on the assumption that in order to achieve
equal status, all stereotyped social roles for men and women have to be
abolished. Conventional women’s work roles assign to them the major
responsibility
for unpaid domestic work, especially childcare, and thus handicap them
with regard to their occupational roles. Despite the legal rights of
women
to equality in employment, men use women’s actual or presumed domestic
handicaps to perpetuate de facto discrimination by forcing
women
into a small number of occupational roles that are segregated according
to labour market types and working time schedules, and that have lower
pay and prestige than comparable men’s occupations. Employed women’s
lower
income is used as a justification for the perpetuation of their unequal
burden of domestic and child care work and their inferior power in the
family. Their segregated and inferior roles also hinder their
acquisition
of economic and political power. It is in the interests of men of all
strata
to use the unpaid domestic services of women and prevent women from
competing
with them for better jobs.

Liberal feminists
seek
to
create an androgynous individual, that is an individual which would
combine
some of each of the characteristics, traits, skills and interests that
are now stereotypically associated with either men or women. Another
goal
of the liberal feminists is sexual equality or gender justice, which
means
freeing women from oppressive roles and enabling them to rise above
their
lower (or non-existent) position in academia and in the workplace.

These aims raise
immediate
questions: should women become like men in order to be equal with men?
Or should men become like women in order to be equal with women? Or
should
both men and women lose their identities and become androgynous, each
person
combining the “correct” blend of positive masculine and feminine
characteristics
in order to be equal with every other person? The problems thus raised
are phenomenal.

It is impossible to
create
an androgynous individual because of the physical, anatomical,
biochemical
and physiological differences between the sexes. Another point, made by
Ann Ferguson, is that it may not even be desirable for people to be
socialised
to develop the potential for androgyny. Complete elimination of gender
differences raises major legal and economic issues. For example, if a
woman
is allowed to take six months off work following childbirth, should not
the equal male be allowed the same time off to spend time with his new
baby? If men and women have the same intellectual capacity and
reasoning
skills, then surely there is no particular need for female
philosophers:
men can point out inequities and suggest reforms just as effectively as
women.

Liberal feminists
seek
to
prove that women are as good as men. But we may ask: why is this
necessary?
Why should women have to be like males before they are deemed equal?
The
direction taken by liberal feminists is destroying the very essence
that
makes women special.

The oppressive roles
from
which liberal feminists seek to free women are not confined only to
females.
The immigrant population, male and female alike, are the worst victims
of oppression; but even Caucasian males may be discriminated against in
the case of jobs such as child-care and secretarial work, which are
“reserved”
for females. No doubt women suffer more than men, but they cannot be
seen
as unique when ethnic minorities and immigrants in the Western world
are
also suffering oppression. The roots of this inequity lie in capitalism
and its need to seek cheap labour in order to increase returns on
investment.

Elshtain, a critic of
liberal
feminism, states that “there is no way to create real communities out
of
an aggregate of freely choosing adults”. She argues that liberal
feminists
have over emphasised the male up to the point of equating masculinity
with
humanity, manly virtues with human virtues. She argues that liberal
feminism
has three major flaws: the assumption that women can become like men if
they set their minds to it, the notion that all women want to become
like
men, and the claim that all women should want to become like men and to
aspire to masculine values.

Liberal feminism has
a
tendency
to over estimate the number of women who want to be like men, who want
to abandon the role of wife and mother for that of citizen and worker.
Any woman whose identity is that of a wife and mother is likely to
become
angry or depressed when, after years of investing blood, sweat and
tears,
she is told that being a wife or a mother is a mere role, and a
problematic
one at that. It is one thing to tell a woman to change her hairstyle;
it
is something else altogether to tell her that she should get a more
meaningful
identity.

A profound statement
by
Elshtain
states that liberal feminists are wrong to advocate that women should
reject
traditional values. Articles written for women about dressing for
success,
making it in a man’s world, being careful not to cry in public,
avoiding
intimate

friendship, being
assertive,
and playing hardball serve only to erode what after all may be best
about
women. It is wrong to assume that women must be the same as men in
order
to be socially, economically or politically equal. In fact the sexes
can
be different, carry out different tasks, and still be equal on all
these
levels.

From the Islamic
point
of
view, there is no room for entertaining a desire to create androgynous
individuals. If the Creator had intended this for us, He could have
created
us as asexual beings who would reproduce like the hydra. However, the
issue
of oppression of others on the basis of their sex or skin colour still
needs to be addressed. Equal opportunities and equal pay must be
implemented
for all, without bias. Laws should be instituted that would guarantee
such
equality, whilst taking into account any physical differences and
ruling
in favour of the weaker individuals. As stated earlier, the Qur’an
tells
us that Allah has assigned to the male his duties and to the female
hers.
The Prophet is reported to have said: “Allah’s curse is upon those men
who imitate women and those women who imitate men”.

RADICAL
FEMINISM

The New York
Feminist
Manifesto of 1971 declares:4

“Radical feminism
recognises
the oppression of women as a fundamental political oppression wherein
women
are categorised as an inferior class based upon their sex. It is the
aim
of radical feminism to organise politically to destroy this sex class
system.
As radical feminists we recognise that we are engaged in a power
struggle
with men, and that the agent of our oppression is man in so far as he
is
identified with and carries out the supremacy privileges of the male
role.
For while we realise that the liberation of women will ultimately mean
the liberation of men from their destructive role as oppressor, we have
no illusions that men will welcome this liberation without struggle.
Radical
feminism is political because it recognises that a group of individuals
- men · have set up institutions throughout society to maintain
this power”.

Radical, or extreme,
feminism
regards men as evil, benefiting from their power over women in every
way,
from ego-satisfaction, economic and domestic exploitation, sexual
domination
and political power.

Many radical
feminists
argue
that in order to make a complete commitment to feminism, a woman has to
be or become a lesbian. A leading radical feminist, Bunch believed that
only lesbians can be serious feminists, and that lesbianism is best
understood
as a revolutionary rejection of all males and male-defined institutions.

Adrienne Rich
suggested
that
compulsory heterosexuality is the central social structure perpetuating
male domination.3 A refusal of heterosexuality acts as an underground
feminist
resistance to patriarchy. She defines a lesbian as a woman bonded
primarily
to women who is sexually and emotionally independent of men.

Rich’s “lesbian
continuum”
proposes that all women are lesbians, insofar as they want to identify
with other women. She makes two basic assumptions in her defence of the
lesbian continuum as a construct for understanding female resistance to
patriarchy. First, she assumes that compulsory heterosexuality is the
key
mechanism underlying and perpetuating male dominance; second, she
implies
that all heterosexual relations are coercive in nature. Radical
feminists
allege that marriage is at the root of women’s subjection to men
because
through it, men control both a woman’s reproduction and her person.
Marriage
is thus seen as slavery for women, without the abolition of which
freedom
for women cannot be won. A prominent feminist philosopher, De Beauvoir
stated, “Women pay for their happiness with their freedom”. She
insisted
that this price is too high for anyone because the kind of contentment,
tranquillity and security that marriage offers a woman drain her soul
of
its capacity for greatness.l

The effect of
removing
men
from the scene altogether is not only weakening traditional male/female
tie, if not destroying it altogether, but the bond between father and
child
is eliminated. Meanwhile, the tendency for men to become merely
temporary
sexual partners and to lose their parental role increases. Instead of
making
men responsible and share in the duties of nurturing children, women
are
inadvertently freeing men of all responsibilities, no doubt to the
great
delight of capricious men.

Radical feminism’s
main
aim
is the destruction of patriarchy, which Ruth Blair defines as: “the
historic
system of male dominance, a system committed to the maintenance and
reinforcement
of male hegemony in all aspects of life – personal and private
privilege
and power as well as public privilege and power”.

Gerder Lerner defines
it
more clearly:

“Patriarchy means the
manifestation
and institutionalisation of male dominance over women and children in
the
family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in
general..”.

Patriarchy is a
system
of
structures and institutions created by men in order to sustain and
recreate
male power and female subordination. Such structures include
institutions
such as law, religion and the family; ideologies which perpetuate the
naturally
inferior position of women; socialisation processes which ensure that
women
and men develop behaviour and belief systems appropriate to the
powerful
or power group to which they belong.

Patriarchy also has a
materialistic
base the economic systems are structured so that women have difficulty
getting paid labour in a society which values only paid labour and in
which
money is the currency of power. Women without economic independence
cannot
sustain themselves without a breadwinner: they cannot leave a brutal
husband,
they cannot withdraw sexual, emotional and physical servicing from men,
they cannot have an equal say in decisions affecting their own lives,
such
as where they might live. Radical feminism has therefore stressed the
necessity
of women exercising economic power in their own lives.

Charlotte Buch has
emphasised
the importance of class analysis in radical feminism. In her words:

“Women’s oppression
is
rooted
both in the structure of our society, which is patriarchal, and in the
sons of patriarchy: capitalism and white supremacy. Patriarchy includes
not only male rule but also heterosexual imperialism and sexism;
patriarchy
led to the development of white supremacy and capitalism. For me, the
term
patriarchy refers to all these forms of oppression and domination, all
of which must be ended before all women will be free”.

Arguments from within
the
feminist group state that absolute separatism from men is neither
feasible
nor desirable. It is not desirable because “women will destroy
patriarchy
by confronting it, not by isolating themselves from it”.

One of the first
radical
feminists to gain prominence was Shulamith Firestone, who wrote:

“The end goal of
feminist
revolution must be not just the elimination of male privilege but of
the
sex distinction itself. Genital differences between human beings would
no longer matter culturally. The tyranny of the biological family would
be broken and with it the psychology of power”.

For Firestone it is
from
sexual differences that women’s subordination sprang, in part, as
reproductive
biology condemned women to a fearful existence of bearing children, to
be oppressed, in squalor and in pain. Firestone states: “Nature
produced
the fundamental inequality which was later consolidated and
institutionalised
in the interests of men”. In this account, the reproductive bond is not
even remotely pleasing; it is wretched. Firestone then draws the
logical
conclusion to such an opinion she proposes freeing women from their
long
ordeal by means of changes in reproductive technology that would allow
women to avoid pregnancy and childbirth just as is happening now:

“Until the taboo is
lifted,
until the decision not to have children or not to have them naturally
is
at least as legitimate as natural childbearing, women are being forced
into their female roles”.

Therefore, according
to
this
way of thinking, women must rebel. Women must control fertility. Women
must own their bodies and new technology. Above all, women must control
childbirth and childrearing. In Firestone’s view, this “natural”
inequality
can only be overcome when there is a complete separation of
reproduction
from women’s lives, so that women and men are made equal through
technological
innovations. Technology that will allow artificial reproduction outside
women’s bodies must be developed.

Whilst some radical
feminists
like Firestone want to free women from biological maternity, there is
another
version of feminism that wants to free maternity from male domination.
This thesis describes and deplores the transfer of maternity care from
women (midwives) to men (male obstetricians) that has occurred in the
West
over the past century or so. This liberation of maternity from male
domination
entails the return of childbirth to the care of women themselves, but
for
many feminists it also includes the progressive removal of the rights
and
duties of fatherhood.

If men in themselves
were
the enemy, as many radical feminists believe, then the solution could
well
come to be the abolition not only of marriage or even of the family,
but
of men themselves, whether by their exclusion from women’s society or
by
more extreme means. It is not likely that many women in the movement
envisaged
the physical destruction of men, and certainly it is difficult to see
this
as a practical possibility.

Many feminist
theories
suggest
that men have conditioned women and have taken control over them.
Feminists
thus ignore the views of the majority of women by assuming that women
have
let their minds be manipulated by men and are not capable of deciding
what
is best for themselves. But if feminists believe that women are weak
and
stupid enough to be conditioned by men, then it follows that if women
follow
their ideologies, then they have merely exchanged one type of coercion
for another.

Feminists object to
the
allocation
of gender roles, and complain if men and women are expected to do
different
sorts of work solely on the basis of their sex. But if, like the
feminists,
we go to the extreme of assuming that we have not rid ourselves of
tyranny
until men and women are doing the same sort of work, we risk a
different
problem, that of forcing them to do the same things although the
majority
may have the inclination to do different things.

Feminists object to
sexism
although the majority of people see gender as relevant. When there are
fewer women in certain positions on the career ladder, it is the
feminists
who are quick to point out sex differences.

Firestone’s
suggestion
that
reproduction must take place outside of women’s bodies before women are
liberated is senseless. If any advances in “test tube” reproduction are
made, the technology will no doubt be under the control of males. It is
true to say that radical feminism is not practical and would not
survive
for long if it were implemented: If heterosexuality were halted, this
would
prevent the production of a new generation and the human race would
come
to an end. Some might suggest that children could be produced by means
of artificial insemination or cloning. For women to totally succeed in
this they will no doubt be confronted by men, who will rightly fight
for
their survival. It cannot be envisaged even by the most ardent
feminist,
that the battle of sexes should led to the battle herds of war. It is
in
fact absurd to regard men as the core of evil, because there is no real
benefit for men as a whole in suppressing women. Men have to co-habit
with
women, and most sane human beings of either gender would prefer to live
in peace and harmony with their spouses, the “battle of the sexes”
makes
no sense at all.

Research has shown
that
the
majority of lesbians go under the banner of feminism and that they
represent
around 10% of active feminists.” In this case it appears that some
women
have used feminism as a guise to fulfil their deviant sexual desires.
Homosexuality
is completely forbidden in Islam, and there is no room for “gay”
religious
movements such as those that have emerged in Christianity.
Homosexuality
represents something which is at odds with the natural order and
endangers
the stability of human society.

Would you really
approach
men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, you are a people (grossly)
ignorant!

[al-Naml
27.55]

The Qur’anic view
(which,
by the way, coincides with that of the Bible, e.g. Leviticus 20:13) is
that homosexuality is an abomination and that those who indulge in it
are
“committing excesses”. This includes both male and female homosexuals,
or “gays” and “lesbians” as they are known.

Radical feminists
assume
that all marital relations are coercive. This undermines women and
implies
that they are not capable of taking care of themselves, but need a “big
sister” in an ivory tower to think for them. Radical feminism gives
women
less credit than they deserve.

To propagate a
complete
ban
on marriage would throw the world into disarray. Even if all
individuals
did not become homosexuals, we would find ourselves with a completely
promiscuous
society. An individual is not always attracted to a person who likes
him
or her, so with no moral restraints, those who are physically,
economically
and socially strong would fulfil their carnal desires at the expense of
the weak. Incest and paedophilia would become rife. It would be a
nightmarish
society in which exploitation of women would be the order to the day.

Most of those who
have
examined
the development of radical feminism are agreed that it has been
seriously
weakened by internal disputes, by its lack of formal structure, and by
the inherent weaknesses of its theories. Its heyday was in the late
1960s,
but since the 1970s it has fallen into a decline with its most
committed
followers retreating into communes where they could practice no more
than
a kind of personal redemption.

SEXUAL
LIBERATION

Mitchell suggested
that
women’s
status and function are jointly determined by her role in production,
reproduction
and the socialisation of children and sexuality.

To determine which of
these
factors most oppress women, Mitchell came to the conclusion that women
are making progress only in the area of sexuality. Taken to extremes,
sexual
liberation becomes merely another form of sexual oppression. In the
past,
women were condemned for being whores; now they are condemned for being
virgins. Curiously, a British newspaper report on female converts to
Islam
asked “Why are British women funding true sexual freedom in Islam”?
This
sensationalist piece of rhetoric turned out to refer to the refreshing
freedom from the sexual pressure which is so prevalent in Western
society.

Not everyone
concerned
with
human liberation welcomed the liberation of sexuality. Marxist
philosophers
argued that it was a device to distract people from more serious
political
and economical oppression. Other feminists said that the liberation of
female sexuality brought a reinforcement of the image of creatures of a
separate and powerless sphere. The Victorian stereotype of feminine
purity
at least had the merit of rendering women special in the eyes of men.
In
the pursuit of equality and freedom even this dubious moral advantage
was
lost, and the way was opened for a new and less advantageous
stereotype.
It was no accident that the most ardent supporters of the “playboy”
style
of sexual liberation were men!

A woman may say that
she
diets, exercises and dresses for herself, but in reality she is most
likely
to be shaping and adorning her body for the benefit of men. A woman has
little or no say about where, when, how or by whom her body will be
used,
because it can be appropriated through acts that range from standing on
the corner “watching all the girls go by” to the extreme of rape. In
contrast,
women’s progress in the area of reproduction, production and
socialising
of children has, according to Mitchell, ground to a halt.

Islam finds the whole
idea
of promoting sex for pleasure to be totally distasteful – as do many
rational
individuals who live in the West. Casual approaches to sex, such as
“cruising”
or using pornography are identified as being male oriented, since they
focus on sex for physical pleasure rather than as a means of deepening
emotional intimacy and affection.4 Seeking sex only for physical
pleasure
is dehumanising, because it treats people only as sexual objects and
fails
to tap the potential of the act for a deeper meaning, which is an
intimate
knowledge of and commitment to another human being.

The feminist drive
towards
sexual liberation has had catastrophic consequences for women’s social
status. As we have already seen in Chapter II, the push for women’s
equality
in the West has been accompanied by an increase among females of all
the
vices formerly associated with men. Alcoholism, smoking, gambling and
criminal
activity have all increased and are as likely to be found among females
as among males. In early 1996, it was announced that the female prison
population in the UK had increased by 30% in the previous year alone.

For many women, their
new
“freedom” has brought the dismal experiences of exploitation,
abandonment
by men, abortions, financial hardships, single parenthood and
isolation.
The sexual liberation movement has resulted in increased social,
financial,
health and economical hardship. Overall the greater sexual freedom is
being
acknowledged as working in favour of men rather than women.

APPRAISAL

All branches of
feminism
have their shortcomings, and the movement has essentially failed to
address
issues facing all the women throughout the world. Marxist theory has
ignored
the issues of oppression of women via pornography, prostitution and
sexual
harassment. Radical feminism has only served the interests of a few
women
living in Western suburbia, and its theories are inherently weak, as
has
been shown. Sexual feminism has only served to wet male appetites and
has
plunged the women of the West into the worst form of oppression since
the
Jahiliyyah. The failure of feminist ideologies to truly liberate women
should come as no surprise, since these are based on theories which
have
been devised by humans for humans: as such they will undoubtedly
contain
factors that will please some, displease others, and ignore the
majority.
The solutions to human problems can only come from the Creator of
humans.
It is to Him that we must turn, and it is in His teachings alone that
we
will find true liberty for all human beings.

The feminists have
given
women laws against sexual discrimination and equal opportunities in the
fields of education and work, which are undoubtedly deserved and which
Islam would certainly condone. However, as feminism succeeded in
freeing
women from the oppression of law and domesticity, a more sinister form
of oppression, in the form of the tyranny of “beauty”, took over. This
phenomenon is described by Naomi Wolf as the “beauty myth”.

THE
TYRANNY OF “BEAUTY”

The “Rites” of beauty
are
able to isolate women so well because it is not yet publicly recognised
that the devotees of beauty are trapped in anything more serious than
fashion
and a private distortion of self-image.” The Rites took over women’s
minds,
in the wake of the women’s movement, because oppression, like nature,
abhors
a vacuum; they gave back to women what they had lost when faith in God
died in the West. The swift spread of this new “religion” was ably
assisted
by the capitalist industries. Now, rather than being assessed on their
personal, intellectual and professional merits, women are judged by
their
physical attributes. This abhorrent attitude is diametrically opposed
to
Islam, which directs people’s attention towards an individual’s
character
by asking them to base their respect on the level of a person’s piety.

Until recently,
pornography
was only for male consumption. However, the feminists have fallen into
the trap that was carefully laid by those who had a vested interest in
making women believe it is normal for a liberated women to enjoy
pornography.
Pornography, which never depicts legal, intimate love between married
couples,
has the pernicious effect of planting notions of the acceptability of
adultery,
fornication and rape in idle minds. Film, TV and printed media find
themselves
in direct competition with pornography, which is now the biggest media
category worldwide, so the images of women and beauty in those media
become
more extreme. Incredibly, pornography generates an estimated $7 billion
a year, more than the legitimate film and music industries put
together.
Pornographic films outnumber other genres by three to one. Researchers
report that pornography worldwide is becoming increasingly violent 4
and
“snuff” movies which record the ordeal of real victims are not uncommon.

Beauty became the
currency
of exchange and, like money, was highly sought after by women. However,
it was more elusive than pound notes or dollar bills, as men kept
devaluing
the “currency”. There are no universal standards: “beauty” is an
imaginary
idol created by the Western male, who raises and changes its standards
at whim, thereby making it impossible for his mother, sister or
daughter
to attain it. Women’s beauty has nothing to do with women: it is all
about
men’s institutions and power. In the West, the man’s right to pass
judgement
on any woman’s appearance without himself being subjected to scrutiny
is
regarded as God-given.

As the white
middle-class
women threw away their aprons and marched out of their front doors in
pursuit
of liberation, they fell straight into the trap of the capitalist
beauty
parlour. The capitalist market has manipulated women to spend over $33
billion a year on diet products, $20 billion on cosmetics, $300 million
on cosmetic surgery, and over $7 billion on pornography.

The consequent burden
of
oppression borne by women is immense, of which the following represent
only the tip of the iceberg:

• The most obvious
  effect is the
  vast amount of time, effort and money which women are expected to
  devote
  to their appearance whilst no such demands are made of men.
• The standards that
  women are
  expected to attain are impossible, because the goal posts are
  constantly
  being shifted. The media must take the lion’s share of the blame for
  this
  problem.
• At any given time,
  the standards
  of beauty are limited and rigid, and exclude the majority of ordinary
  women.
  Whatever body shape is dictated to be “fashionable,” those whose
  natural
  appearance differs from it will never be able to attain it and risk
  subsequent
  low self-esteem and depression, etc.
• The fashion
  industry
  pressurises
  women to fight their own natural bodies by undergoing cosmetic surgery,
  squeezing themselves into tight dresses and skirts, crippling their
  feet
  with stiletto heeled shoes and starving themselves into ill health in
  the
  name of dieting.

This is what feminism
has
achieved,
instead of protesting against male demands that women should
essentially
be sensual and pleasing to men. The feminist movement has found its
greatest
support among capitalist corporate companies and “playboy” type men.

The demands of the
beauty
myth are destroying women, morally, psychologically and spiritually.
Women
need to emancipate themselves from this unjust demand made by male
driven
society. In order to achieve this it is not lobbying or government
bills
that are needed but a need to revert to a philosophy that frees them
from
the tyranny of fashion and role models, a philosophy that appreciates a
woman for herself and judges her on her character, and not for her
beauty
or bank balance, a philosophy that will reinstate her personal identity
and self-respect. This is to be found only in Islam.

The sociologist
Deborah
L.
Sheppard states:

“Women perceive
themselves
and other women to be confronting constantly the dualistic experience
of
being feminine and businesslike at the same time while they do not
perceive
men experiencing the same contradiction”.

Women are encouraged
by
advertisers
to wear clothes that express their femininity yet maintain
business-like
looks. By this they mean women wear clothes that reveal their breasts,
thighs and lace-lined lingerie. Women are caught between the
conflicting
ideals of “businesslike” and “feminine”, and suffer as a result. Over
75%
of women experience harassment that they blame on themselves and their
poor control over their appearance. Five studies on sexual organisation
have found that “a woman’s behaviour is noticed and labelled sexual
even
if it is not intended as such”. Women’s friendly actions are
misinterpreted
as sexual.’ This is substantiated by the fact that 38% of men have been
found to abuse their power in the work place to rape women. Islam
clearly
teaches Muslims to avoid creating or entering such freely-mixed
environments
in the first place, which prevents such misery and suffering from
occurring.

The fashion
industries
dependency
on survival by exploiting women can be assessed by the reaction of the
industry to John Molloy’s best seller book, Women’s dress for
success, advocating
women to wear a uniform at work. This minor observation made by Molloy
led the New York Times magazine, whose financial survival depends on
the
advertising revenue of the beauty industry, to publish an article
declaring
Molloy’s views as passe. Other media, who received a sizeable portion
of
their advertising funds from the fashion industry quickly followed
suit.
From all of this, one can understand why Islam, which preaches
moderation
and simplicity in dress and lifestyle is facing such hostility from the
capitalist world.

If working women did
not
dress up like models, the secret pleasures enjoyed by their male
colleagues
may decrease. No doubt if women followed Islamic standards of dress and
conduct, the incidence of sexual harassment would be negligible and
women
would be spared a major source of oppression. Above and beyond that
women’s
character would not be passed on sexual appeal but her intellect and
ability.

From the 60’s onwards
the
fashion industry, with capital growth interest at heart, have used the
media to manipulated women in thinking nudity and low weight are an
expression
of liberation. -Between 1968 and 1972, the number of diet related
articles
rose by 70%. Articles on dieting in the popular press soared from 60 in
the whole year of 1979 to 66 in the month of January 1980 alone. By
1984,300
diet books were on the shelves of bookstores. The lucrative “transfer
of
guilt” was achieved just in time.

The paranoia with
weight
in women has began to appear at a very early age and consequently
claims
many victims. Anorexia and Bulimia are overwhelmingly female maladies:
between 90 and 95%

of sufferers are
women.
America,
which has the greatest number of women who have “made it” in the male
world,
also leads the world with regard to rates of female Anorexia. The
American
Anorexia and Bulimia Association states that Anorexia and Bulimia
strike
one million US women every year. Every year, 150,000 American women die
of Anorexia. Brumberg reports that between 5 to 15% of hospitalised
anorexics
die during treatment, giving this disease one of the highest fatality
rates
for mental illness.

The UK now has 3.5
million
anorexics or bulimics, with 6,000 new cases yearly. Another study of
adolescent
British girls shows that 1% are now anorexic. According to the women’s
press, at least 50% of British women suffer eating disorders.

As the females began
to
integrate
with the males, in all the spheres, women’s body shape and size began
to
play a prominent role in an oppressing way to the women. A generation
ago,
the average model weighed 8% less than the average American woman;
today
she weighs 23% less.

A 1985 survey showed
that
90% of respondents thought they weighed too much. Although today’s
girls
have inherited the gains of the women’s movement, in terms of personal
distress they are no better off. Fifty three percent of high school
girls
are reported to be unhappy with their bodies by age 13, and by age 18,
over 78% are dissatisfied. The feminist movement has created the hunger
cult which is striking a major blow against women’s fight for equality.

In the West, female
bodies
have become public property and female “fat” is the subject of intense
public debate. Women feel guilty about female fat because they are made
to believe that their bodies belong not to them, but to society.
Thinness
is not a private ascetic but a hunger, a social concession exacted by
the
community. A cultural fixation on female thinness is not an obsession
about
female beauty but an obsession about female subservience.

Women’s images in the
media
and magazines are glamorised by “retouching” or “computer imaging” so
that
a 50 year old woman looks 30 and a 65 year old looks 45. Bob Ciano, an
art director at Life magazine, says that, “no picture of a
woman
goes unretouched… Even a well known older woman who doesn’t want to
be
retouched… We still persist in trying to make her look like she’s in
her fifties”. The effect of this censorship according to Heyn is clear:
“by now readers have no idea what a real woman’s 60 year old face looks
like in print because it’s made to look 45. Worse, 60 year old readers
look in the mirror and think they look too old, because they are
comparing
themselves to some retouched face smiling back at them from a magazine.
Women’s culture is an adulterated, inhibited medium”. How do the values
of the West, which hates censorship and believes in a free exchange of
ideas, fit in here?

This issue is not
trivial.
It is about the most fundamental freedoms: the freedom to imagine one’s
own future and to be proud of one’s life. Airbrushing age from women’s
faces has the same political echo as making black people look white: it
is condescending, insulting and offensive. To make women look younger,
thinner and more curvaceous is to erase women’s true identity, worth,
power
and history. This is the most damaging type of oppression and women in
the West are slowly waking up to it.3 This is one reason why young
educated
women in the West have found the sincere teachings of Islam to be so
attractive.

Magazines and other
media
are under pressure to project the idea that looking one’s age is
undesirable
because their survival in the capitalist society depends on their
advertising
revenue. In the US alone, 65 million dollars’ worth of advertising
revenue
comes from companies who would go out of business if looking one’s age
was acceptable or desirable.4 It is in the interest of companies that
reap
wealth from women to make them feel inferior about their bodies.
Through
the media the message is hammered in daily. As women spend millions of
Pounds and hours worldwide, on ‘beauty’ products and go through
dangerous
and painful procedures to look like the way they have been
indoctrinated
by the media. If only women wake up to their own worth, which Allah has
favoured them with, the companies via the media, will continue to
exploit
them and the problem is going to escalate.

Young women’s
oppression
is one story, but as women get older their miseries in the West simply
multiply. Old women are not only poorer, but they are also neglected,
by
the state and by their own children. Western culture is such that
helpless
older people are left out of sight in public nursing homes, and young
children
are kept out of their parents’ sight in nurseries and day care centres.
The West is rapidly moving towards a system where it is only worth
living
if you are able to fend for yourself in all aspects. Thus the value of
individuals is only measured in terms of supplying society either with
surplus labour or beauty. Hence the young who cannot provide the
capitalist
economy with surplus value and the old who are no longer aesthetically
pleasing are excluded from mainstream society and locked away in
nurseries
and old peoples’ homes respectively. Old age carries such a stigma in
the
West that adult children may be reluctant to be seen with
their
ageing and ailing parents in public. The very parents who nursed us and
wiped our bottoms when we had no faculty of reasoning have now become a
burden. In contrast, Islam urges those who are strong and in good
health
to take care of the infirm, and specifically makes it a duty upon the
children
to take care of their ageing parents and not even to speak to them in a
loud or angry voice.

Thy Lord hath
decreed
that ye worshOOip none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether
one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word
of contempt, nor repel them but address them, in terms of honour.

[Banu
Israil 17: 23]

We have enjoined
on
man
kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him and in pain
did
she give birth.

[Al-Ahqaf
17:23]

(see
also Luqman 31.14 quoted earlier and Al Ankabut 29:8,
AlAhqaf
46:16, 17, 18)

The average American
old
woman’s income is half that of an old man. In Britain, old women
outnumber
old men by four to one, and of those twice as many old women as old men
rely on income support (government assistance). Signs of ageing are
viewed
by Western women as a calamity, and women are constantly harangued in
the
media about the awfulness of wrinkles, grey hair and sagging breasts.
The
solution offered is: beauty parlours and plastic surgery, which is so
risky
and painful that it may be placed on a par with slavery. Modern
cosmetic
surgeons have a vested financial interest in a social role for women
that
require them to feel ugly. The cosmetic surgery industry in the US
grosses
$300 million annually, and is growing at a yearly rate of 10%. Between
200,000 and 1 million American women have had their breasts cut open
and
sacs of chemical gel implanted.

The effects of
feminism
have
been so devastating that women would do themselves a great favour if
they
were to abandon it and begin enjoying the pleasures that the Creator
has
given them. Food is a bounty from Allah from which women may eat what
is
good for them and enjoy it. Women’s bodies are for themselves, not for
public display: they should stop pandering to society’s pleasure and
bowing
to the demands of the fashion industry. Women should bear the signs of
ageing with pride, as marks of seniority and wisdom.

… These are the
limits
ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them. If any do transgress the
limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as
others).

[al-Baqarah
2:229]