Liberal feminism — to its credit — has been the progenitor of rights that a significant portion of women have fortunately nowadays come to take for granted, such as the right to vote. It has also been associated with efforts to remove at times century old legal hurdles linked to property, divorce, abortion and women’s equality before the law. Liberal Feminism in these contexts was revolutionary, particularly from the mid-19th to 20th centuries. Despite these notable achievements however, Liberal feminism has now become outdated and at times overtly reactionary. A feminism, which is useful and relevant for the 21st century, must incorporate the lessons and insights of as many strands of the movement in order to be both pertinent and practicable. Alison Jaggar and Rosemarie Tong in their works “Feminist Politics and Human Nature” and “Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction” respectively, are some of the prime scholars in systematizing the various schools of feminist thought. Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist, Ecological, Radical and Black/Intersectional Feminism are the most promising ones because of the way they both make up for the shortcomings of Liberal feminism and at the same time add new horizons for women’s emancipation. It must be noted however that not all feminists fall fully into any one of these threads, often there is overlap between similar or altogether different feminisms.
To begin with, Liberal feminism has traditionally seen the root of women’s oppression as being in the legal system, which is supposedly biased in favour of men, and which only exacerbates other symptoms of subjugation, such as stereotyping, gender role socialization, and lack of role models [1]. This is why Liberal Feminism has focused on using the legal avenue to emancipate women and has admittedly been successful in obtaining victories such as the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) [2]. Whilst legal victories are welcome and act as a positive social legitimator for the position of women, Liberal Feminism’s weakness lies precisely in that it focuses on formal legalities at the expense of qualifying those laws with tangible meaning. What is the point, after all, of the right to an abortion if you cannot afford it financially? Whilst some ‘Modern’ Liberal feminists such as Bella Abzug or Amy Gutmann have made cogent arguments for a more elaborate welfare state (which includes a universal healthcare policy) to compensate for such contradictions, these very feminists are ignorant of how such victories are won and how to ultimately maintain them, owing to the fact that they view the state as the neutral arbiter of society par excellence. This means liberal approaches are unable to analyse the root causes of women’s oppression, such as why the legal system is biased in favour of men in the first place. It also means that it often acts as the “front ideology” for middle class (and usually white women). Above all, liberalism takes the institution of private property as a sacrosanct deontological for granted, which means it frequently mistakes systemic problems as mere individual “failings” which the “individual” must take “responsibility” for solving. On the flip side, whenever Liberalism champions equality, it seeks to mechanically apply the concept to situations which are not suitable for it — such as the different needs of women.
Marxist theory presents the best explanations for the origins of women’s oppression as well as some of the tactics and solutions needed to eliminate it. It stands out as well for the way it is able to simultaneously address racial, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious and national questions, which are all important issues for women [3]. The elaborators of this type of feminism are of course Karl Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels as well as a host of activists such as Alexandra Kollontai, Clara Zetkin, and Angela Davis. The Marxist conception ultimately holds that class stratifications and the oppressions that result from them can intersectionally explain most (if not all) other forms of human oppression, including women’s oppression.
According to the Marxist conception of history, women’s oppression originates from the advances of the agricultural revolution, which occurred approximately 10,000+ years ago. This resulted in humans splitting into antagonistic social classes in a general dynamic of oppressor vs. the oppressed. This occurred because the advances of the agricultural revolution allowed for the creation of a surplus in production. The need for this surplus to be protected and propelled forward created the need for “guardians” who eventually became the rulers of society. This “ruling class” attained a vested interest in maintaining its wealth and privileges and so gradually devised ideologies and customs to entrench them. The relations of power came to be defined by the appropriating of the wealth produced by society to these rulers, and their exploitation and monopolization of the privileges that resulted from this asymmetrical power relation [4]. One of the ways in which this was achieved was through the institution of marriage, whereby the ruling class could now be assured of their paternity and thus pass down their wealth through the ages through the process of inheritance. Engels describes how: “The overthrow of the mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded, and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.” [5] A parallel development was the increasing oppression of homosexual and transgender people who failed to fit into class society’s need to maintain itself through its normalization of a system of dichotomous binaries to match its new authoritarian pattern of organizing society [6]. Consequently, women’s oppression has manifested itself in different ways according to the class society in which it occurred, whether slave, feudal or otherwise. What is common to all class society however is how wealth and childcare have both become individualized, taken out of the “public” realm.
Under capitalism, Marxist Feminism holds that women are repressed mainly through the ideologies associated with “the family” as well as by how labour itself is a commodity under the system. Firstly, women are deviously utilized by the capitalist class as a handy target for relegation to the “unemployed reserve army” of labour. When economic times are good, they are exhorted to come out of the home and participate in wage labour, whilst recessions and downturns lead to increased “family values” centred campaigns to drive them back into the home due to capitalism’s inherent inability to provide full employment [7]. It is true that in western countries in particular that this no longer occurs as mechanically as it did in the 19th century, but evidence still suggests that this dynamic is at play — however subtle. During pre-2008 economic times for instance, an attitude like prominent Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson’s; namely, that sexual harassment is something women should “get used to” if they wish to join the labour market would have been politically incorrect [8]. However, due to the protracted economic crisis, this has come to reflect a class interest to drive women back into “the home” and into a subordinate position vis-à-vis capital and men. This is also part of a burden shifting operation which seeks to place the prime responsibility for reproducing the next generation of workers onto women. Mainly by relegating them to home tasks, which ultimately benefits their partners, individualizes their political outlook, and allows for a cheap and “efficient” functioning of the capitalist system as the archetype of the hierarchical family is normalized into the next generation to accept their parallel subordination at work [9]. Women furthermore, even when they do participate in wage labour, still have more responsibilities compared to their menfolk in cooking, cleaning, and childcare, thus putting undue strain on them physically and emotionally. As a result of these observations, Marxist Feminist Maria Dalla-Costa has argued that this saves capital a fortune in expenditure and has advocated the right to “wages for housework” [10]. What is important to grasp as well from all these implicit and explicit policies of the capitalist system is that they act as downward pushes on the wages of all workers. It is no surprise then that women are still not paid equally for equal work in many countries.
Secondly, the capitalist class ultimately derives benefits from counterposing male workers against female workers which prevents men and women recognizing their shared class interests and banding together in unions and strikes to obtain more of the wealth they create daily which is appropriated by the bourgeoisie [11].
Worker power has been one of the most potent weapons in advancing the rights of women. What sets it apart from other tactics is that it hits at the motor of society — the workplace. By organizing right where production occurs, economic demands can quickly be translated into political demands as workers realize their common interests and power in society (whether male or female), and attack where it hurts most — the employer’s pocket and, by default, state revenues [12]. This is in contrast to the liberal approach of segregated protests and single-issue campaigning which tends to fizzle out once the most powerful portions of the movement obtain their demands — usually middle class white women [13]. In practice, even segregated strikes have worked better than mere protests, such as with the momentous 1975 Icelandic Women’s strike or Sylvia Pankhurst’s efforts in Britain to the chagrin of her petty-bourgeois relatives who ultimately postponed women’s suffrage and constantly sought to segregate middle class women from working women in the feminist movement [14]. Periods of increased class struggle tend to correlate with increased improvements in the legal and financial positions of women due to how the process of struggle itself forms bonds between both genders which shatter the ideological and legal holds on women [15]. At times it can serve as a beacon for intersectional struggles which in the end also benefit women. During the economic crises of the early 1970s for instance, the fascist National Front Party (NF) in Britain threatened to menace immigrant communities, but worker and cultural struggles organized by the Anti-Nazi League destroyed much of the racism which the NF counted on for its support [16]. The organization Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) a decade later similarly managed to break down much of the homophobic misogyny present in stereotypically “macho” mining communities during the infamous yearlong Miner’s Strike of 1984–1985 by linking economic and political demands [17].
Counterposed to these strategies are the Liberal Feminist vogue in championing NGOs as the new engines of women’s liberation. The nature of NGOs in practice, however, segments different issues into competing organizations and encourages a conservatism within these organizations since they must maintain a degree of “respectability” to continue receiving their funding from governments and wealthy donors. Marxist Feminist Arundhati Roy comments on this phenomenon and says: “The NGO-ization of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in. Real resistance has real consequences and no salary” [18].
Key to the class struggle approach as well is the recognition that the state is but a “committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” [19], that whilst the state may have to balance to a certain degree between labour and capital that the defining power ultimately rests with the latter [20]. One need only observe how numerous discriminations and brutalities are often concentrated in and perpetuated by the state and its police. Two notable and related manifestations of the latter are war and imperialism. Marxism recognizes that states are the concentrated forces of the bourgeoisie used to impose their interests both within and outside their borders. Wars therefore are merely the expression of the different capitalist classes of different countries constantly resettling the inevitable imbalances of economic power which occur between them due to the uneven nature of capitalism [21]. At other times, it is to pry open lucrative markets (usually in the “global south”) for the asymmetrical benefit of the capitalist-imperialist “core” countries as sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein terms them [22]. This can occur directly, such as the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, or through proxy conflicts like the ones which ravaged Latin America in the 1980s [23]. This type of pillaging can also occur through neo-colonial tools such as predatory loans to the third world, or the installation of puppet regimes by the advanced countries of the capitalist core which often bring out the most reactionary forces in the countries concerned [24]. Women are often the most vulnerable victims in such instances, whether they are ravaged in war through rape and the destruction of their surroundings or relegated to a life of poverty through the imposition of “structural adjustments” on the countries of the global south [25]. One of the mammoth apparatuses which have been created to police this state of affairs is the “permanent arms economy” in the form of the military-prison-industrial complex which is especially prevalent in the US. It stands as a bulwark of horrifically aggressive misogyny which furthermore legitimates all the aggressive character traits stereotypically associated with men, and regularly perpetuates racism by playing on the “loyalty” and nationalism cards [26]. Marxist Feminism therefore recognizes that a viable feminism must simultaneously be anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-war and anti-imperialist. To quote Marxist Feminist Anuradha Ghandy: “The struggle for women’s liberation cannot be successful in isolation from the struggle to overthrow the imperialist system itself” [27]. The morass of liberalism is demonstrated in contemporary times by absurdities which allow the likes of Hillary Clinton to be genuinely considered a “feminist” candidate in the US Presidential race despite her hawkish stances abroad and neoliberalism at home [28], whilst Liberal Feminist Gloria Steinem can brazenly admit to having spied for the CIA (an organization responsible for the deaths and destitution of millions) and still be considered a champion of women’s rights [29]. Liberalism ignores the point that implanting women into the exploitative system will not humanize it in any way, since it will still mean that they are beholden to the same exploitative interests of their male counterparts.
Marxist Feminists believe the solution to women’s oppression is the abolition of the capitalist system altogether in favour of collective ownership over the “means of production”. In the process of constructing a planned economy based on human needs rather than profit, Marxists believe that women’s oppression will be abolished. With the capitalist “base” transformed into a socialist one, the new “superstructure” and the resulting productive relations thereof will transform all human relations in favour of cooperation, equitability and egalitarianism. A key component of this as well will be the communalizing of childcare through free nurseries in order to break the economic dependence of partners on each other in relationships as well as that of children on their parents. In contrast to Liberal democracies as well, a socialist society will ensure a much stricter separation of church and state to prevent religious institutions from influencing public opinions and policies at the expense of women and other vulnerable social groups.
In practice, Marxist solutions to the woman question have generally panned out with impressive results. The Russian Revolution of 1917 for example gave women unprecedented rights. Even with the interruption of some of these accomplishments under Joseph Stalin, these rights generally remained a non-negotiable staple of the Soviet system [30]. Another interesting case study is to compare the position of women in West and East Germany between 1945 and 1990. East German women benefited from a myriad of advantages over their West German sisters, with 88% of working women in employment, equal pay enshrined into law, generous maternity leave, free contraception and abortion, a healthy birth rate, the best childcare in the world according to the UN in 1987 and a much better record on LGBT rights. West German women enjoyed none of these perks and were consigned to a barely 50% employment rate with negligible social mobility, difficult divorce laws and almost impossible abortion laws until 1992 [31]. Furthermore, since the restoration of capitalism in the socialist camp, women have suffered drastic setbacks to their positions which have still not recovered [32]. These setbacks have been made worse by the ongoing economic crisis, the accompanying austerity and the ideological rot of the worst forms of social reaction across the world as the far-right grows [33]. Regardless of how one may critique “Actually Existing Socialism”, it must be reiterated that these experiments occurred in the most adverse circumstances, and that these propositions can still to a large degree be applied to a capitalist society. A good model for this could be the strong Social Democracies of the Scandinavian countries which have likewise produced impressive results for women.
Marxist Feminism remains incomplete however without the insights of Socialist Feminism. Due to Marxism’s mechanistic trajectories, it ignores that the ways capitalism oppresses women is not only beneficial to capitalism, but to men as a whole. This is what Socialist Feminist Zillah Eisenstein calls “Capitalist-Patriarchy”, whereby only an understanding that the capitalist system is: “structured by male dominance and, conversely… male dominance requires a recognition of the way it is organized by the capitalist division of labour” [34]. An example of this is how certain sectors of the economy are “feminized” (such as nursing) and then subjected to degradation (through poor wages and conditions). Of particular note is how this feminization demands implicit and explicit emotional labour for both men and capital (in addition to the rest of their labour burden) [35]. The converse is that the traits commonly touted as “necessary” for a market economy — such as competitiveness, cold calculation, and selfishness — are associated with men, thus ensuring their domination by justifying the status quo. Socialist Feminism’s use of a psychoanalytic and anatomical framework for answering other unfilled gaps also leads it to conclude that a radical break must be made between anatomical differences and value judgements of different types of labour in society. Ultimately this would mean a total transformation of society which would absolutely destroy the basis of defining certain behaviours and labour as “masculine” or “feminine” [36].
Of notable absence in the feminist movement as well has been a tackling of the question of hierarchy. Only recently has the Anarcha-Feminist tradition been exhumed for further examination in the form of its most popular proponents; Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons, “Mother” Jones and Louise Michel. Liberalism’s wholehearted embrace of the nation-state is increasingly coming under fire due to globalization, the growing sense of a “democratic deficit” in politics as well as revulsion at its most despotic forms. Anarchism sees the root of all oppressions as emanating from coercive authority. Anarcha-Feminists therefore posit that partriarchy and traditional gender roles are an expression of involuntary coercive authority. Furthermore, authoritarian characteristics and values like exploitation, aggression, competition and domination are integral to authoritarian societies and are associated with “masculinity” [37]. Emanating from this observation is how the normalization of unjust and unnecessary hierarchies lead to an ongoing nihilistic belief in society that all liberation movements are “utopian” due to a widespread deference to institutionalized authority. Its distrust of state institutions means Anarchist Praxis is dominated by “Direct Action” which has the benefit of not being corrupted by political pressures due to its avowed separatism from the parliamentary or legal avenue [38]. Anarchism therefore advocates as much horizontalness as possible in human relations whilst positing that the respect for individual choice and equality implicit in such an arrangement will lead to women’s emancipation. This approach is not without merit since impressive anarchist advances for women have been achieved throughout history in the Paris Commune (1871) [39], the Spanish Revolution (1936–1939) [40] and in Rojava, Syria since 2014 [41].
Related to the question of hierarchy is the pressing issue of the environment. Eco-feminists like Vandana Shiva, Wangari Maathai and Murray Bookchin [42] hold that women’s liberation is incomplete without addressing our relationship to nature. According to them, the exploitative and aggressive traits associated with men have been translated into the way we as a race are treating nature. This of course is having a horrific impact on the planet as the 2018 IPCC report has warned [43]. By turning our relationship to nature into one of “stewardship” rather than “domination”, Eco-Feminists posit that this can change gender relations consciously and unconsciously [44]. Indeed, no program for women’s emancipation in the 21st century is complete without addressing the looming ecological catastrophe. Eco-Feminist methodology is also intersectional in practice due to the way it touches on numerous other struggles. First it undermines the nation-state in the face of the need for global solutions to the crisis and the prospect of future climate refugees. State vogues for nuclear power are also heavily critiqued due to the industry’s net contribution of emissions which simultaneously undermines the need for a strong centralized hierarchy to police such a dangerous enterprise [45]. Secondly, it undermines capitalism due to its need for perpetual growth and consumerism. Thirdly, it undermines wealth inequality due to how the global north is disproportionately responsible for the crisis and how only wealth redistribution can solve components of the climate issue, such as stronger social services to reduce population growth.
Finally, Radical Feminism is also crucial to the feminist canon. Its main proponents like Catherine MacKinnon, Andrew Dworkin, and Shulamith Firestone are distinguished by their unique belief that the basis of all other oppressions is the oppression of women. It starts with the premise that there are two “sex classes”, men and women, and that men oppress women through subordinate relations at work, in the home and in public life. Their premises has led them to develop the tactic of separatism, which while counterproductive in many respects has also spawned some of the best in the feminist movement. This separatism has inspired the championing of a “female” culture which seeks to celebrate the qualities commonly associated with women of compassion and nurturing and to change the common discourse such as by attempting to stamp out the common linguistic tool of identifying women with their most attractive body part [46]. This almost Gramscian subverting of patriarchal culture has also translated into concrete radical actions which counterposed femininity to the most vicious expressions of patriarchal “masculinity” such as the antinuclear protests of the 1980s, best captured by the brave stand of the women of Greenham Common [47] or the novel invention of the women’s shelter [48]. This separatism has not boded well however for more complex intersections of oppression. By assuming that all women have identitical interests, Radical Feminism has ignored that some intersections say otherwise. Kimberle Crenshaw and Patricia Collins note that black women for instance do not have the same interests as some racist white “sisters” and have the common foe of racism to combat with their menfolk [49]. This also reflects Radical Feminism’s middle class and white base, which has ignored other issues which impact women of colour, such as the hijab question in the West [50].
In conclusion, the goals of Liberal Feminism are not radical enough and can only substantively be made radical enough by departing from its narrow boundaries into other feminist schools of thought. This approach provides the best means for emancipating women by cutting through class, ethnic, national, gender, hierarchical, ecological, and economic divisions by arming feminists with both a theoretical and programmatic arsenal as opposed to mere “negative” resistance to the system of women’s oppression. This approach furthermore identifies all the targets possible for confrontation which include different manifestations of patriarchy, the state, capitalism, heteronormativity, homophobia, transphobia and ecological exploitation as opposed to the mere “legal” avenue that Liberalism is content with addressing.
Citations
1. Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton. Sociology. 8th ed., Polity Press, 2017.
2. Ibid.
3. Orr, Judith. Marxism and Women’s Liberation. Bookmarks Publications, 2015.
4. Ibid.
5. Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Penguin Classics, 2010.
6. Sewell, Rob. “The Origins of Women’s Oppression.” Socialist Appeal, 17 Dec. 2008, www.socialist.net/origins-womens-oppression.htm.
7. Dee, Hannah. The Red in the Rainbow: Sexuality, Socialism and LGBT Liberation. Bookmarks Publications, 2011.
8. Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton. Sociology. 8th ed., Polity Press, 2017.
9. Maples, Miranda. “Jordan Peterson Questions If Men and Women Can Work Together.” Study Breaks, 22 Mar. 2018, studybreaks.com/news-politics/jordan-peterson-2/.
10. Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton. Sociology. 8th ed., Polity Press, 2017.
11. Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1983.
12. Molyneux, John. Arguments for Revolutionary Socialism. Bookmarks, 1987.
13. Ibid.
14. Harman, Chris. How Marxism Works. Bookmarks, 1997.
Humphries, Barbara. “Women and Capitalism.” In Defence of Marxism, 10 Apr. 2002, www.marxist.com/women-and-capitalism.htm.
15. Kimber, Charlie, and Joseph Choonara. Arguments for Revolution: The Case for the Socialist Workers Party. Bookmarks Publications, 2011.
16. Renton, David. Never Again: Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League 1976–1982. Routledge, 2018.
Smith, Martin. Stopping the Nazis Last Time: A History of the Anti Nazi League and Rock Against Racism. Bookmarks, 2011.
17. Field, Nicola. Over the Rainbow: Money, Class and Homophobia. Dog Horn Publishing, 2016.
18. Roy, Arundhati. “The NGO-ization of Resistance.” Massalijn, 4 Sept. 2014, massalijn.nl/new/the-ngo-ization-of-resistance/.
19. Marx, Karl, et al. The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Classics, 2002.
20. Wetherly, Paul (2002). “Making Sense of the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of the State.” In Cowling, M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern Interpretations. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 195–208.
Wetherly, Paul. Marxism and the State; An Analytical Approach. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 2005.
21. Molyneux, John. Arguments for Revolutionary Socialism. Bookmarks, 1987.
Harman, Chris. How Marxism Works. Bookmarks, 1997.Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories on Imperialism: A Critical Survey. 1st ed., Routledge, 1990.
22. Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton. Sociology. 8th ed., Polity Press, 2017.
23. Blum, William. Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Zed Books, 2016.
Blum, William. America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy — the Truth About Us Foreign Policy and Everything Else. Zed Books, 2013.
24. Ibid.
25. Callinicos, Alex, et al. Marxism and the New Imperialism. Bookmarks, 1995.
Chang, Ha-Joon. Bad Samaritans: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the Threat to the Developing World. Random House Books, 2008.
Chang, Ha-Joon. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. Anthem Press, 2002.
26. Stone, Oliver, and Peter Kuznick. The Untold History of the United States. Ebury Press, 2013.
Bhattacharya, Tithi. Social Reproductive Theory; Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression. London: Pluto Press. 2017.
27. Ghandy, Anuradha. Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
28. Young, Kevin, and Diana C. Sierra Becerra. “Hillary Clinton and Corporate Feminism.” Against the Current, no. 175, Mar.-Apr. 2015, Solidarity US.
29. Blum, William. Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Zed Books, 2016.
Steinem, Gloria. My Life on the Road. Random House, 2015.
30. Orr, Judith. Marxism and Women’s Liberation. Bookmarks Publications, 2015.
Frederiksen, Marie. “Women Before, During and After the Russian Revolution.” Socialist Appeal, 10 Mar. 2017, www.socialist.net/women-before-during-and-after-the-russian-revolution.htm.
31. Green, John, and Bruni D. Motte. Stasi State Or Socialist Paradise?: The German Democratic Republic and What Became of It. Artery Publications, 2015.
32. Ghodsee, Kristen. Red Hangover: Legacies of Twentieth-Century Communism. Duke University Press, 2017.
33. Bello, Walden. “Understanding the Global Rise of the Extreme Right.” Counter Punch, 8 Oct. 2018, www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/08/understanding-the-global-rise-of-the-extreme-right/.
Sandel, Michael. “Right-wing Populism is Rising As Progressive Politics Fails — is It Too Late to Save Democracy?” New Statesman, 21 May 2018, www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/right-wing-populism-rising-progressive-politics-fails-it-too-late-save-democracy.
34. Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1983.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Nic Roibeaird, Fionnghuala. “A Basic Introduction to Anarcha Feminism.” Workers Solidarity Movement, 3 Apr. 2015, www.wsm.ie/c/introduction-anarcha-feminism-anarchist.
38. Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Harper Perennial, 2007.
39. Gluckstein, Donny. The Paris Commune: A Revolution in Democracy. Haymarket Books, 2011.
40. Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Harper Perennial, 2007.
41. Knapp, Michael, et al. Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in the Syrian Kurdistan. Pluto Press, 2016.
43. Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. AK Press, 2005.
44. Moufouma-Okia, Wilfran, et al. “Global Warming of 1.5 ºC.” IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Oct. 2018, report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf.
45. Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton. Sociology. 8th ed., Polity Press, 2017.
Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. AK Press, 2005.
46. Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The New Press, 2006.
Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. AK Press, 2005.
47. Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1983.
48. McCurry, Justin, et al. “How the ‘Greenham Common Protest Changed Lives: ‘We Danced on Top of the Nuclear Silos?” The Guardian, 14 Feb. 2018, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/20/greenham-common-nuclear-silos-women-protest-peace-camp.
49. Tong, Rosemarie, and Tina F. Botts. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. 5th ed., Routledge, 2017.
50. Collins, Patricia H. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 1999.
Collins, Patricia H., and Sirma Bilge. Intersectionality. 1st ed., Polity Press, 2016.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, et al. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. The New Press, 1996.
51. Lewis, Holly. The Politics of Everybody: Feminism, Queer Theory and Marxism at the Intersection. Zed Books, 2016.
Shannon, Deric, and J. Rogue. “Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality.” Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 13 Apr. 2018, blackrosefed.org/refusing-to-wait-anarchism-intersectionality/.
