Clare Bright, Honors 394A

Question #3
Student Number: 1529268

1
The parallels between branches of feminism and branches of LGBTQism are
understandable in their nature. Issues of sexuality and gender are inextricably connected to one
another because they are matched together by societys gender norms. Therefore, there is much
that can be compared between the varying views of each group on human nature. Each factions
view on the Patriarchy is ingrained into its view on male and female differences because the
Patriarchy is often responsible for the definition of those differences. However, the
conceptualization of human nature that I find most compelling is the argument that Radical
Feminists make about human nature. I find it the most compelling for ending the gender norms
that oppress both women and the LGBTQ community.
LIBERAL FEMINISTS
Liberal Feminists view human nature at its core as reasonable and rational (Bright).
According to Alison Jaggar, Liberal Feminists highly value rationality and believe humans to be
essentially rational. Therefore, the closest to fulfillment that a human can get is through
exercising their intellect (Jaggar p. 175). Often, manual work (housework) was looked down
upon by Liberal Feminists. This definable state of being is universal to all humans. For
reformists of the feminist movement, human nature is commonly shared. Differences between
men and women may exist, but they are both at their core humans and deserve to be treated as
such (Friedan p. 115). In addition to this general humanness, Liberal Feminists see human
happiness as coming from fulfilling individual will, therefore, in competing for the material
achievements that most people compete for (Jaggar p.174).
On male and female differences, Liberal Feminists feel that they are extremely minor and
because of that there is no good argument to keep women out of the mainstream (Bright). For
Liberal Feminists, the mainstream that they focus mostly on is the mainstream workforce. Most

2
arguments about female worthiness and male/female differences focus attention on female ability
to do the same jobs as men as well as men because these differences ultimately mean nothing.
They see sex as non-important and only worthy as a relevant criterion for an employer when it
negatively impacts ability to perform (Jaggar, p.176). There seems to be some
confusion/difference amongst our authors about whether differences are cultural or biological
(Friedan, p.115). However, it is apparent that Liberal Feminists do not see these differences as
being creditable reasons for discriminating against women in mainstream society.
SOCIALIST FEMINISTS
Socialist Feminists do not believe in an essential human nature. This is contrary to the
beliefs of Liberal Feminists, who do believe in such a human nature (Bright). Rather, Socialist
Feminists believe that human nature is determined and controlled by economic structures and
systems that are in place. For Socialist Feminists, capitalism is the source of the Patriarchy.
Historically when women have been equally involved and no gender hierarchy established,
civilization has flourished (Radical Women Manifesto, p.4). Under capitalism, the Patriarchy has
flourished and so the human nature of man and women has been constructed. The family and
sex/gender relations are not perpetual in this conceptualization of human nature, their forms shift
as social systems evolve and supplant one another (Radical Women Manifesto, p.4). This shift
applies to sex roles created for women.
Sex roles are considered to be the result of social construction, not the result of biology
(Radical Women Manifesto, p.4). They see many of the roles delegated to women as homemakers and child bearers as manufactured by Capitalism and therefore sexism perpetuated by
Capitalism (Radical Women Manifesto, p.8 and 9). Here, Capitalism benefits from the sex roles
of men and women. Home-makers are unpaid laborers that, although as essential as workers

3
outside the home, have always been devalued by Capitalism and therefore gone unpaid (Davis,
p.227 and 228). This stance is similar to that of the Liberal Feminists because it recognizes no
actual and convincing evidence to minimize the participation of women in all realms of society.
The nuance between the two exists in that Socialist Feminists do not recognize much biological
difference and seem not to have differences on this point as the Liberal Feminists did. In fact, in
addition to the outright declaration on this point of the Radical Women Manifesto, Angela Davis
recounts how women have always been the biological and physical equal of men in their workwomen in slavery were expected to complete the same demanding work as their male
counterparts (Davis, p.230). It should be noted that she was speaking to the cultural/social
differences between Black and white women when making the above statement. Another
difference in socialist and liberal thought is that one depends on the ingrained nature of
Capitalism into human happiness and the other touts Capitalism as the root of inequality in
gender norms.
RADICAL FEMINISTS
Similar to the Socialist view on society and its impact on gender roles, Radical Feminists
condemn Capitalism as the source of the Patriarchy (Bright). They do not necessarily turn to
Socialism, but rather choose not to make the compromises for women that socialism requires and
seek a women-centered approach: nonalignment (Bunch, p.46 and 47). All American systems are
patriarchal because they are based on a hierarchy, and the system as it is creates the male/female
dichotomy. It must be completely reworked because it is not satisfying enough for women to
integrate into (Kreps, p. 239)
Radical Feminists see humans as basically socially androgynous (Bright). Behaviors,
norms, and social attitudes are all socialized and perpetuated by society (specifically the

4
Patriarchy). Both men and women have been given behaviors that are deemed normal for them
(Frye, p.15). These behaviors are not based in biology. These behaviors have been defined
arbitrarily by the Patriarchy (Bright). Human nature exists on a spectrum of behaviors- sex does
not define personality attributes. Sexual behavior also lives on a spectrum that incorporates all
types of families and relationships (Bright).
This concept of humanity is unlike any other Feminist concept of humanity. Each other
feminist faction seeks to promote some level of womanhood. Although Radical Feminists in the
literature do focus mainly on the oppression of women by men, they are more interested in the
underlying existence of human androgyny than enforcing this womanhood (Bright). However, it
should be noted that Radical Feminists are interested in womanhood as a short-term goal and the
ideal androgynous society as a long-term goal. Unlike Separatist Feminists, Radical Feminists
believe that because all behaviors, norms, and roles are socialized- that they are not natural. Male
domination is not a natural state of being for them (Bright). Although the literature did not
contain many of these theoretical conclusions about androgyny and human nature, and instead
focused on what could be done for women and womens oppression, further readings would
reveal this Im sure.
SEPERATIST FEMINISTS
To Separatist Feminists, there is no clear concept of human nature. They couldnt because
they do no believe that men and women are similar in any way- they are completely different
species (Bright). Often, the male population is described as a parasite rather than a fellow human
(Frye, p.98). Biologically and naturally women are better off without men and exhibit traits that
are consistently more positive than those of the men that feed on them. Men are lost in derision

5
when they have no access to women (Frye, p.99). In no way do men and women share a common
and universal human nature. Therefore, the differences between males and females are manifold.
Men are considered to be naturally dominant and women to be cooperative, caring, nonhierarchical, and not submissive (Bright). When women exist without men they are better offthis is exemplified by the idealistic descriptions of all-female Separatist groups in Levys article.
Although not perfect, separatist groups were free of conflict, self-sufficient, and self-determining
(Levy, p.31). These groups emphasized that when women are without men they are at their best
and that they have natural qualities that contribute to this. In addition to the qualities that
separate men and women, there exists the relationship of access between men and women.
Separatist Feminists see that it was considered natural in the past for men to have uninhibited
access to women (Frye, p.106). The male/patriarchal imperative is to have access to women and
for women to be accessible to men (Bright). Of course, that natural access to women needs to be
cut off in the minds of Separatist Feminists.
Separatist Feminist understanding of the Patriarchy is similar to the way in which Radical
Feminists conceptualize the word. However, unlike Radical Feminists, Separatists see it not only
as a system that men exist within but as something all men have in common (Bright).
Separatism as a strategy regards human nature and male/female differences differently
than Separatist Feminism. They were much more indifferent to men and sought to focus on
women for their sake. Their ultimate goal is to come back into a healthy and restructured world
and live with all people in love and respect (Lashoff and Thorne, p.76). This is not what
Separatist Feminists believe (they do not see this as possible because it is against male and
female natures). This tactic is found often within Radical Feminism as a tactic for womens
liberation, in modified versions within Socialist Feminism, and is almost nonexistent in Liberal

6
Feminism. The closest that Liberal Feminists get to separatism as a tactic is through womens
development classes. Yet for the most part, Liberal Feminists are really clear that they do not
believe excluding men for any tactic.
LIBERAL/REFORMIST LGBTQISM
Liberal LGBTQism relies on similar views of humanity as Liberal Feminism. Because
they rely on the same legal equality as Liberal Feminism, they rely on the same belief in basic
human rationality and logic (Bright). This belief is deeply connected to the concept that the truly
enlightened amongst the population (those whose reason is not blinded by something, namely
religion) will be aware of sexual equality (Powell, pp.3 and 4). Liberal Gays equate reason with
acceptance, and reason is something all humans have the capacity for. Also akin to the Liberal
Feminist platform on human nature is the belief in the supremacy of individual sovereignty
(Cruikshank, p.52). They strive to appeal to the reasonable side of those they wish to persuade
into agreement, especially when describing their own sexuality.
In terms of human sexuality, Liberal LGBTQism thought is highly differentiated from
other groups of the LGBTQ movement. It is a very strong proponent of sexuality as natural and
biologically built into an individual. Powell points this out as one of the biggest battles
homosexuality faces (Powell, p.2). Because of this, much of their efforts as an organization have
been to normalize gay sex and prove that is has long been a natural inclination (Cruikshank, p.51
and 52). They argue that human sex is not abnormal between two consenting adults; that the only
difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is the gender of the participants.
Most notably, there is no explicit mention of the relationship between Lesbians and Gays
within the Liberal LGBTQ movement. This in itself divulges that there was little thought put
towards any struggles that Lesbian women might have had within the Liberal LGBTQ

7
movement. Unlike other LGBTQ movements- Radical LGBTQism especially- there was an
expectation and assumption that a united and equal front existed in Liberal Gay organizations.
RADICAL/LEFT LGBTQism
Unlike liberal factions from both the womens movement and the gay movement, Radical
LGBTQism did not see humans as functioning most well in a system that gave absolute
sovereignty to the individual. Instead, they saw Capitalism in its current form as an oppressor to
gayness and freed sexuality (Freedman and DEmilio, p. 252). Together with mainstream
Capitalism, all existing social institutions must be abolished to gain complete sexual liberation
(Freedman and DEmilio, p. 251). According to Radical Gays, humans are controlled by their
social institutions; and because of that, they must be deconstructed.
Humans are androgynous to Radical LGBTQism- gender roles and sexuality is learned,
nothing is natural or innate. This view is almost identical to Radical Feminism, although there
seems to be more acceptance of sex not being androgynous in Feminism (Bright). Radical
LGBTQism embraces complete androgyny and even attacks heterosexuality as problematic
(Wittman, p.4). Androgyny in the literature is most closely addressed by Wittman. He broaches
bisexuality as an option for gay men and deconstructs some of the boundaries between gayness
and bisexuality by explaining that they are a product of the broken heterosexist society (Wittman,
p.3). This androgyny leads to the ultimate conclusion that all humans have the capacity to be
homosexual. This directly contradicts the Liberal Gay movements claim that human sexuality is
natural and biological. For Liberal Gays, homosexuality is not a choice. For Radical Gays, it is a
choice and sexual norms are instead learned and enforced by society.
Unlike Liberal LGBTQism, Radical Gays address the relationship between gay men and
women within the movement. Liberal LGBTQism recognizes that gay men, although not as

8
intrinsically tied to the it, still perpetuate the Patriarchy. Therefore, it has been perpetuated in
their organizations (Wittman, p. 4). Another example of the disconnect between gays and
lesbians in movement agendas and values is the view of sex- for women it is has in the past
meant oppression, whereas for men it has become symbolic of their freedom (Wittman, p.5).
QUEERISM
The Queer critique of Identity Politics is extremely revealing of Queer thought on human
nature and the individual. Identity Politics as a way of quantifying human nature is flawed
according to Queerism because the individual is not completely made of one essence but rather
many attributes. Identity Politics do not account for the differences of people (Bright). Queer
theory critiqued this categorization of people as too simplistic and believe their political stance of
Queer to accomplish much more as a dissent against the hegemony of gender and sexuality in
general (Duggan and Hunter, p.167). For Queers, there is no natural or stable identity because
what is usually termed as identity is truly just a location in a social system and a position in
relation to power (Bright). If an action or desire can be established, then it will be meaningful for
what it is (Brown, p.293). They reject the meaningfulness given to certain desires and actions by
other theorists on human sexuality. Interestingly enough, Queerism relies largely on the concept
of individual sovereignty (as do Liberal groups). It is described by one activist as an
antiassimilation movement that focused on letting people be who we want to be (Duggan and
Hunter, p. 165). However, the similarities between Queerism and Liberal groups of both
movements on the topic of human nature and sexuality end here.
Many liberal groups focus on the essence of being a woman or being gay and embracing
that essence. This is the very Identity Politics that Queerism critiques in its concept of humanity.
Queerism is also dissimilar to Separatist Feminist thought on human nature for the same reasons.

9
Separatist Feminists would have pointed out specific gender and sexuality differences between
men and women where Queer theorists would argue that such distinctions are not necessarily
natural but socially constructed. Queer theory of human nature deconstructs the boxes that many
other branches of the Feminist and Gay movement work to build. However, Radical branches of
both movements also devalue those boxes, though arguably not the the extent that Queerism
does.
An overall analysis of the seven branches reveals that only Liberal branches value
Capitalism and existing institutions as a non-product of the Patriarchy. This view on society is
relevant to human nature because it reveals how each movement understands the individual. The
rule is generally that the individual has absolute sovereignty over their life and the main goal
should be the exercise of that sovereignty. The exception to this rule is Queerism. It is also true
of Liberal groups that male and female differences are more pronounced. The exception to this is
Separatism which thrives on the perceived differences in males and females. This rule leads to
the conceptualization of androgyny, a common theory of gender and sexuality for radical groups.
The concept I find most compelling for Feminism is Radicalism. It is most compelling to
me because their theory about androgyny addresses the root causes of sexism and heterosexism.
It argues that there are no real differences between men and women and that we have socialized
certain behaviors and norms for women. I dont believe that women act one way because they
have a biological predisposition to do so. It is also a relief to have a theory that does not accept
the definition of men and women into certain roles. These roles are very confining and leave very
little freedom from stereotypes. The solution of androgyny is therefore, very compelling to me.
Although I would like to say that this solution would work for the gay community in
every aspect, I am skeptical. A similar androgyny argument was made by the Radical Gay group.

10
However, this argument was reliant on homosexuality being a choice. In the current political
climate, this is an extremely problematic statement and could reverse a lot of the basic work
being done to make life more comfortable for Gays. In addition to that, it is considered an
extremely offensive statement to many in the Gay community. I struggle with this paradox,
because it also seems that the argument for androgyny would reduce hurtful stereotypes for the
LGBTQ community as much as it would for women. If gender roles are deconstructed, then the
concepts of male and female behavior that may run contrary to an individuals reality would also
be eliminated. Again, I struggle with this in action as it could seriously undermine the claimed
identities of some in the LGBTQ community.
It is unlikely that androgyny would be politically advantageous in the short-term of the
movement. Although it may be the best option for meaningful change, it is not the best option for
change in America. Androgyny is becoming more mainstreamed on a social level, but there is
very little within institutions that indicates that androgyny is a likely near future. However, a
politically advantageous argument can be built on the idea that it is an eventual ideal. In the
meantime, the argument can be manifested as it has been in the efforts of Radical Feminists- by
pointing out and breaking down the perceived differences between the sexes. Because of its
idealism, the concept is appealing to much of the younger generations. Social media has become
a safe harbor for the sentiments of androgyny- Tumblr in particular- and this indicates that
younger generations are integrating this idea already into their socialization.