He Cuixiang: The Issue of Gender Identity in Contemporary Western Feminist Research
What is a woman? For modern women, what kind of life and choices constitute happiness? Is gender based on biology, or is it socially constructed? What social problems does gender pluralism bring? What is the ultimate goal of women's liberation? These are all questions that contemporary feminist studies must confront. This article is grounded in the issue of gender identity within contemporary feminist research; it discusses how "woman" or "gender" is defined, solidified, and subsequently deconstructed from the perspectives of biology, social construction, and psychoanalysis, before finally addressing several issues worth exploring within feminist gender identity politics.
I. Women in the Biological Sense
What is a "woman"? When thinking of this question, many people's minds conjure up caricatured female characteristics. Definitions of women established in the biological sense—based on physical sexual differences—are not only dominant in traditional patriarchal societies but also have many adherents in modern society. The ethical norms of the "Three Obediences and Four Virtues" [1] directed at women in Chinese feudal society precisely embody this view of biological essentialism. A woman's "Three Obediences" refer to obeying the father before marriage, the husband after marriage, and the son after the husband's death. The "Four Virtues" refer to feminine virtue, feminine speech, feminine appearance, and feminine needlework/work. Only women who conformed to these ethical norms and observed these moral principles were regarded as "good women." This definition is based on the physiological differences between the two sexes, holding that women should possess traits such as high fertility, demureness, gentleness, virtue, filial piety, and obedience. The political and cultural extension of these traits facilitated patriarchy's rationalization of male dominance and oppression over women. With the advent of industrial society, the development of Western equal rights movements, the rise of the feminist movement, and the emergence of various anti-traditional social movements, this traditional and backward conception of women has significantly declined. In a sense, in the 1960s and 1970s, women in both the East and the West achieved a great deal of liberation. During that revolutionary era, schools of thought such as Marxist feminism, liberal feminism, and radical feminism emerged. They conducted in-depth inquiries into the economic roots of women's oppression, gender hierarchy, and biological factors.
In contrast to the patriarchal ideology of biological essentialism, the claims of radical feminism appear particularly extreme. The feminists who hold these views are mostly highly educated, Western, white, middle-class women. They believe that liberal feminism, which advocates for gender equality, is too moderate, as its thoughts and values remain within the framework established by men. Radical feminism, on the other hand, advocates for the creation of a unique female theory "entirely devoid of patriarchal traces." This theory holds that the oppression of women by men is primarily physiological and that male dominance and rule over women stem from the institution of heterosexuality. Furthermore, the heterosexual institution is established through ideological infiltration, biological assumptions, and channels such as the family, society, and religion, thereby enabling men to conquer women physically, intellectually, and culturally. Radical feminism argues that these social institutions cannot be reformed and must be uprooted; it is necessary to destroy not only their legal and political structures but also their social and cultural structures, including the family, society, and schools—the sites where social members are trained to produce gender bias.
Radical feminists believe that the cause of women's oppression lies in their physiological structure. The use of medical science and technology—including contraceptive technology, test-tube babies, artificial insemination, and cloning—can liberate women from the physiological function of reproduction (social reproduction) that oppresses them. Shulamith Firestone, in her book The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, proposed that the reproductive mechanism and male control over sexual life and reproduction are the roots of women's oppression. To this end, she argued for the reconstruction of the physiological mechanism of reproduction so that it occurs outside the female body, liberating women from this biological role and thereby fundamentally transforming the system of gender oppression.
It is easy to see that radical feminism is also a form of biological essentialism regarding gender identity. It holds that the female physiological structure and the sexual patterns, child-rearing patterns, and family structures it brings are the roots of oppression. Therefore, its goal of liberation is the female body, its target is the male collective, and what it negates are traditional gender identities, marriage patterns, and family structures.
Whether it is the overly conservative and backward traditional patriarchy or the overly extreme radical feminism, both are gender essentialisms based on biology (whether male-centered or female-centered). This binary opposition has been criticized by contemporary feminists. Undoubtedly, a woman's physiological structure and other biological factors are indeed important factors affecting her gender identity and life situation. However, as Simone de Beauvoir said: "A woman's body is one of the essential elements of her situation in the world. But she is not defined by her body alone." So, what is a woman? We need to look elsewhere.
II. Women in the Socio-cultural Sense
"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." This is the core view of the French existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir in her work The Second Sex. In this work, hailed as the "Bible" of the contemporary Western feminist movement, Beauvoir pointed out that women are not a species born naturally inferior to men as the "second sex," but are rather shaped by people (man-made). Starting from an existentialist perspective, she argued that explaining women's subordination solely from biological, psychoanalytic, and historical materialist perspectives is incomplete; we need to consider specific content such as the body, sexual life, and technical conditions from the perspective of the full range of human existence. She believed that the three traditional female roles—motherhood, wifehood, and daughterhood—are all created after birth. Women are not born knowing how to be mothers, wives, and daughters; the obligations and traits assumed by these roles are prescribed by the norms, etiquette, and customs of each society.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Beauvoir's views undoubtedly raised the curtain on the second wave of feminism. Women are not born that way but are constructed as the second sex. This viewpoint, which distinguishes "gender" (social gender) from biological "sex" and holds that gender is constructed by society and symbols, belongs to social constructionist feminism. This theoretical school believes that the physiological differences between men and women in the biological sense are merely the foundation upon which gender is established; a person's gender identity is not innate but is acquired during the growth process. Although biological sex is innate, gender is neither internal nor fixed but is a product of social interaction. Representative figures of gender constructionism include scholars such as Alison M. Jaggar, Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Judith Lissauer Cromwell, Gayle Rubin, and Germaine Greer. They all believe that the distinction and definition of male and female genders, as well as the formation of masculinity and femininity, are constructed through human intervention in society on a biological basis. Below, I will focus on the gender constructionist thought of Judith Butler, the theoretical pioneer of the American queer movement.
Continuing Beauvoir's view, Butler also believes that women are not born but are socially constructed. However, unlike Beauvoir, Butler argues that a woman's biological sex is also not given and fixed: "The body itself is a construction." A woman's body is shaped from the beginning by power mechanisms such as discourse, politics, and production. She opposes viewing the body merely as a passive medium or tool waiting to be animated by an immaterial will; instead, she seeks to reveal how the body is gradually formed through "gender" markers. She attempts to reconstruct the body through a genealogical discourse of the body, moving beyond the currently prevalent and oppressive biological categories. To this end, she proposed the famous theory of "performativity." Butler said: "The view that gender is performative seeks to point out that what we take to be an internal essence of gender is manufactured through a sustained set of acts, posited through the gendered stylization of the body. In this sense, it shows that what we take to be an 'internal' feature of ourselves is one that we anticipate and produce through certain bodily acts, at an extreme, an hallucinatory effect of naturalized gestures." In other words, gender is formed through acquired performance and imitation. Individuals shape "gendered" traits that appear natural from the outside by constantly repeating male or female ways of speaking, dressing, and behaving, and even certain personality traits and dispositions. In Butler's view, this is entirely a product of compulsory heterosexuality and the sexual economic activities set up by human society for reproduction and production; it is the result of the joint action of power, discourse, and politics. For this reason, she cited the postmodernist and post-structuralist views of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and others. Through a deconstructive, decentralized, and fluid view of gender identity, she subverts and transcends the dualistic structures of body and mind, sex and gender, nature and culture, subject and object, and freedom and determinism. She further argues that categories such as woman, gender, identity, and subject are not fixed, substantive existences, but are relative, situational locational categories. Gender identity should be an open, pluralistic, and fluid signified. Especially in today's Western society, the awakening of self-consciousness and the demands for rights among sexual minorities—such as homosexuals, "sexual inversions" [2], transgender people, and transvestites—further demonstrate the "non-natural" nature of gender ontology and heterosexual hegemony. Butler identifies with Monique Wittig's view, believing that lesbians are a third gender. They are neither men nor women, but a third gender that transcends traditional male-female binaries and the heterosexual system. In Butler's view, performative identity can be used both to establish heterosexuality as a norm and to reveal its fictional nature. This is what lesbians do: on the one hand, they parody the norms of heterosexual culture, and on the other, they subvert them.
Butler's shocking statements have sparked great debate. On the one hand, many believe she is too radical, negating the physiological and material attributes of the female body—for if everything is determined by cultural symbols and language, then is the female body still important? On the other hand, those in the LGBTQ community who suffer from discrimination and oppression believe that the recognition of multiple genders has granted them freedom and liberation. Since heterosexual norms and traditional gender identities are shaped by cultural language, simply changing the cultural context can allow sexual minorities to be treated equally and legitimately.
In short, regarding the issue of gender identity, neither biological essentialism nor social constructionism can clearly interpret the complex process of a woman's transition from "sex" to "gender." Several categories exist here: body, sex, gender, subject, and identity. The relationship between these categories is the core issue of debate within feminism. Some scholars have even divided modern human gender into DNA sex, physical sex, social gender, and relational gender to demonstrate the complexity of modern gender identity. Reportedly, there are 97 types of gender officially recorded in the United States. Under conditions where gender is so pluralistic, science and technology are so advanced, and people's gender concepts are more inclusive, whether the physical attributes of the body still hold significance for gender identity has become a questionable issue. Of course, in the search for the mechanisms of gender identity, we must analyze not only the biological basis and socio-cultural dimensions of gender but also study it from the deep level of unconscious desire.
III. Women in the Psychoanalytic Sense
For psychoanalysis, bodily differences play only a secondary role. In the view of Jacques Lacan, "bodily enjoyment" or pleasure is the key to understanding gendered existence and gender difference. He argues that "bodily enjoyment" is not what we commonly refer to as "sexual pleasure," but is instead "asexual." This enjoyment has no direct relation to the organs of the human body; rather, it is a mechanism of pleasure at the level of the human unconscious, closely linked to human desire and anxiety. Sigmund Freud believed that sexual libido was the primary cause dominating the human unconscious. Lacan, however, rejected this view that unconscious desire is determined entirely by biological "libido." He argued that the unconscious enjoyment of the body is closely related to signifiers and linguistic structures. His famous dictum is: "The unconscious is structured like a language." That is to say, bodily enjoyment, as an endless pursuit of desire, is intimately associated with the symbolic signifiers of the world of language, or the "Big Other" [3] as the Symbolic Order. There are many signifiers originating from the "Big Other," among which the most representative or privileged is the "Phallus" signifier.
The "Phallus" originally referred to the male sexual organ, but Lacan primarily adopts its symbolic function to explain the subject’s principles of desire and mechanisms of enjoyment. Freud believed that when boys and girls discover they possess different physiological organs, they become anxious over whether they "possess" it. Boys develop castration anxiety, while girls develop penis envy. The developmental process is initially no different for either sex; every infant must pass through the oral stage of attachment to the mother's breast, followed by the anal stage, and finally the phallic stage. It is only at the phallic stage that differences between the sexes emerge. Freud’s interpretation of the demands of female desire became a subject of heavy critique by feminists, who regarded his view as a form of "phallogocentrism."
Lacan inherited Freud's "phallogocentric" position—that is, the emphasis on the decisive role of the "Phallic signifier" in relations between the sexes—and on this basis pointed out that women, whose existence is founded on the logic of the "non-whole" (non-toute) or "not-One," possess a different kind of enjoyment. Here, "non-whole" or "not-One" is contrasted with the "Whole" and the "One." In Lacan’s eyes, the "Whole" and the "One" are the logical abstractions of patriarchy in modern society. As a privileged signifier, the "Phallic signifier" occupies a dominant position within the Symbolic Order or the "Big Other." "Phallic enjoyment" is also publicly recognized and articulated through various forms of discourse. If a man does not pursue "Phallic enjoyment," or does not ground himself in male identity within the Symbolic Order, he will be excluded from the male community. A woman, however, is a gendered being founded on the "not-One"; she is different from man. She possesses a power of choice: she can pursue "Phallic enjoyment" like a man, or she can seek an alternative mode of enjoyment. Anyone who possesses or yearns for this unspeakable, mysterious experience of enjoyment—regardless of whether they are biologically male or female—can be called "woman."
Lacan’s psychoanalysis of the mechanism of female enjoyment has won the attention and praise of many feminists. This is because, for Lacan, the cause of gender difference is neither biological genetic inheritance nor postnatal socio-cultural factors, but is related to one’s position regarding the "Big Other" and one's own mode of enjoyment. Men possess "Phallic enjoyment" and thus become the recipients and maintainers of the social order; meanwhile, women, as "non-whole" beings, often reveal the finiteness of the social order as the "One" or the "Whole." In this way, Lacan overturned the traditional dualistic model of gender division, providing important theoretical resources for the liberation and revolution of women, gay people, and other sexual minorities. At the same time, however, Lacan has been criticized by some feminists for remaining confined within "phallogocentrism" and for mystifying the mechanism of female enjoyment. Toril Moi, for instance, argues that since female enjoyment transcends the "Phallus" and exists outside of language, what exactly is this "phantom" that escapes language and other social structures? She asks: is female enjoyment really more "outside" of language than the act of capturing the fragrance of a rose? Indeed, even male masters of psychoanalysis like Freud and Lacan were unable to accurately capture and write the mechanism of enjoyment at the level of the female unconscious.
IV. How to View Relevant Debates in Contemporary Gender Identity Politics
From sex in the biological sense, to the cultural construction of gender, and then to the unconscious mechanisms of enjoyment in psychoanalysis—what exactly is the decisive factor of female gender identity? Contemporary Western feminist researchers have debated this incessantly. Since the 1980s, there has been no final consensus on the question of "what is a woman." However, the focus of the debates surrounding this issue has gradually become clearer, and some basic consensus models have begun to take shape. For example, scholars have essentially abandoned the concept and method of simply defining womanhood or gender solely by the physiological structure of the body. The progress and civilization of modern society, along with developments in biology, psychology, and the modern human sciences, have made us realize that the definition of gender identity is a complex and pluralistic issue.
First, regarding the relationship between "sex" and "gender" and their roles in the struggle over gender identity.
On the correlation between sex in the biological sense and gender in the socio-cultural sense, there are at least three theoretical schools: biological essentialism, dualism, and radical social constructionism. Biological essentialism holds that the biological attributes of the body are decisive; a person's genes and physiological structure (especially the genitalia) determine gender attributes. Radical social constructionism, represented by Judith Butler, goes to the other extreme, arguing that both the body and gender are socially constructed, shaped by mechanisms such as social discourse, power, and production. There is no such thing as a "pure" body that has not been inscribed by society. Traditional dualism, meanwhile, posits a hierarchical relationship between body and mind, nature and culture, subject and object, sensibility and reason, and female and male. Although Simone de Beauvoir also emphasized the role of postnatal factors in the cultivation of womanhood, she did not deny the material attributes of the female body; rather, she viewed the physiological structure of the female body as an important factor in its gendered constitution. This is a form of moderate social constructionism, which has been criticized by contemporary radical feminists for its adherence to traditional dualism. Most contemporary feminist scholars have undergone the "spiritual baptism" of postmodernism and post-structuralism, maintaining an ideological vigilance regarding gender identity, opposing traditional and fixed norms of gender identity, and advocating for the inclusive and equal treatment of pluralistic gendered subjects, which reflects a respect for diverse individuals and the "Other." This undoubtedly possesses progressive and emancipatory significance. Butler’s theory of performativity has been highly enlightening and influential in breaking down antiquated gender concepts, critiquing the institution of compulsory heterosexuality, and vindicating sexual minorities such as gay people. But the question remains: is our gender identity really entirely the result of culture, symbols, discursive practices, power, and other such factors? "If biological sex differences indicate a natural distinction, then is gender difference the social expression of this natural distinction, or is there a more complex relationship between the two?" In other words, although gender is a construction of socio-cultural symbols, is this construction built upon the foundation of biological sex differences? Nature and culture are not two realms cut off from one another. In the view of Somer Brodribb, overemphasizing gender while ignoring the biological differences between men and women is a negation of the female body, and thus constitutes sexism rather than women's liberation.
Furthermore, exploring the mechanisms of gender formation cannot rely solely on the single gender dimension of the move from "sex" to "gender." "Woman" as an abstract, capitalized concept does not exist. A woman is a concrete gendered individual, but she is also a member of various communities such as class, religion, race, and ethnic groups. The establishment of female identity and the liberation movements it launches cannot be separated from various real-world social constraints. Schools of thought such as Marxist feminism, Black feminism, post-colonial feminism, digital feminism, ecofeminism, and global feminism have respectively elucidated the social roots of—and paths to liberation from—the exploitation and oppression suffered by modern women from the perspectives of economy, race, colonial rule, the digital age, ecological crisis, and capitalist globalization. Currently, various phenomena of right-wing populism, racism, and nationalism have emerged in Europe and the United States, and austerity policies have begun to be implemented economically. All of these have prompted Western societies to introduce conservative policies that are anti-genderist and anti-feminist. For example, in 2022, twenty-two states in the U.S. passed bills comprehensively restricting abortion. In this context, the close correlation between current gender identity politics and factors such as the modern capitalist system, racism, and nationalism is even more worthy of reflection.
Second, the debate over whether a unified concept of "woman" is necessary.
During the second wave of the feminist movement that rose in the 1960s and 70s, the concepts of "woman" and "women's rights" played an important role in uniting and leading the movement. Under the call to pursue and maintain equal economic, social, and political rights for women, countless women engaged in arduous struggles on social issues such as workplace equality, equal pay for equal work, marriage and family, anti-sexual harassment, and women's education. However, in the third wave of feminism characterized by "difference," the concepts of "woman" or "women's rights" have been detested and resisted by many feminists. In her preface to the 1999 edition of Gender Trouble, Butler pointed out that traditional feminist theory assumes the existence of an identity called "woman," who shares common interests and goals and serves as the actor in feminist political movements. But is the category of "woman" a natural existence? Is there a specific female culture independent of male culture? "Is there a specific female realm, a realm that is both distinct from the male and recognized because of its difference—the unmarked, and therefore assumed 'woman's' universal realm?" Butler argues that this fixed, unified category of "woman" assumed by feminist politics inevitably causes people to reject it, even if the construction of such theory or discourse has emancipatory aims. This is because it contains an exclusionary mechanism, shutting out those women who cannot be represented within the category of "woman" or who are filtered out by certain invisible powers. "The insistence on the coherence and unity of the category of 'woman' has effectively refused the multiplicity of cultural, social, and political intersections that construct specific 'women'." In Butler's view, only a gender category that is indeterminate and relative can stimulate the emancipatory potential of contemporary feminist politics and release the power of coalitional politics between feminism and groups such as the gay, transgender, racial, and ethnic communities.
Butler’s advocacy for a politics of alliance based on the deconstruction of the category of "woman" has met with criticism from many contemporary feminists. Among them, Iris Marion Young disagrees with the abolition of the concept of "woman." She argues: "In order to describe and explain some of the structures and processes that produce different opportunities and privileges in contemporary society, we cannot do without the concept of gender." Feminism and queer theory require these concepts, but gender is not an individual attribute; rather, it is an attribute of a social structure. Seyla Benhabib also believes that the feminist project of liberation still requires some form of grand narrative centered on "woman." Although the subject is determined by history, culture, and discursive practices, the subject "still strives to become autonomous." In her view, without principles concerning the subject, autonomy, and the self, the feminist liberation project is simply unimaginable. Nancy Fraser critiques Butler by noting that she only offers a deconstruction of gender categories without proposing a constructive normative meaning regarding women. The root cause is that Butler only wants to liberate women from identity, because in her eyes, identity itself is a form of oppression. Martha Nussbaum has also offered a critique, stating: "Symbolic feminist thinkers seem to believe that the method of feminist politics is to use the word 'woman' in subversive ways within academic publications of extreme obscurity and scornful abstraction. It is said that this cultural posture is itself a form of political resistance. Thus, people do not need to participate in messy things like legislation and movements in order to act boldly." In her book Citadels of Pride: Sexual Abuse, Accountability, and Reconciliation, she further notes that proud American women are obsessed with identity competition, fail to see the full humanity in women, and are completely ignorant of how to love; sexual partners are merely symbols of wealth and social status.
Evidently, on the issue of discarding the concept of "woman," most feminists hold an opposing view, considering it a politically naive approach detached from social reality. Whether they are academic feminists or feminist activists, although they stand to varying degrees on an inclusive position of gender diversity, they believe the concept of "woman" is a necessary categorical tool for their critique of patriarchy and other social conditions that oppress and exploit women.
Finally, regarding the liberation goals of the struggle for gender identity.
In the context of multiculturalism, the struggle for gender identity also faces the paradoxes and limitations of various identity politics involving class, race, religion, and culture. Consequently, the liberation goals of contemporary feminism face a choice between pursuing universalist equality or particularist difference. This is because, after experiencing the heights of the first and second waves of the feminist movement, women have already acquired broad equal rights at the legal level. Gender theory has revealed the various roots of gender formation, making people realize that gender is socially constructed and possesses the potential for pluralism and fluidity. This social constructionism of gender and third-wave feminism both advocate for gender pluralism and difference. This is reflected not only in sexual minorities but also in the differences within women formed by factors such as race, ethnicity, and the division of labor. Like multiculturalism, this political demand for the pluralism and difference of specific groups not only fragments and weakens the feminist movement—causing it to lose its previously influential political efficacy—but also leads it into a "dilemma of difference" [8], wherein it undermines the foundations of universal human rights in the name of specific cultural rights.
Gender policies introduced by the U.S. government in recent years have sparked significant controversy. According to current policies, "children should be able to learn in peace without worrying about whether they will be denied access to restrooms, locker rooms, and sports participation. Adults should be able to engage in a profession with peace of mind, knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or discriminated against for wearing clothes that do not conform to their assigned gender." However, some transgender individuals, or those who psychologically identify as a certain gender, can freely enter gender-segregated public spaces (such as bathrooms and toilets), which undoubtedly brings a certain potential danger and unease to others.
Furthermore, in an environment of "political correctness," topics concerning women’s rights and the rights of sexual minorities have become extremely sensitive and have produced new social problems in some respects. In the United States, multiculturalism is a "politically correct" creed rooted in fields such as education, academia, mass media, and the entertainment industry; any speech or behavior that violates or offends these creeds will pay a heavy price. For instance, we often see news of a university professor or media host in the U.S. being forced to resign due to inappropriate remarks about women. Of course, this is a protection of women's legitimate rights and interests and a consensus of social civilization. However, if this "political correctness" becomes dogmatic and moves toward extremes, then this egalitarianism based on gender identity will move toward formalism, and even transform into a force of resistance. This is also why contemporary Western feminists such as Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and Nussbaum are extremely wary of multiculturalism and critical of the politics of gender difference advocated by the Left. They all wish to transcend this "dilemma of difference" and establish a "post-difference" feminism or a universalist feminism that encompasses particularity. Among these, the "capabilities feminism" proposed by Nussbaum is an example. Nussbaum believes that we need to raise women's "threshold capabilities" through interventions in education, employment, and public power. These capabilities include ten aspects: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; living with other species; play; and control over one’s environment. Only under the condition that the state guarantees that women are not deprived of these threshold capabilities can women possess the ability and freedom to intervene in, participate in, and complete various valuable activities through education and training. Moreover, she believes that the problems encountered by poor working women in developing and developed countries should be placed at the center of the agenda, and the specific problems faced by middle-class women should give way to them. This points out the main direction of struggle for the current feminist movement.
V. Conclusion
In summary, contemporary Western feminist researchers still have significant differences on issues such as the body, the concept of woman, and the goals of the movement. Today, regarding the question of what constitutes a woman, it is neither possible to hold a completely biological essentialist view, nor should we adhere to a purely constructionist position. The author does not agree with the extreme claims of radical feminism—namely, the method of using advanced science and technology to eliminate women's reproductive roles to escape gender oppression. Women's physiological structure is something we should accept, appreciate, and embrace, but at the same time, we are not biological essentialists. Gender identity should be established on a basis where biology, social culture, and psychoanalysis are mutually compatible. Given the various problems brought by the politics of identity difference, while gender identity pluralism can be embraced culturally, caution is still required in terms of social construction and legal policy. More importantly, feminism should transcend the vision of gender identity politics and, starting from the concept of social liberation or the cultivation of basic human capabilities, focus on the conditions of poor working women who suffer deeply from exploitation and oppression.
Unlike the individual-oriented liberal tradition of Western society, Chinese society attaches great importance to the value and honor of the family and the collective. Therefore, on the question of what constitutes a woman, many Chinese people are still deeply influenced by traditional culture, believing that women should "assist the husband and teach the children" (相夫教子) [9] and become "virtuous wives and good mothers" (贤妻良母) [10]. Of course, in modern metropolises, women who have received higher education, have an independent economic foundation, and are influenced by Western thought have begun to doubt and break free from these role requirements and social norms. In fact, what is a woman? There is no absolute standard for what counts as a woman living well. Situations differ across different societies, nations, cultures, and religious traditions. Therefore, the definition of women and the liberation goals of feminism are never fixed; rather, they must advance toward more progressive social goals that allow the richness of women to blossom in accordance with changes in socio-historical conditions. The ideal society of the future should be one where women can choose autonomously and live with dignity without needing to submit to their gender identity or various external pressures.
(About the Author: He Cuixiang, School of Philosophy, University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Global Theoretical Trends (国外理论动态), No. 4, 2023