Difference feminism

Difference feminism is a strand of feminist thought that holds that there are inherent and significant differences between the genders, but that the masculine version is not better. The key component of difference feminism is its critique of patriarchal devaluation of the feminine. Difference feminists vary on whether the feminine version is better than the masculine, or on whether they are simply different but "equal" and complementary (equality is not sameness). Difference feminists are generally thought of as essentialists, although some strands of difference feminism see it not as a philosophical approach to gender difference but as a pragmatic response to actual differences, whatever they are.

Essentialism and dualism

In philosophy and theory, many difference feminists typically laud the value of both versions (masculine and feminine) of various traits, although some difference feminists would argue that the feminine version is superior. For instance, masculine and feminine styles of communication; masculine and feminine approaches to reasoning; etc. They stress that the problem with patriarchy is that it devalues the feminine approach.

Appreciation of the dualism itself, however, over and beyond its individual components, has also been a thread within difference feminism. In particular, difference feminism has influenced various thinkers within various religious and philosophical traditions in their thinking about gender relations, gender roles, and access to power. For instance, modern-day Buddhism, paganism/Wicca, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have all incorporated some aspects of difference feminism.

Similarly, some social justice and peace movements have relied implicitly or explicitly on difference feminism. From mothers' peace unions in the 19th century to the women's peace and anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s and 1980s, the peace/anti-war movement have pointed out the links between patriarchy, violence, and war, and the uses of gendered violence in war. See, e.g., Susan Griffin, A Chorus of Stones. Various strands of radicalism that incorporated feminism, anti-racism, environmentalism, and anti-capitalism, have sought to tie an exploitative, violent, racist, and capitalist patriarchy to masculinity.

This appreciation of the dualism, however, is also the source of the strongest feminist critique of difference feminism: that it is simply a form of the same essentialism that is used by sexists to justify their actions. It's all very good and well to say that the feminine shouldn't be devalued, critics argue, but so long as you reify some theoretical difference and honor it, how do you draw the line? How would a difference feminist distinguish herself from any garden-variety sexist who thinks that men are just naturally better than women at math, logic, physical activity, public speaking, leadership, and so on? Philosophically, critics charge difference feminists to explain the source of the differences: what gender differences are biological versus social; and how, if the approach is fundamentally essential as opposed to social constructivist, can difference feminists use that approach to effectively and consistently distinguish between sexism and "recognition of difference". This argument significantly questions the rigor of essentialist views of human nature, and points out the folly of pinning an argument for political reform of social practices, on the very reasons that are used to justify the current social practices. Essentialist arguments are used to justify not just sexism, but racism, homophobia, classism, nationalism, and certainly speciesism; critics of difference feminism point to these associations with essentialism as additional proofs of the unreliability and philosophically malleable definition of essentialism.

Difference feminists respond that while distinguishing valuable differences from sexist assumptions can be a complex line-drawing exercise, so can just about anything, and in practice it is easy to distinguish between equality and female superiority on the one hand, and oppression of women on the other. Moreover, they respond that critics are ignoring the actual differences between men and women, however they came about. And finally, ignoring those differences results in a de facto devaluation of the feminine, an argument that women should just be more like men, and that ultimately that loss of the feminine will be harmful to us all. Isn't this simply imposing patriarchal values at their deepest level, and remaking women over in the image of the patriarchy? The current gender differences, however they came about, are valuable. For instance, even if women are socialized to be more emotionally communicative than men, that is a valuable trait. If women are more peaceful than men, then that is a good difference, between peacableness is a valuable and useful trait.

Difference feminism as pragmatism

Some difference feminists have moved away from essentialist arguments, treating difference feminism as merely an intermediate strategy that pragmatically recognizes the differences between the genders in social, economic, political, and legal circumstances. Here, difference feminism operates as a strong rebuke to equality feminism, which simply says that if you level the playing the field (legally), women and men will compete fairly and find their own individual levels. Leveling the playing field in one area (such as granting women's suffrage) does not, in fact, eliminate all gender differences, and those that create social injustice must still be addressed. If you do not recognize the differences, how can you effectively target them?

This strand of argument has been particularly important in feminist legal theory. Historically, difference feminism was used within the Victorian-era women's suffrage movement in the west, to argue that women, with their greater moral purity, would help to reform politics. We should recognize the differences and use those differences to improve society, the argument goes, but we need to improve women's legal standing to do so. While the argument from Victorian feminist morality looks quaint to modern eyes, it lives on in efforts to increase political representation of women, and in analyses of, for instance, voting habits of male and female political representatives to discern whether women are more likely to protect economic rights, vote for healthcare legislation, etc. Statistical differences in polled positions and voting records have also been capitalized on by politicos. In the US, for instance, the gender gap in voting records (women skew more towards Democrats and human rights, men skew more towards Republicans and restrictive legal regimes) has been capitalized on by politicos who sought to turn women's purported concern for family values into pro-Republican "security mom" voters.

Contemporary feminist legal theorists have noted that difference feminism has another, very practical role to play in legal theory. Whatever the source of the differences, men and women occupy different statuses in our society, and have different features which can act as legal disabilities. For instance, because many (middle- and upper-class) women traditionally sacrifice or interrupt their careers to support their families, even becoming stay-at-home moms, the law should take account of that difference in its disposition of marital assets on divorce, or in its inheritance rules. This historical discrimination justifies various forms of affirmative action. Or, for example, since women can and do become pregnant, there need to be protective legal rules to ensure that women are not legally, economically, and socially harmed by this difference with men.

As a legal matter, critics argue that legal rules could be set up in a gender-neutral matter that targeted the source of discrimination rather than its gendered manifestation. For instance, divorce settlements could be gender-neutral but take into account if one of the marital partners sacrifices her or his career for the family. This gender-neutral response not only addresses the "need" for difference feminism, it also avoids the problem of law being overly prescriptive in defining family structure and reinforcing patriarchal norms (such as heterosexuality, stay-at-home moms, etc.) (See Zoe Ann Fairbairns' Benefits for a cogent SF criticism of legal difference feminism.)

Critics also note that the "level playing field" argument is not an argument for essentialism or difference feminism, but simply a failure to look at patriarchy holistically. Legal theorists arguing from a difference feminist approach respond that even looking at patriarchy holistically, "equality" is attained at different rates in various fields, and until full social, economic, and legal equality is gained, legal structures can be used in the meantime to protect women from the lingering effects of patriarchy.

Difference feminism in SF

Difference feminism has played a significant role in feminist SF, particularly in the various early feminist utopias, but also within the various strand of goddess-themed fantasy. Difference feminist arguments in contemporary SF can be seen most strongly in Sheri Tepper's work of the 1980s and 1990s, particularly The Gate to Women's Country, which posited a world in which violence and other undesirable behaviors were genetically masculine, and that eugenics could solve the problems of patriarchy and violence. Because literature (even didactic literature) does not engage directly with material but through the creation of societies, situations, characters, thought experiments, and so on, it is not always easy to assess whether a work is "essentialist" or if the author is "advocating" difference feminism, or whether the work is simply exploring and critiquing the ideas. Below we list some works that have engaged the questions and the way scholars and readers have understood those works.

Works apparently positing difference feminism (esp. female superiority):

• Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Herland - A society run by women would be socialist and peaceful.
• Sally Miller Gearhart, Wanderground - Women are innately peaceful & attuned to nature; society run by men is exploitative and "unnatural" at a deep level. Gay men are more like women in some respects.

Works engaging in thought experiments about difference feminism, and arguably representing an essentialist stance:

• Sheri S. Tepper, The Gate to Women's Country - Men are genetically prone to violence and destructive hierarchical behaviors.
• Octavia Butler; see especially the Patternist series and the Xenogenesis trilogy. While neither are explicitly essentialist, they both repeatedly engage with biology and gender differences in behavior.

Works engaging in thought experiments about difference feminism, and critiquing an essentialist stance:

• Nicola Griffith, Ammonite - An anti-essentialist work: Violence and hierarchy are human traits, which are evident even in a woman-only world. A woman-only world is a human world, not something different in kind.
• Zoe Ann Fairbairns, Benefits - England passes a law to provide benefits for stay-at-home moms with purportedly feminist intentions; the result is less than feminist.