Scholarly article on topic 'A Terminological Analysis of Feminist Ideology'

A Terminological Analysis of Feminist Ideology Academic research paper on "Philosophy, ethics and religion"

Share paper
{Feminism / ideology / "gender role" / anthropology / Christianity}

Abstract of research paper on Philosophy, ethics and religion, author of scientific article — Mihai Androne

Abstract Feminism may be considered without any exaggeration as a high impact ideology in today's society. The present paper aims at analysing feminist terminology from the point of view of the philosophical and cultural anthropology, as well as Christian anthropology, particularly focusing on the aspects related to gender roles, and the manner of promoting gender equality. In this case, the paper's objective is to evince the dynamics of feminist arguments used in combating the traditional conceptions about the relations between men and women, without hesitating to put forward some of the latest philosophical and theological reactions whereby certain Western authors distance themselves from feminism.

Academic research paper on topic "A Terminological Analysis of Feminist Ideology"

Available online at

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 63 (2012) 170 - 176

The 4th Edition of the International Conference: Paradigms of the Ideological Discourse 2012

A Terminological Analysis of Feminist Ideology

Mihai Andronea*

aLecturer, PhD, "Dunarea de Jos " University of Galati, Romania


Feminism may be considered without any exaggeration as a high impact ideology in today's society. The present paper aims at analysing feminist terminology from the point of view of the philosophical and cultural anthropology, as well as Christian anthropology, particularly focusing on the aspects related to gender roles, and the manner of promoting gender equality. In this case, the paper's objective is to evince the dynamics of feminist arguments used in combating the traditional conceptions about the relations between men and women, without hesitating to put forward some of the latest philosophical and theological reactions whereby certain Western authors distance themselves from feminism.

© 2012 TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos UniversityofGalati

Keywords: Feminism, ideology, gender role, anthropology, Christianity

Feminism may be considered without any exaggeration as an ideology of high impact on today's society. Anyone attempting a terminological analysis of the feminist current is actually trying to capture its specific profile, the impact it has in the context of contemporary doctrinarian debates.

So, what is feminism? What are its assumed objectives? And more importantly, what is the specific structure of its discourse? What are the in-depth resorts animating it and how justified would its arguments be from a philosophical and theological point of view?

Feminism is a fashionable academic subject, studied in many papers whose titles overtly prove the high degree of variation of the associations that may be made in its regard, and the profoundness of the implications of the analyses on gender relations and the woman's condition in society. The books and studies published in the

* Mihai Androne, Tel.: +40(0)726305753. E-mail address:

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.10.026

Western world have treated the connection of feminism with modern philosophy and psychoanalysis, dissociated feminism from post feminism, associated it to the categories of feminity and consumer culture, motherhood and sexuality, deeply involved it in controversies regarding ecology, economy, modernism, the dynamics of the religious thinking paradigms since the Judeo-Christian Antiquity until today, treated it in a confessional, political, ideological, ethical perspective, discussed its influences on contemporary art, and tried to grasp the connection it may have with law, justice, socialism, Marxism, culture, and the emotional side of the human being.

The present paper aims at evincing some of the philosophical and theological meanings of the issues put forward by feminism. Certain authors have regarded feminism as a 20th century ample movement having a huge impact on the social, political and cultural life of people worldwide. It is seen as the belief that women were and still are unfairly treated in society, not on account of objective criteria of the moral or professional type, but because they belong to a gender that is looked down on, i.e. just because they are women. Society has relied on patriarchal paradigms all along history, so that women have been regarded as being what men aren't, they have been seen as opposed to, and different from, men, in a depreciative manner: if men have been considered as strong, women have been characterised as weak, if men have been seen as rational, women have been considered as emotional, and male activism has been contrasted to female passivity. All this dissimilarity between the two genders was not supposed to evince once again what has always been obvious for everybody: that is, men and women are different from a physical point of view, and have their own biological identity. Instead, this dissimilarity used to "justify" a different social valorisation of men and women, in the sense of limiting the latter's access to education, public offices and activities, on the grounds they supposedly were inferior and subordinate to men. Thus, feminism is only an attempt at changing this view [1] which it deems intolerable.

The stakes refer to rebalancing the power relation between the two sexes. That is why feminism raises against everything traditional and conservative in point of gender relations, militating for a substantial reevaluation of the public perception of women and their role in family and society. This re-evaluation becomes visible through re-articulating the philosophical and religious discourse about exercising gender roles, by giving up the old philosophical and theological reasons that used to justify the placement of women on a secondary, less important position in public and religious institutions.

Feminism is an entire philosophy aiming at actually changing the life of contemporary women, on the grounds that women and men have equal right in all the areas of social life. Equal rights first and foremost mean the opportunity to fill any position available to men, without any discrimination. That is why feminism is an ideology of "women's liberation", as women are profoundly discontent with their social status. In order to understand feminism, some suggest that it should be seen through the eyes of women who have reached full self-consciousness and feel unable to advance unless they challenge the dominant positions exclusively pertaining to men. A feminist adept no longer accepts not being heard and listened to, no longer accepts being passed over, no longer agrees to filling a secondary position, nor being allotted a smaller role on earth, in this lifetime.

Feminism is the most devoted advocate of women's rights, militating for their emancipation, financial independence, and removal of gender hierarchy. Feminism aims at eliminating the deep rift between sexes that has been growing since the beginning of the industrialisation process [2]. This movement is the self-declared enemy of any type of racial or gender discrimination, professing that discrimination cannot possibly co-exist with social harmony and cohesion.

But this harmony, in the opinion of feminist militants, does not exclude the existence of controversial issues they are directly interested in. Mainly, there are two objectives able to reveal the close connection between feminism and the philosophical and theological planes: the right to choose (freely accepting maternity) and equal pay for like work. If the latter objective of the feminist struggle is unanimously accepted in the civilised world, the former has deeply moral and religious implications. In this case feminism enters an openly conflicting relationship with the adepts of Christian religion and the Christian doctrine followers not belonging to liberal theology. The feminist ideology has been militating for the legalisation of abortion (as well as divorce), contending that any woman is autonomous, and the mistress of her own body, free to decide if and when to become a mother. Moreover, feminist philosophy has embraced the idea that the thorny issue of voluntarily terminating a pregnancy (i.e. infanticide) should not be seen through the eyes of the values of Christian morality,

as it would mainly be related to the physical health of the woman, just like contraception, especially when the individuals involved are over 40. Besides, an unwanted and unplanned child may negatively influence the woman's family life and her professional evolution, in the feminists' opinion.

The "freedom" that the woman desires has specific philosophical, economic, theological, and political connotations, as it is not compatible with a political regime that appears as oppressive to many, as long as it allows the unconstrained manifestation of sexuality and provides it with a maximum space of movement and unlimited expression of personal choices. In this respect, the observations made by Simone de Beauvoir at the end of her book The Second Sex seem significant: "A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised: women reared and trained exactly like men were to work under the same conditions and for the same wages. Erotic liberty was to be recognized by custom, but the sexual act was not to be considered a □serviceD to be paid for; woman was to be obliged to provide herself with other ways of earning a living; marriage was to be based on a free agreement that the contracting parties could break at will; maternity was to be voluntary, which meant that contraception and abortion were to be authorized and that, on the other hand, all mothers and their children were to have exactly the same rights, in or out of marriage; pregnancy leaves were to be paid for by the State, which would assume charge of the children, signifying not that they would be taken away from their parents, but that they would not be abandoned to them" [3].

Feminism may appear to most as an apology of unhindered human freedom, in complete concord with the atheist existentialism of Sartrian extraction. However, knowing the close relationship between Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, it would be tempting to pursue this idea. Of course, freedom intimately correlates with responsibility, but in a world marked by the denial of God's existence, this responsibility is no longer exercised in the presence of an external authority superior to man, but instead it strictly becomes the responsibility for man's own development and personal achievement.

Let us remember in this context, if we were to adopt this argumentative strategy for the moment, that Jean-Paul Sartre's novel separates the world of rational explanations from the world of human existence. "The world of explanations and reasons is not the world of existence [4]", rationality and existence do not overlap, as in the existentialist philosophy rationality was replaced by freedom. Existence appears to the French philosopher as lacking necessity, absurd as it is dominated by contingency, and this absurdity and contingency constitute the very essence of things, their substance, which is why in an atheist world the absurd is absolute. "The essential thing is contingency. I mean that one cannot define existence as necessity. To exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered, but you can never deduce anything from them. I believe there are people who have understood this. Only they tried to overcome this contingency by inventing a necessary, causal being. But no necessary being can explain existence: contingency is not a delusion, a probability which can be dissipated; it is the absolute, consequently, the perfect free gift. All is free, this park, this city and myself. When you realize that, it turns your heart upside down and everything begins to float, as the other evening at the □Railwaymen's Rendezvous □: here is Nausea" [5].

In this world devoid of hope and explanatory foundation, man is absolutely free, but also absolutely alone, as it is only in this philosophical context that solitude and freedom are mutually supportive and somehow part of the same entity. But the freedom praised by Sartre in all his work heralds death, it is fatally marked by the total annihilation of man through his biological death. These considerations are not mere speculations, as Sartre himself says at some point in the previously mentioned novel that "I am alone in this white, garden-rimmed street. Alone and free. But this freedom is rather like death" [6].

The Sartrian nausea is accompanied by the anguish associated to man's fundamental freedom as man is permanently in a position to choose, to decide, to determine his way in life at his own will. "I am full of anguish: the slightest movement irks me. I can't imagine what they want with me. Yet I must choose" [7]. Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine that tallies in with feminism, emphasising man as an individual, his freedom and responsibility, his possibility to make choices without any constraint, bringing forward the idea of subjectivity. Man creates himself, his existence precedes his essence. Man is the product of a transcendent creator, existentialism is strictly separated from the canons of theist thinking, claiming that man is his own artisan, he

exists prior to being defined conceptually; he lives first and then defines himself. The human being does not have a predetermined identity, a pre-established nature that may condition his life path, he just is. Man exists first and then conceives himself, he wants to be in a certain way: thus the French Philosopher sets human dignity, his own identity that clearly differentiates him from the world of inanimate objects.

Man constitutes his own essence, according to Sartre, along his existence through his decisions taken in concrete situations. Sartre establishes the value of man according to his deeds and achievements, as he means to make man his own master: it would constitute, according to the advocates of this point of view, the expression of the Sartrian realism [8]. The French philosopher rejects the existence of an initial human formula that may determine the individual's present, and especially future, as this thinking paradigm is likely to limit his freedom and consequently diminish his responsibility. Man is unable not to choose, as choice is par excellence a constitutive given of his being, and through his choice man engages not only himself, but the whole mankind. Man is his own freedom: "Human freedom precedes essence in man and makes it possible; the essence of the human being is suspended in his freedom. What we call freedom is impossible to distinguish from the being of □humanrealityD [9]".

Being nothing in himself, man is all he wants to be by himself. His existence is permanently self-realisation and self-determination, man makes himself, rather than is. Man is condemned to be free, and this freedom is a permanent challenge to him, i.e. a task he faces permanently. In God's absence, man is his own inventor, his own project, the denial of everything he knows, a continuous pursuit into the horizon of infinite possibilities, he is constantly above his own human condition, unconditioned by it. "Obviously, therefore, the foundation of all revelation of being is freedom, that is, the mode of being of a being that is to itself its own project" [10]. Man's freedom cannot be limited by anything, it takes place despite the most difficult social and political circumstances. In other words, man is free precisely when it seems that he has all the reasons not to be free.

Man is free even in the most diverse historical periods, even under occupation or under an oppressive political regime. It is the reason why freedom coexists with heroism, tough choices, as in difficult political circumstances man is compelled to continuously reinvent himself, finding the escape in an apparently impossible situation: "the heroes are freedoms caught in a trap like all of us. What are the issues? Each character will be nothing but the choice of an issue and will equal no more than the chosen issue. It is to be hoped that all literature will become moral and problematic like this new theatre. Moral —not moralizing; let it show simply that man is also a value and that the questions he raises are always moral. Above all, let it show the inventor in him. In a sense, each situation is a trap—there are walls everywhere. I've expressed myself poorly: there are no issues to choose. An issue is invented. And each one, by inventing his own issue, invents himself. Man must be invented each day" [11]. Man's essence represents the summing-up of human life, a man's essence is fully constituted when death is approaching, when life is drawing to an end. The finished existence of a man constitutes his essence, his real identity. In this respect, we may quote the words of one of the Sartrian characters, viz. Inez, in the theatre play No Exit: "One always dies too soon-or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-your life, and nothing else" [12].

In Jean-Paul Sartre's conception, man is the designer and the design at the same time. Just like in Nietzsche's philosophy, in Sartre's philosophy man and divinity are in a deeply antagonistic relationship, being two mutually exclusive terms. This is obvious to anyone familiar with existentialist philosophy, who is also conversant with the nihilist thinking current. The French philosopher's novels and plays are illustrative in this respect, viz. Jean-Paul Sartre denied God thinking, like Nietzsche, and this is the greatest favour he could do to man, further increasing his stature and dignity. Sartre believes that man can, and is called to aspire to the condition of divinity, in an impetus able to overcome any obstacle in his way; that is why he asserts, through the words of one of his characters, in his play The Devil and the Good Lord (Act III, Scene X): "If God exists, man is nothing; if man exists...".

The conclusion is as clear as it can be: if God is everything, man is nothing, that is why by denying God man has the opportunity to become the very entity he flatly denied, viz. God, who is everything. By envying God, man wishes to deprive Him of his divinity to the very purpose of appropriating it through a gesture reiterating the old satanic temptation. In his fundamental work, Being and Nothingness, the French philosopher was to resume

this idea of the man's desire to be more than he is, to reach the condition of divinity: "To be man means to reach toward being God. Or if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God" [13].

Man aspires to God's condition just because he is driven by the passion of freedom. And this aspiration towards total unlimited freedom brings man into an antagonistic position with anything that may obstruct it, in our case with divinity, and implicitly its norms with a morally normative character for life. In the play The Flies, Sartre deals with the desire for freedom within man's soul which is called to reach the intensity of a genuine explosion; a character with a symbolic name, Zeus, says as follows: "Once freedom lights its beacon in a man's heart, the gods are powerless against him" [14].

As a result, man has to make his own way in life and invent the values he wants to adhere to, and intends to follow. But he cannot accomplish it- i.e. devise his own values - unless he first destroys the classical, traditional ones, in a nihilistic manner [15]. "If I leave to one side the destructive, anarchistic individualism of my nineteenth year, I see that immediately afterwards I concerned myself with a constructive morality. I have always been constructive, and La Nausée and Le Mur gave only a false image of me, because I was obliged first to destroy" [16].

Sartre is not the adept of the old moral norms that are somehow of Christian extraction, but philosophically speaking, he is the opponent of Kantian ethics based on duty placed above, and outside, man, which he must permanently obey. In War Diaries, he puts down the following: "The morality of duty never interested me firstly for the reasons I set out on 5 November: in my eyes, it was embodied by my stepfather. But above all, however much I was told that the categorical imperative expressed the autonomy of my will, I didn't believe a word of it. I have always wanted my freedom to be above morality, not below it; I wanted this, as I noted earlier, even at the time when I was a spoiled child. And then the morality of duty is tantamount to separating morality from metaphysics - which in my eyes meant stripping it of its greatest attraction [17]".

By taking a detached approach to Sartre's doctrine in order to analyse it critically, it becomes apparent that man does not dispose of unlimited freedom, he is not so free as he would like to. Man lives in a certain social and historic context, has received a certain education, was raised in the spirit of certain principles, norms, and values, has certain expectations and hopes, he cannot be free of himself. At some points, Sartre himself seems to tone down his own assertions regarding the so-called absolute freedom man apparently disposes of anywhere, and at any moment. In one of his works, the French philosopher seems to distance himself from the Stoic conception regarding man's freedom; in Critique of Dialectical Reason he appears to somehow refine his traditional point of view in this respect, as apparent in the following assertions: "It would be quite wrong to interpret me as saying that man is free in all situations, as the Stoics claimed. I mean the exact opposite: all men are slaves in so far as their life unfolds in the practico-inert field and in so far as this field is always conditioned by scarcity" [18]. Starting from this point, Sartre will go on to clearly state in an interview that he does not believe that we people are free [19].

Sartre distances himself from the Stoic conception on human freedom as he did not share the idea that this freedom would constitute a virtue providing the possibility to beneficially ignore the most unfavourable circumstances we would be forced to live in at a certain moment. On the contrary, to him, freedom is the power to get involved or fully engaged in the present situation to build the future. It means that involvement, or engagement is by definition an act; freedom is not something static, it means from the very start dynamism, mobility, it is revealed in all its magnitude in the act and through the act, viz. through action. The power of human freedom is the power of engagement, active participation in the life of a community. Man's freedom and responsibility represent a real fatality, as man, being condemned to freedom, is implicitly condemned to engagement, viz. everything that is foreign to the idea of neutrality. Man is the only one responsible for his life, and if he fails, he has no mitigating circumstances: every man has the life he deserves [20].

All these ideas characteristic of Sartre's philosophy have been reviewed as a departure point for the idea that they facilitate the better understanding of the feminism adepts' attachment, and implicitly of Simone de Beauvoir's, to the concept of freedom, as well as their militants'. Besides, these clarifications regarding Jean-Paul Sartre's philosophy also help explain the detachment of male and female followers of the feminist current from an openly assumed theist manner of thinking. But it is not our wish to focus the entire discussion on the term

freedom. Other terms are equally important as well, as long as they contribute to explaining the specific shape of feminist ideology.

Many of the female representatives of contemporary feminism harshly criticize a series of older or newer philosophers for their defaming conceptions towards women, and their androcentrism - the first one to mention at this point is Aristotle (Aristotle, in his book On the Generation of Animals, considered the woman, or rather the female, an imperfect male (masculus occasionatus) [21]; the feminist theoreticians also criticize the Judeo-Christian heritage, as they perceive the latter as markedly antifeminist: certain passages in the Bible are seen as infamous, and certain renowned theologians are considered as misogynistic. Women's liberation cannot apparently take place for the representatives of feminist ideology unless language is "freed" of certain "clichés" reflecting, in their opinion, a certain outdated, patriarchal mentality.

Mary Daly proposes in this situation the "solution" of a liberation method which is nothing less than an emasculation of a symbolic and linguistic type, as it can be seen in the following quotation: "The method of liberation [...] involves a castrating of language and images that reflect and perpetuate the structures of a sexist world. [.] It castrates precisely in the sense of cutting away the phallocentric value system imposed by patriarchy, in its subtle as well as in its more manifest expressions" [22]. The author's main struggle is against God the Father, the "great patriarch in the heaven". This image that has been maintained until today by traditional Christianity is unfavourable to women, as it would support an unfair system where the man is in charge and the woman obeys, according to Mary Daly. The author's argument is clear: if God is male, then man is God!

The term "patriarchy" mentioned above is associated by another feminist author to the social hierarchical relations that were seen in the past as genuine universal, unbreakable, immutable laws: among others, mention should be made here of the biblical precepts requiring the wife to obey her husband, children to obey their parents, and servants to obey their masters. Traditional Christians continue to claim that women should not hold top positions in Church, while other Christians, not as conservative, consider these subordination relations that they call "patriarchal" an unfair and oppressive system with no connection to the divinity [23]. This patriarchy represents the domination of men over women, albeit protective, as feminist studies claim. This term is supported by similar ones, part of the same ideological-symbolical family, such as: sexism, misogynism, and all these terms may apply to the entire religious tradition since the Leviticus to the Epistles of Paul. The followers of the philosophical or theological feminism consider that all the philosophical or theological instances supporting the subordination of women to men and gender hierarchies are nothing more than sexist ideologies that cannot even claim a legitimate origin; on the contrary, they are rooted in the old profane Greek philosophy, which showed such high tolerance to slavery.

Upon analysing the Christian religion, feminism has either contested its validity and relevance to the modern world, or, through a new Biblical exegesis, tried to forge a new religion unaffected by the "patriarchalism" and "sexism" of the "traditional" one [24], in order to ensure the perfect equality between the sexes in family, church, and society at large. A different biological identity results in different social roles, but how "different" may these roles be?

Theological feminism is egalitarian par excellence, or better said liberal. Theological liberalism is a thinking system that refuses to acknowledge the complete veracity of the Bible in its quality of the Word of God; it also rejects the absolute authority that the Bible should have in man's faith and life. The so-called evangelic feminism does not embrace the idea that men are reserved a predominant, leading role in family and church, opining that the administration of domestic matters belongs to both spouses equally. Similarly, in church, evangelic feminism contends that there are no ecclesiastic offices rightfully reserved for men, as all church offices should be equally accessible to both sexes [25]. The biblical texts that appear to justify the exclusion of women from certain ecclesiastic responsibilities only reflect the patriarchal mentality of a remote outdated era, and that is why they cannot possibly be vested with authority, or regulate life and activity in modern society, claim the feminists.

The Bible is an old book, but the interpretation we may provide can be new. So, the biblical message may be filtered through a new interpretive vision able to completely change its meaning. Certain authors of feminist-oriented studies have tried to denature the biblical message, or better still, to manipulate it by "adapting"

it to the present times, i.e. "upgrading" it. It is common knowledge that the modern man who has embraced a secular thinking paradigm no longer aims at the origin, but the originality, and originality at any cost in point of Christian faith is dangerous. It is certain that today's man, who is freer in thinking and his manner of living, is often at odds with the requirements of the biblical writings; the question, albeit rhetorical, that may be asked is: which is the direction of the adaptation, man to the Bible, or the Bible to man? The latter solution would be more comfortable, and maybe adapted to the spirit of the "modern" times. But this type of "adaptation" is the obvious symptom of the contemporary man's inability to adapt to certain higher requirements that definitely have unlimited time validity. Theological feminism is very influential in the Western world, being favourably viewed from a political point of view. Theological feminism wishes to be considered as Christian in nature, either Protestant, or Catholic. But, at the same time, it unhesitatingly distances itself from the traditional doctrinarian roots of both confessions.

And yet, beyond the justifiable reservations that may be held towards certain philosophical or theological assertions belonging to the feminist movement, it cannot possibly be denied that women should enjoy all the appreciation they deserve in family and society. It is deeply unfair that women should be active only in the realm of domestic activities, if we were to start from the traditional division between public and private. It is necessary to continue changing the traditional perception of gender relations and reassessing women's place and role in family and society. It is not fair for women to be confined to solving minor issues, but the truly abnormal situation is to consider tasks as unimportant just because they are mainly performed by women [26].


[1] Gamble, Sarah (2006). Editor's Introduction, In Sarah Gamble (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Feminism andPostfeminism (p. vii). London-New York: Routledge.

[2] Osborne, Susan (2001). Feminism. Harpenden, Herts: Pocket Essentials, 12.

[3] Beauvoir, Simone de (1956). The Second Sex. Trans. by H. M. Parshley. London: Jonathan Cape, 680-681.

[4] Sartre, Jean-Paul (2007). Nausea. Trans. by Lloyd Alexander. New York: New Directions, 129.

[5] Ibid., 131.

[6] Ibid., 157.

[7] Ibid., 55.

[8] Beauvoir, Simone de (1960). La force de l'âge. Gallimard: Paris, 48.

[9] Sartre, Jean-Paul (1958). Being and Nothingness. Trans. by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Philosophical Library, 25.

[10] Sartre, Jean-Paul (1992). Truth and Existence. Trans. by Adrian van den Hoven. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press, 15-16.

[11] Sartre, Jean-Paul (1988). What is Literature? And Other Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 235.

[12] Jean-Paul Sartre (1989). No Exit and Three Other Plays. Trans. by S. Gilbert et al. New York:Vintage International, 43.

[13] Sartre, Jean-Paul (1958). Being and Nothingness, 566.

[14] Jean-Paul Sartre (1989). No Exit and Three Other Plays, 102.

[15] Daigle, Christine (2005). Le nihilisme est-il humanisme? Etude sur Nietzsche et Sartre. Québec: Les Presses de L'Université de Laval, 117ff.

[16] Sartre, Jean-Paul (1999). War Diaries. Notebooks from a Phoney War November 1939-March 1940. Trans. by Quintin Hoare. London-New York:Verso, 81-82.

[17] Ibid., 82.

[18] Sartre, Jean-Paul (2004). Critique of Dialectical Reason, vol. 1. Trans. by Alan Sheridan-Smith. London-New York: Verso, 332.

[19] Cf. Detmer, David (1986). Freedom as a Value. A Critique of the Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 39.

[20] Cf. Sartre, Jean-Paul (1967). Baudelaire. Trans. by Martin Turnell. New York: New Directions Paperbook, 15-16, 86.

[21] Aristote (1961). De la Génération des animaux. Texte établi et traduit par Pierre Louis. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 62.

[22] Daly, Mary (1985). Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press, 9.

[23] Radford Ruether, Rosemary (2009). Christianity and Social Systems. Historical Constructions and Ethical Challenges. Lanham. Maryland - Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 6. Cf. Witherington III, Ben (2005). The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 251.

[24] Cf. Radford Ruether, Rosemary (2004). The Emergence of Christian Feminist Theology, In Susan Frank Parsons(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology (6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cf. Gilfillan Upton, Bridged, (2004), Feminist theology as biblical hermeneutics, In Susan Frank Parsons (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology (98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[25] Grudem, Wayne (2006), Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism ? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 15.

[26] Cf. Radcliffe Richards, Janet (1980), The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry. London: Routledge, 195.