It can be seen that there is no representation of "right" from French Féminisme to English feminism, which is a historical problem. Early feminism (mainly the first wave of feminist movement) is closely related to equal pay for equal work, equal division of labor, the right to education, especially the right to vote, so feminism is defined as feminism: the theory of political, economic and social equality. Organized activities representing women's rights and interests; Specifically, 19 and the 20th century movements sought to eliminate restrictions that discriminated against women. Therefore, we can see that this period paid great attention to the requirements of words in terms of "rights". That is to say, "feminism" is a rights protection movement initiated by western women in pursuit of the same rights as men, a challenge to the dominant male centralism, and an egalitarian appeal and pursuit for women's rights under the patriarchal system. Therefore, translating "feminism" into "feminism" is a correct translation that conforms to the referential meaning of the original word.
At the same time, Mr. Liang Qichao wrote an article entitled "Human Rights and Feminism", and Ms. Li Yinhe also said: "The so-called feminist consciousness, simply speaking, is a kind of victim consciousness, that is, realizing the unfairness of social power distribution and realizing that she is the victim of this unfairness."
There was a misunderstanding among early feminists, and of course many feminists now have it, that is, political factors are the main factors leading to the gender pattern. If people are given the same opportunity and the same interest groups are given a fair opportunity to realize "pluralistic politics", then they all have the same opportunity to approach a political power mechanism, but this is not the case. In a non-neutral social structure, it is impossible to achieve gender equality by emphasizing the neglect of gender legislation and requirements, covering up particularity with generality, or even dissolving particularity, and only perpetuating inequality.
Therefore, we can see that feminism is moderate and conservative, and it is a "defensive" gesture, so feminism based on liberalism in the early days has not made substantial progress. So everyone began to think and construct theories, and the feminist period began.
Unlike most people's imagination, feminism is a word with an attitude of "aggression" and "attack", because feminism not only talks about "rights", but also begins to talk about "sex". Sex is to feminism what labor is to Marxism. This classic definition of feminism from a strategically advantageous position suddenly exploded the barrier of male-dominated architecture. Therefore, feminism attaches great importance to talking about sex, the relationship between the sexes, the structural differences and rights differences between the two "sexual relations", and shifts from the superficial demand for rights in the public sphere to the analysis of sexual relations in the private sphere (marriage and family), thus drawing the conclusion that sexual relations in the private sphere are the root of rights relations in the public sphere, unequal sexual relations are the norm, and power relations in other public spheres are extended by sexual relations.
Feminist theoretical research began to attack this field. Is sex a kingdom of freedom and enjoyment or a means of violence? How to define and analyze elements? Is sexual violence a kind of general violence or different from general forms of violence (such as robbery, murder, intentional injury)?
Therefore, following these two theories, the former thinks that there is no difference between sexual violence and general violence, so it deduces that "sex is violence"-if rape is based on "whether women agree", it is equivalent to "whether I agree to be robbed", and women are passive in sexual behavior (whether the robbed party agrees or not is the passive party), then whether women agree to be robbed will reverse the nature of sex (isn't it robbery if I agree to be robbed)? There is also a more heated debate-what men think of as "consensual sex" may be rape for women (women say "no" means "yes", of course not). The question is, from which angle should the law look at the world and make the reality considered by this view a correct fact? A woman was raped, but the person who raped her didn't think it was rape, and the law didn't think it was rape, especially in marriage. The evidence collection work in the later period is particularly ambiguous. Is there no evidence requirement for rape without fierce resistance and serious physical injury of "not agreeing to have sex"? Then when I was raped, I didn't want to, but I didn't want to arouse the anger and impulse of the criminals, so as to cooperate with the rape. Isn't it rape?
So, sex is violence. Whether a woman likes it or not is the first thought.
The latter believes that sexual violence is different from general violence because of factors such as "pleasure". So you can see that in many pornographic pictures, women are "reluctant" or even actively cooperate after being raped. Furthermore, there is an element of falling in love with the rapist after being raped. In addition, when a rape victim gives birth to a child after pregnancy, the rapist is exempted from responsibility. I remember one issue of "Wait for Me", in which the mother was abducted and raped to give birth to a child, and the child went to CCTV to find her mother. Ni Ping shouted to his fleeing mother from a distance, "The child is here. Where can you go?"
Therefore, sex is not completely violence. As long as women agree and understand, they can be exempted from responsibility. This is the second train of thought.
Therefore, the dispute between left and right has never stopped. The left is anti-sexual, and the right believes that sex is the expression of the right to enjoy and be independent.
The final answer is "feminism is the historical term of the first stage of feminism".