I have been thinking about a topic that is likely to be contentious. It is an area that often feels protected, and I think I am uncomfortable to question or critique. However, recent political discussions with friends around gender equality have prompted me to think more critically about it. These are not definitive conclusions, but reflections based on those developments.
I am fully aware that the barriers women face are deeply systemic rooted in economic inequality, political exclusion, cultural norms, and reinforced by overlapping structures of race, class, and other forms of marginalization. These are longstanding and complex issues. At the same time, I find myself asking whether the feminist movement, in its different forms, could have approached some of these challenges differently. Could alternative approaches have resulted in more stable or less reversible gains?
Historical grounding (patriarchy + colonialism)
This also raises broader historical questions. What conditions allowed patriarchy to emerge and persist as a dominant system? Patriarchy has existed across different societies, including those where more balanced or matriarchal structures were present. Over time, it was shaped and reinforced through multiple processes, including colonialism, racial hierarchies, and various forms of structural and physical violence.
It is important to be clear that patriarchy did not originate with colonialism in African societies. However, colonial systems often reorganized and strengthened existing gender inequalities. Colonial administrations introduced legal and institutional frameworks that formalized male dominance, limited women’s autonomy, and reinforced particular interpretations of cultural norms. As noted by Moyo and Perumal (2018), precolonial societies were not free from patriarchy, but colonial rule intensified and codified these hierarchies, especially through law, education, and governance structures. This suggests continuity, but also significant transformation under colonial rule.
Progress with complications?
Returning to the present, feminism has been one of the most influential social and political movements. It has contributed to important gains in legal rights, workplace participation, education, and representation and many others. Any analysis and serious reflection should acknowledge this – I do so, maybe I should have led with this in my intro!
At the same time, current debates suggest that feminism, as a term, has become difficult to define and increasingly contested. This raises a question that I approach cautiously, has feminism been limited in its impact, or has its openness made it harder to sustain a coordinated approach?
Part of this tension can be seen in the emergence of multiple feminist strands. For instance, critiques of what is often referred to as “white feminism” highlighted its tendency to center the experiences of Western, middle-class women, often overlooking the intersecting realities of race, class, and geography. In response, frameworks such as Black feminist thought and intersectionality emerged to address these gaps. Yet even these developments were not all encompassing leading to African feminisms, including womanism and other regionally grounded approaches, seeking to account for the specific historical, cultural, and social contexts of women on the African continent. I am sure and many more…..
These developments reflect an important strength. That is feminism’s ability to adapt and be responsive to different contexts and experiences. At the same time, they point to a challenge. As the term expands to include a wide range of perspectives and priorities, it becomes more difficult to identify a shared direction. This does not necessarily indicate failure, but more of a complexity. From my perspective, it does raise questions about how feminist politics is defined, articulated and organised today.
Empirical reality (stats paragraph)
Despite decades of advocacy and measurable gains, global indicators suggest that progress toward gender equality remains slow and uneven. Current estimates indicate that, at existing rates, it could take an additional 137 years to end extreme poverty among women, 284 years to remove discriminatory laws and close gaps in legal protections, and over 138 years to achieve parity in managerial positions. These projections point to structural inequalities that persist across economic, legal, and institutional domains. Such disparities not only affect women directly but also constrain broader social and economic development, raising concerns about long-term global stability and growth.
These realities complicate narratives of steady or sufficient progress. While feminist efforts have contributed to important changes, the pace and distribution of that progress remain uneven. In most contexts, there are already indications of regression, particularly with the resurgence of right-wing political movements that challenge or roll back certain gender equality initiatives.
This leaves me or you with a question for contemporary feminist politics: to what extent do these challenges stem solely from external resistance, and to what extent might they also relate to how the movement organizes, communicates, and coordinates or fragments its aims across diverse contexts?
Where does this leave us?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any conclusions. No doubt that we, women, are where we are enjoying some level of liberation because of the feminists’ movements. This clearly shows that feminism indeed contributed to meaningful and necessary progress even though structural barriers remain significant. At the same, the pace of change and regression suggest there is a need of an introspective and closer examination. Rather than questioning the value of feminism itself, this reflection points to the need for greater clarity around its application and direction. In my research I also advocate for a more strategic approach, particularly in how feminist ideas are communicated and positioned across different contexts. In some cases, this may involve a more deliberate negotiation on use of language or the label itself, especially where the term “feminism” itself becomes a point of contention that can either enable or constrain engagement.
This raises a further line of inquiry that cannot be fully addressed here. If feminism continues to operate as a broad and contested term, how does that shape its effectiveness as a political framework? To what extent does the focus on the label itself influence how the movement is perceived, debated, and organized and does this, in turn, contribute to perceptions of fragmentation?
In the next article, I will explore whether feminism has, in some contexts, come to function as an “empty signifier”, a container that is open-ended and capable of being filled with different meanings depending on who is using it. This raises further questions (sorry to disappoint, all I have are questions) …about how such flexibility shapes both its strengths and its limitations. Lookout for Part 2!
Leave a Reply