It would be an understandable assumption for one to make, that feminism is by definition, a liberal idea. Liberalism, being founded on the principles of liberty and equality ought to be, therefore, in favour of feminism. This essay will argue that this, to some extent, is true. It is that liberalism necessarily requires feminism, however, feminism is not inherently liberal. These two radical ideas are, in fact, opposing views. This essay will evaluate the principles of both liberalism and feminism, particularly women’s suffrage, and the reduction of state power over people’s private lives, as well as liberals advocacy of feminism against the ideas of the radical feminists, in order to argue that feminism is, in actuality, a critic of liberalism.

The spine of liberal ideology is the separation between one’s public and private life. Without this principle, one’s ideas cannot be considered liberal. In his 1911 essay Liberalism, Leonard Hobhouse stated that “[the state] must give the average man free play in the personal life for which he really cares.” This line is explicitly anti-woman, and by definition, anti-feminist. To say that the state should have no control over what one does behind one’s closed doors is inherently dangerous. It is to say, for example, that the state should continue not legislate the rape of wives by their husbands, as was the case in 1911. It is clear that men of today and 1911 hold the power within the domestic arena via their use of violence, and their monopoly on the monetary proceedings of their household. In 2015, roughly 1 million women reported their experience of domestic abuse, though this number is largely considered to be far under the real statistic. The liberal idea that the state should have no sway in the domestic arena is actively, therefore, protecting and aiding the perpetuation of patriarchal violence.

It can, of course, be argued that the state’s neutral position on the people’s private lives cannot be an active part in anything. This is, however, a false assumption. Pacifism, objectively supports the oppressor, it is as Desmond Tutu said, “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” The state, therefore, by being what it believes to be a neutral player in the male-dominated domestic arena, is in fact playing an active role in the continuation of the oppression of women. It is clear that state interference in the domestic arena in the case of one’s life being threatened can only be a good thing. The statistics show that the amount of rapes being reported since marital rape became illegal in 1990 has been on the increase, meaning that rapists are therefore more likely to be imprisoned for their crime(s). The feminist idea, consequently, that the state should be actively protecting women from sexual violence clearly poses an immense challenge to the very fundamental ideas of liberalism.

Commonly referred to as the “father of liberalism,” John Locke argued that the state is built for the social contract and thus, ensures the protection of both personal and private property, and is hence gender neutral. This, however, ignores the demographics of the state, which are key to understanding the way it functions. As of the 2017 general election, 68% of Parliamentarians are male. The state’s actions are determined by its demographics, for example, if the state is dominated with conservatives, it thereby stands that the actions of the state will be conservative in nature. In much the same way, if the state and its institutions are dominated by men, it will naturally act in its own self interest, the interest of men. That is to say, that it will put the needs of men before the needs of the women, and thus cannot guarantee the individual rights of the women and children that it claims to act for. It can, as a consequence, be concluded that the state is not in fact, gender neutral, and more so, in favour of the rights and needs of men.

The state, an imperative component of a liberal society, is just as necessary a component of patriarchy. Throughout all of history, there has been a continuous attempt by the state to stall, halt, and reverse the rights of women. From the imprisonment of the suffragettes, to the modern U.S. government’s attempts at criminalizing abortion, it is clear that where patriarchy exists, there necessarily requires a state for its continuation. The liberal state, through its refusal to step in when the lives of its women are threatened, but allowing the more individualist demands come through, is merely serving to women “a piece of the pie as currently and poisonously baked.”