To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Women's liberation movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women's liberation march from Farrugut Square to Layfette Park on August 26, 1970.
Women's liberation march from Farrugut Square to Layfette Park on August 26, 1970.

The women's liberation movement, frequently capitalized as Women's Liberation Movement and abbreviated as WLM, was a loose alignment of women and feminist thinking that emerged in the late 1960s and persisted throughout the 1970s primarily in westernized industrialized nations, though its impact was world wide. The movement, based more in philosophy than politics, was joined by women of diverse backgrounds who adopted the idea that economic, psychological and social freedom were necessary for women to emerge from their station as second class citizens.

Members of the movement called into question patriarchal hierarchies of social structure and the lack of women's independence in society. Though different elements were present in different countries, almost all liberationists shared a view that sexism or discrimination against women because of their gender was the primary issue, that hierarchical organizational structures should be avoided, and a belief that reforming existing institutions would not adequately change society to provide full equality for women. In general, though most liberationists came from leftist political ideologies, they rejected the idea that class-based equality would eliminate the discrimination faced by women simply because they were women and they were resistant to any political order which ignored women entirely or relegated their issues to the sidelines. As neither socialist nor democratic governmental organizations or parties treated women as equal with men, there was an overall distrust of existing social structures. They advocated for women-only spaces so that women could develop their own solutions to their problems.

Without the backing of a religious framework, the movement fostered the tenets of humanism and a respect for human rights, yet simultaneously was divisive as it created separation by liberating women from traditional roles, rather than seeking equality within the existing social construct. Pushing governmental organizations and liberal feminists far left of their original goals, liberationists withdrew from the public sphere, when it became apparent that rather than abolishing unfair laws, legislative reform granting compromise changes were gaining support from the public. However, in period in which the movement flourished, liberationists altered the perception of women, redefining what women's roles in society could be, and transforming the treatment of women in society, and both by public and private organizations. Many of the ideas they advocated for became mainstream values.


The wave theory of social development holds that intense periods of social activity are followed by periods of remission, in which the activists involved intensely in mobilization are systematically marginalized and isolated.[1] After the intense period fighting for women's suffrage, the common interest which had united international feminists left the women's movement without a single focus upon which all could agree. Ideological differences between radicals and moderates, led to a split and a period of deradicalization, with the largest group of women's activists spearheading movements to educate women on their new responsibilities as voters. Organizations like the African National Congress Women's League,[2] the Irish Housewives Association,[3] the League of Women Voters, the Townswomen's Guilds and the Women's Institutes supported women and tried to educate them on how to use their new rights to incorporate themselves into the established political system.[4][5] Still other organizations, involved in the mass movement of women into the work force during World War I and World War II and their subsequent exit at the end of the war with concerted official efforts to return to family life, turned their efforts to labor issues.[6] The World YWCA and Zonta International, were leaders in these efforts, mobilizing women to gather information on the situation of working women and organize assistance programs.[7][8] Increasingly, radical organizations, like the American National Women's Party, were marginalized, by media which denounced feminism and its proponents as "severe neurotics responsible for the problems of" society. Those who were still attached to the radical themes of equality were typically unmarried, employed, socially and economically advantaged and seemed to the larger society to be deviant.[9]

In countries throughout Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East and South America efforts to decolonize and replace authoritarian regimes, which largely began in the 1950s and stretched through the 1980s, initially saw the state overtaking the role of radical feminists. For example, in Egypt, the 1956 Constitution eliminated gender barriers to labour, political access, and education through provisions for gender equality.[10] Women in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua and other Latin American countries had worked for an end to dictatorships in their countries. As those governments turned to socialist policies, the state aimed to eliminate gender inequality through state action.[11] As ideology in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean shifted left, women in newly independent and still colonized countries saw a common goal in fighting imperialism. They focused their efforts to address gendered power imbalances in their quest for respect of human rights and nationalist goals.[12][13][14] This worldwide movement towards decolonization and the realignment of international politics into Cold War camps after the end of World War II, usurped the drive for women's enfranchisement, as universal suffrage and nationhood became the goal for activists.[15] A Pan-African awareness and global recognition of blackness as a unifying point for struggle, led to a recognition by numerous marginalized groups that there was potential to politicize their oppression.[16]

In their attempt to influence these newly independent countries to align with the United States, in the polarized Cold War climate, racism in U.S. policy became a stumbling block to the foreign policy objective to become the dominant superpower. Black leaders were aware of the favorable climate for securing change and pushed forward the Civil Rights Movement to address racial inequalities.[17] They sought to eliminate the damage of oppression, using liberation theory and a movement which sought to create societal transformation in the way people thought about others by infusing the disenfranchised with political power to change the power structures.[18] The Black Power movement and global student movements protested the apparent double standards of the age and the authoritarian nature of social institutions.[19] From Czechoslovakia to Mexico, in diverse locations like Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, among others, students protested the civil, economic and political inequalities, as well as involvement in the Vietnam War.[20] Many of the activists participating in these causes would go on to participate in the feminist movement.[21]

Socially, the baby boom experienced after World War II, the relative world-wide economic growth in the post-war years, the expansion of the television industry sparking improved communications, as well as access to higher education for both women and men led to an awareness of the social problems women faced and the need for a cultural change.[22] At the time, women were economically dependent on men and neither the concept of patriarchy nor a coherent theory about the power relationships between men and women in society existed.[23] If they worked, positions available to women were typically in light manufacturing or agricultural work and a limited segment of positions in the service industries, such as bookkeeping, domestic labor, nursing, secretarial and clerical work, retail sales, or school teaching.[24][25] They were expected to work for lower wages than men and upon marriage, terminate their employment.[26][24][25] Women were unable to obtain bank accounts or credit, making renting housing impossible, without a man’s consent. In many countries they were not allowed to go into public spaces without a male chaperone.[27]

Married women from countries founded the British colonial system and thus with a legal code based on English law were legally bound to have sex with their husbands upon demand. Marital rape was not a concept, as under law women had given consent to regular intercourse upon marrying.[28] The state and church, placed enormous pressure on young women to retain their virginity. Introduction of the pill, gave many men a sense that as women could not get pregnant, they could not say no to intercourse.[29] Though by the 1960s the pill was widely available, prescription was tightly controlled and in many countries, dissemination of information about birth control was illegal.[30] Even after the pill was legalized, contraception remained banned in numerous countries, like Ireland where condoms were banned and the pill could only be prescribed to control menstrual cycles.[31] The Catholic Church issued the Humanae Vitae condemning any attempt to prevent procreation in 1968.[32] Abortion often required the consent of a spouse,[33] or approval by a board, like in Canada, wherein the decisions often revolved around whether pregnancy posed a threat to the woman's health or life.[34]

As women became more educated and joined the work force, their home responsibilities remained largely unchanged. Though families increasingly depended on dual incomes, women carried most of the responsibility for domestic work and care of children.[35] There had long been recognition by society in general of the inequalities in civil, socio-economic, and political agency between women and men. However, the Women's Liberation Movement was the first time that the idea of challenging sexism gained wide acceptance.[36] Literature on sex, such as the Kinsey Reports, and the development and distribution of the birth control pill, created a climate wherein women began to question the authority others wielded over their decisions regarding their bodies and their morality.[37] Many of the women who participated in the movement, were aligned with leftist politics and after 1960, with the development of Cold War polarization, took their inspiration from Maoist theory. Slogans such as "workers of the world unite" turned into "women of the world unite" and key features like consciousness-raising and egalitarian consensus-based policies "were inspired by similar techniques used in China".[38][39]

Into this backdrop of world events, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex in 1949, which was translated into English in 1952. In the book, de Beauvoir put forward the idea that equality did not require women be masculine to become empowered.[40] With her famous statement, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", she laid the groundwork for the concept of gender as a social construct, as opposed to a biological trait.[41] The same year, Margaret Mead published Male and Female, which though it analyzed primitive societies of New Guinea, showed that gendered activities varied between cultures and that biology had no role in defining which tasks were performed by men or women. By 1965, de Beauvoir and Mead's works had been translated into Danish and became widely influential with feminists.[42][43] Kurahashi Yumiko published her debut Partei in 1960, which critically examined the student movement.[44] The work started a trend in Japan of feminist works which challenged the opportunities available to women and mocked conventional power dynamics in Japanese society.[45] In 1963, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, voicing the discontent felt by American women.[46]


Similarly to how the Women's Suffrage movement emerged from the Abolition Movement, the Women's Liberation Movement grew out of the struggle for civil rights.[47][48] Though challenging patriarchy and the anti-patriarchal message of the Women's Liberation Movement was considered radical, it was not the only, nor the first, radical movement in the early period of second-wave feminism.[49] Rather than simply desiring legal equality, those participating in the movement believed that the moral and social climate which perceived women as second-class citizens needed to change. Though most groups operated independently—there were no national umbrella organizations—there were unifying philosophies of women participating in the movement. Challenging patriarchy and the hierarchical organization of society which defined women as subordinate in both public and private spheres, liberationists believed that women should be free to define their own individual identity as part of human society.[47][48][50]

One of the reasons that women who supported the movement chose not to create a single approach to addressing the problem of women being treated as second-class citizens was that they did not want to foster an idea that anyone was an expert or that any one group or idea could address all of the societal problems women faced.[51] They also wanted women, whose voices had been silenced to be able to express their own views on solutions.[52] Rejecting authority and espousing participatory democracy as well as direct action, they promoted a wide agenda including civil rights, eliminating objectification of women, ethnic empowerment, granting women reproductive rights, increasing opportunities for women in the workplace, peace, and redefining familial roles, as well as gay and lesbian liberation.[47] A dilemma faced by movement members was how they could challenge the definition of femininity without compromising the principals of feminism.[47][53]

Thousands of adherents joined the movement which began in the United States[54] and spread to Canada and Mexico.[53][55] In Europe, movements developed in Austria[56] Belgium,[57] Denmark,[58] France,[59] Germany,[60] Greece,[61] Iceland,[62] Ireland,[63] Italy,[64] The Netherlands,[51] Norway,[65] Portugal,[66] Scotland,[67] Spain,[68] Sweden,[65] Switzerland[69] and the United Kingdom.[70] The liberationist movement also was active in Australia,[71] Fiji,[72] Guam,[73] India,[74] Japan,[75] New Zealand,[76] Singapore,[77] South Korea,[78] and Taiwan.[79]

Key components of the movement were consciousness-raising sessions aimed at politicizing personal issues,[80][81] small group and limited organizational structure[82] and a focus on changing societal perception rather than reforming legislation.[8] For example, liberationists did not support reforming family codes to allow abortion, instead, they believed that neither medical professionals nor the state should have the power to limit women's complete control of their own bodies.[83] They favored abolishing laws which limited women's rights over their reproduction, believing such control was an individual right, not subject to moralistic majority views.[84] Most liberationists banned the participation of men in their organizations.[85][86] Though often depicted in media as a sign of "man-hating", separation was a focused attempt to eliminate defining women via their relationship to men. Since women's inequality within their employment, family and society were commonly experienced by all women, separation meant unity of purpose to evaluate their second-class status.[87]


North America

In Canada and the United States, the movement developed out of the Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War sentiment toward the Vietnam War, the Native Rights Movement and the New Left student movement of the 1960s.[53][88][89] Between 1965 and 1966, papers presented at meetings of the Students for a Democratic Society and articles published in journals, such as the Canadian Random began advocating for women to embark on a path of self-discovery free from male scrutiny.[90] In 1967, the first Women’s Liberation organizations formed in major cities like Berkeley, Boston, Chicago, New York City and Toronto.[91] Quickly organizations spread across both countries.[92][93] In Mexico, the first group of liberationists formed in 1970, inspired by the student movement and US women's liberationists.[55][94]

Organizations were loosely organized, without a hierarchical power structure and favored all-women participation to eliminate defining women or their autonomy by their association with men.[87] Groups featured consciousness raising discussions on a wide variety of issues, the importance of having freedom to make choices, and the importance of changing societal attitudes and perceptions of women's roles.[95][96] Canadian Women's Lib groups typically incorporated a class-based component into their theory of oppression which was mostly missing from U.S. liberation theory, [81][97] which focused almost exclusively on sexism and a belief that women's oppression stemmed from their gender and not as a result of their economic or social class.[98] In Quebec, women's and Quebec's autonomy were entwined issues with women struggling for the right to serve as jurors.[99]

Advocating public self-expression by participating in protests and sit-ins, liberationists demonstrated against discriminatory hiring and wage practices in Canada,[100] while in the US liberationists protested the Miss America Beauty Pageant for objectifying women.[101] In both countries Women's Liberation groups were involved protesting their legislators for abortion rights for women.[102][103] In Mexico liberationists protested at the Monument to the Mother on Mother's Day to challenge the idea that all women were destined to be mothers.[94][104] Challenging gender definitions and the sexual relationship to power drew lesbians into the movement in both the United States and Canada.[105] Because liberationists believed that sisterhood was a uniting component to women's oppression, lesbians were not seen as a threat to other women.[106] Another important aspect for North American women was developing spaces for women to meet with other women, offer counseling and referral services, provide access to feminist materials, and establish women's shelters for women who were in abusive relationships.[80][107][108]

Increasingly mainstream media portrayed liberationists as man-haters or deranged outcasts.[109][106] To gain legitimacy for the recognition of sexual discrimination, the media discourse on women's issues was increasingly shaped by the liberal feminist's reformist aims.[110] As liberationists were marginalized, they increasingly became involved in single focus issues, such as violence against women. By the mid-1970s, the Women's Liberation Movement had been effective in changing the worldwide perception of women, bringing sexism to light and moving reformists far to the left in their policy aims for women,[111] but in the haste to distance themselves from the more radical elements, liberal feminists attempted to erase their success and rebrand the movement as the Women's Movement.[112]


In Europe, the women's liberation movement started in the late 1960s and continued through the 1980s. Inspired by events in North America and triggered by the growing presence of women in the labour market, the movement soon gained momentum in Britain and the Scandinavian countries.[58] Though influenced by leftist politics, liberationists in general were resistant to any political order which ignored women entirely or relegated their issues to the sidelines.[113] Women's liberation groups in Europe were distinguished from other feminist activists by their focus on women's rights to control their own bodies and sexuality, as well as their direct actions aimed at provoking the public and making society aware of the issues faced by women.[114]

There were robust Women's Liberation movements in Western European countries, as well as developments in Greece, Portugal and Spain, which in the period were emerging from dictatorships.[115] Many different types of actions were held throughout Europe.[116] To increase public awareness of the problems of equal pay, liberationists in Denmark staged a bus sit in, where they demanded lower fares than male passengers to demonstrate their wage gap.[117] Swedish members of Grupp 8 heckled politicians at campaign rallies, demanding to know why women were only allowed part-time jobs and thus were ineligible for pensions.[118] To address the objectification of women, Belgian liberationists protested at beauty pageants,[119] Dolle Minas in the Netherlands and Nyfeministene of Norway invaded male-only bars,[51][120] Irish Women United demonstrated against male-only bathing at Forty Foot promontory[121] and Portuguese women dressed as a bride, a housewife and a sex symbol, marching in Eduardo VII Park.[122] Spanish liberationists from the Colectivo Feminista Pelvis ((Pelvis Feminist Collective)), Grup per l'Alliberament de la Dona (Group for Women's Liberation) and Mujeres Independientes (Independent Women) carried funeral wreaths through the streets of Mallorca calling for an end to sexual abuse and a judicial system which allowed men to use alcohol or passion as mitigating factors for sexual violence.[123] In Iceland, women virtually shut down the country when spurred by liberationists 90% of the women in the counry took Women's Day Off and refused to participate in household duties or work, instead attending a protest rally.[124]

In almost all Western European countries liberationists fought for elimination of barriers to free and unrestricted access to contraception and abortion.[125][126] In Austria, to advocate for abolition of section 144 of their criminal code, activists used street theater performance.[127] Prominent French activists declared their criminal actions signing the Manifesto of the 343, admitting to having had abortions,[59] as did German activists who signed the Manifesto of the 374.[128] Irish activists took the train and crossed into Northern Ireland to secure prohibited contraception devices and upon their return flouted authorities by passing the contraband to the public.[129] In Italy, 50,000 women marched through the streets of Rome demanding their right to control their own bodies,[130] but as was typically the result throughout Europe, compromise reform to existing law was passed by the government, limiting the decision by gestation or requiring medical intervention.[131][130][132]

As the idea of women's autonomy gained mainstream approval,[133] governments and more reformist minded women's groups adopted liberationists' ideas and began incorporating them into compromise solutions.[134] By the early 1980s, most activists in the Women's Liberation Movements in Europe moved on to other single focus causes or transitioned into organizations which were political.[135][136][137]


Spreading from the United States and Britain, the Women's Liberation Movement reached Oceania in 1969. The first organizations were formed in Sydney in 1969,[138] and by 1970 had reached Adelaide and Melbourne,[139] as well as Wellington and Auckland.[76] The following year, organizations were formed at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji[72] and in Guam.[73] As in the US and other places where the movement flourished, small groups of consciousness-raising with a limited organizational structure were the norm[82][140] and the focus was on changing societal perception rather than legislation.[8][140]

Involved in public protests, liberationists demonstrated at beauty pageants to protest women's objectification,[141][142] and invaded male-only pubs.[142] In Australia they ran petition drives and protests in favor of legalizing abortion[143] and in Auckland led a funeral procession through Albert Park to demonstrate lack of progress on issues which were of concern to women.[144] Liberationists developed multiple publications such as Broadsheet,[145] Liberaction,[146] MeJane,[147] The Circle[148] and Women's Liberation Newsletter[149] to address issues and concerns;[146] founded women's shelters;[150][76] and women's centers to both meet and provide child care services,[151][152] and were open to all women,[85] be they socialists, lesbians, indigenous women, students, workers or homemakers.[144] The diversity of adherents fractured the movement by the early 1980s, as groups began focusing on specific interests rather than solely on sexism.[8][153]


By the 1970s, the movement had spread to Asia with Women's Liberation organizations forming in Japan in 1970.[154] In India, 1974 was a pivotal year with activist from the Navnirman Movement against corruption and the economic crisis, empowering women to begin organizing to engage in direct actions to challenge leadership.[155] In 1975, liberationist ideas in South Korea were introduced by Yi Hyo-jae a professor at Ewha Womans University, after she had read western texts on the movement which were first translated into Korean in 1973.[78] Similarly, Hsiu-lien Annette Lu, who had completed her graduate courses in the United States, brought liberationist ideas to Taiwan,[79] when she returned and began publishing in the mid-1970s.[156]

In Singapore and other Asian countries, conscious effort was made to distinguish their movement from decadent, "free sex" Western feminist ideals,[157][158][159] while simultaneously addressing issues that were experienced world-wide by women. In India, the struggle for women's autonomy was rarely separated from the struggle against the caste system.[160] In Japan, the movement focused on freeing women from societal perceptions of their limitations because of their sex, rather than on a press for equality.[161][162] In South Korea, women workers concerns merged with liberationist ideas within the broader fight against dictatorship,[163] whereas in Taiwan, theories of respect for women and eliminating double-standards were promoted by weaving in Confucianist philosophy.[164]


The FBI kept records on numerous participants in the WLM, both spying on them and infiltrating their organizations.[165] Roberta Sapler, a participant in the movement between 1968 and 1973 in Pittsburgh, wrote an article regarding her attempts to obtain the FBI file kept on her during the period.[166] Similarly, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police spied upon liberationists in Canada,[167] as did the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation surveil WLM groups and participants in Australia.[168] In Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (German: Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) kept tabs on activists participating in women's center activities. Merely having lived in a communal housing project or been affiliated with rebellious youth movements made liberationists targets for their meeting places to be searched and materials to be confiscated.[169]


The philosophy practiced by liberationists assumed a global sisterhood of support working to eliminate inequality, without acknowledging that women were not united, but instead other factors, such as age, class, ethnicity, and opportunity created spheres where their interests diverged.[170] While many women gained an awareness of how sexism permeated their lives, they did not become radicalized and were uninterested in overthrowing society. They made changes in their lives to address their individual needs and social arrangements, but were unwilling to take action on issues that might threaten their socio-economic status.[171] Liberationist theory also failed to recognize a fundamental difference in fighting oppression. Combating sexism had an internal component, whereby one could change the basic power structures within family units and personal spheres to eliminate the inequality. Class struggle and the fight against racism are solely external challenges, requiring public action to eradicate inequality.[172]

There was criticism of the movement not only from factions within the movement itself,[51][52] but from outsiders, like Hugh Heffner, Playboy founder, who launched a campaign to expose all the "highly irrational, emotional, kookie trends" of feminism in an effort to tear apart militant feminist ideas which were "unalterably opposed to the romantic boy-girl society" promoted by his magazine.[173] "Women's libbers" were widely characterized as "man-haters", who viewed men as enemies, advocated for all-women societies, and encouraged women to leave their families behind.[52] Semanticist Nat Kolodney argued that while women were oppressed by social strictures and rarely served in tyrannical roles over the male population as a whole, that men in general were not oppressors of women either. Instead societal constructs and the difficulty of removing systems which had long served their purpose, exploited both men and women.[174]

To many women activists in the American Indian Movement, black Civil Rights Movement, Chicana Movement, as well as Asians and other minorities, the activities of the primarily white, middle-class women in the Women's Liberation Movement were focused too narrowly on gender injustice. By evaluating all economic, socio-cultural, and political issues through the lens of gender, liberationists missed the larger picture effecting women of color.[175][176][177] While women of color recognized that sexism was an issue, they did not see how it could be separated from the issue of race or class, which combined to impact their access to education, health care, housing, jobs, legal justice, and the poverty and violence which permeated their lives.[176][178][179] For women who did not speak English, or spoke it as a second language, sexism had little to do with the ability to protect herself or utilize existing systems.[180] The focus on personal freedom, was another divergence between white women and women of color. Liberation of women, without the liberation of men from policies which kept men of color from obtaining jobs or limited their civil rights, preventing them from being able to protect their families, neither improved humanity as a whole, nor improved the plight of families.[88][177] Dorothy Height, president of the National Council of Negro Women, expressed that the best way black women could help themselves was to help their men gain equality.[88]

Extending personal freedom to sexual freedom, the meaning of being free to have relations with whomever one wanted was lost on black women who had been sexually assaulted and raped with impunity for centuries[88] or Native Women who were routinely sterilized.[181] Their issues were not about limiting their families, but having the freedom to form families.[182] It had very little meaning in the traditional Chicana culture wherein women were required to be virgins until marriage and remain naïve in her marriage.[183] Though invited to participate within the Women's Liberation Movement, many women of color cautioned against the single focus on sexism, finding it constricting and liberationists' actions frivolous and simplistic.[176][184] Likewise, though many lesbians saw commonalities with Women's Liberation, through the goals of free choice and elimination of social categorizing by gender, others believed that the focus was too narrow to confront the issues they faced.[185] Differences in gender identity called attention to differences in issues. For example, many liberationists rejected beauty as a positive trait, which forced femme, white lesbians to choose between their desire to be feminine and their rejection of sexual objectification. Jackie Anderson, an activist philosopher, observed that in the black lesbian community being able to dress up was empowering, as during the work week, black women had to conform to dress codes imposed upon them.[186]


The Women's Liberation Movement created a global awareness of patriarchy and sexism.[111][187][13][188] In an effort to distance themselves from the politics and ideas of women in the Liberation Movement, as well as the personal politics which emerged, many second-wave feminists distanced themselves from the early movement. Meaghan Morris, an Australian scholar of popular culture stated that later feminists could not associate themselves with the ideas and politics of the period and maintain their respect.[112] And yet, liberationists succeeded in pushing the dominant liberal feminists far to the left of their original aims and forced them to include goals to address sexual discrimination.[111] Jean Curthoys argued that in the rush to distance themselves from liberationists, an unconscious amnesia rewrote the history of their movement,[189] and failed to grasp the achievement that without a religious connotation, the movement created an "ethic of the irreducible value of human beings".[190] Phrases which were used in the movement, like "consciousness raising" and "male chauvinism", became keywords associated with the movement.[191][51]

Influential publications

See also



  1. ^ Taylor 1989, p. 762.
  2. ^ Walker 1991, p. 83.
  3. ^ Connolly 1997, p. 109.
  4. ^ Taylor 1989, pp. 763–764.
  5. ^ Browne 2017, p. 5.
  6. ^ Taylor 1989, p. 764.
  7. ^ Hannan 2008, p. 175.
  8. ^ a b c d Elias 1979, p. 9.
  9. ^ Taylor 1989, p. 765.
  10. ^ Al-Ali 2002, p. 8.
  11. ^ Russell 2012, p. 19.
  12. ^ Armstrong 2016, p. 305.
  13. ^ a b Sanatan 2016.
  14. ^ Neptune 2011.
  15. ^ Rubio-Marín 2014.
  16. ^ Bagneris 2011, p. 4.
  17. ^ Morris 1999, pp. 522–524.
  18. ^ Curthoys 2003, p. 1.
  19. ^ Barker 2008, pp. 44–45, 50.
  20. ^ Barker 2008, pp. 48–50.
  21. ^ Bullock 2010, p. 4.
  22. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 16.
  23. ^ Bradshaw 2013, pp. 391–392.
  24. ^ a b Cheal 2003, p. 70.
  25. ^ a b Backhouse & Flaherty 1992, pp. 218–219.
  26. ^ Mioko 1978, p. 77.
  27. ^ Enke 2007, p. 6.
  28. ^ Cook 2004, p. 2.
  29. ^ Cook 2004, p. 3.
  30. ^ Nilsson & Spencer 2015.
  31. ^ Franks 2013, p. 46.
  32. ^ Rengel 2000, p. 202.
  33. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 241.
  34. ^ Sethna & Hewitt 2009, pp. 469–470.
  35. ^ Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, pp. 37–38.
  36. ^ Bucy 2010, p. 306.
  37. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 17.
  38. ^ Hathaway 2018.
  39. ^ Roseneil, et al. 2010, p. 136-137.
  40. ^ Bergoffen 2004.
  41. ^ Butler 1986, p. 35.
  42. ^ Larsen 2014.
  43. ^ Tobias 1997.
  44. ^ Bullock 2010, p. 13.
  45. ^ Bullock 2010, pp. 50–51.
  46. ^ Fox 2006.
  47. ^ a b c d Wiegers 1970, p. 50.
  48. ^ a b The Dayton Daily News 1969, p. 11.
  49. ^ Thompson 2002, pp. 344–345.
  50. ^ Studer 2017, p. 15-16.
  51. ^ a b c d e Foley 1971, p. 22.
  52. ^ a b c Bennett 1970, p. 40.
  53. ^ a b c Sethna & Hewitt 2009, p. 466.
  54. ^ Enke 2007, p. 2.
  55. ^ a b González Alvarado 2002, p. 56.
  56. ^ Der Funke 2003.
  57. ^ Jacques 2013.
  58. ^ a b Dahlerup 2017.
  59. ^ a b Picq 2008.
  60. ^ Perincioli & Selwyn 2015.
  61. ^ Greek News Agenda 2017.
  62. ^ Haavio-Mannila & Skard 2013, p. 27.
  63. ^ Cosgrove 2008, p. 882.
  64. ^ Radical Party Archive 1972.
  65. ^ a b Haavio-Mannila & Skard 2013, p. 28.
  66. ^ Pena 2008.
  67. ^ Browne 2017, p. 4.
  68. ^ Morgan 1984, p. 626.
  69. ^ Joris 2008.
  70. ^ Barber, et al. 2013.
  71. ^ Magarey 2014, pp. 25–26.
  72. ^ a b Griffen & Yee 1987, p. 1.
  73. ^ a b The Ladder 1972, p. 47.
  74. ^ Omvedt 1975, p. 40.
  75. ^ Shigematsu 2012, p. ix.
  76. ^ a b c Cook 2011.
  77. ^ Lyons 2000.
  78. ^ a b Kim 2000, pp. 220-221.
  79. ^ a b Chiang & Liu 2011, p. 559.
  80. ^ a b Spain 2016, p. 51.
  81. ^ a b Sethna & Hewitt 2009, pp. 468–469.
  82. ^ a b Magarey 2014, pp. 29–30.
  83. ^ Bracke 2014, p. 85.
  84. ^ Pena 2008, p. 108.
  85. ^ a b Magarey 2014, pp. 27–28.
  86. ^ Sethna & Hewitt 2009, p. 467.
  87. ^ a b Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, p. 8.
  88. ^ a b c d Sklar 2015.
  89. ^ Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, p. 39.
  90. ^ Yates 1975, p. 7.
  91. ^ Yates 1975, pp. 7–8.
  92. ^ Sethna & Hewitt 2009, pp. 466–469.
  93. ^ Freeman 1972.
  94. ^ a b El Universal 2012.
  95. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 20.
  96. ^ Kanes 1969, p. 11.
  97. ^ Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, p. 50.
  98. ^ Echols 1989, p. 3.
  99. ^ Dupuis-Déri 2007.
  100. ^ Wasserlein 1990, p. 64.
  101. ^ Bucy 2010, p. 307.
  102. ^ Sethna & Hewitt 2009, p. 472.
  103. ^ Nelson 2003, pp. 33–34.
  104. ^ González Alvarado 2002, p. 58.
  105. ^ Tremblay, Paternotte & Johnson 2016, p. 75.
  106. ^ a b Brownmiller 1970.
  107. ^ Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, pp. 45, 56.
  108. ^ González Alvarado 2002, p. 60.
  109. ^ Adamson, Briskin & McPhail 1988, p. 70.
  110. ^ Dow 2014, pp. 121–122.
  111. ^ a b c Willis 1984, pp. 91–92.
  112. ^ a b Curthoys 2003, p. 5.
  113. ^ Miller 2013, p. 20.
  114. ^ Kiani 2017, p. 19.
  115. ^ Allen 2007, p. 116.
  116. ^ Allen 2007, p. 120.
  117. ^ Fauré 2004, p. 668.
  118. ^ Harr 2014.
  119. ^ Degavre & Stoffel 2005.
  120. ^ Nørve 2007.
  121. ^ McCabe 2010.
  122. ^ Pena 2008, pp. 101-103.
  123. ^ Rodriguez 1979.
  124. ^ Brewer 2015.
  125. ^ Studer 2017, p. 15.
  126. ^ Allen 2007, p. 123.
  127. ^ Der Standard 2004.
  128. ^ Brown 2013, pp. 300-301.
  129. ^ Farren 2006.
  130. ^ a b Bracke 2014, pp. 87.
  131. ^ Allen 2007, p. 124.
  132. ^ Roseneil, et al. 2010, p. 145.
  133. ^ Rúdólfsdóttir 1997, p. 87.
  134. ^ Sarrimo 2003.
  135. ^ Pena 2008, pp. 112-114.
  136. ^ Beccalli 1994.
  137. ^ van Oven 2005, pp. 13-14.
  138. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 25.
  139. ^ Magarey 2014, pp. 26–27.
  140. ^ a b Else 1993, p. 65.
  141. ^ Magarey 2014, p. 26.
  142. ^ a b Else 1993, p. 63.
  143. ^ Genovese 1998, p. 103.
  144. ^ a b Ministry for Culture and Heritage 2018.
  145. ^ Aukland Museum n.d.
  146. ^ a b Magarey 2014, p. 44.
  147. ^ Henderson & Bartlett 2014, pp. 105–108.
  148. ^ Else 1993, p. 559.
  149. ^ Henderson & Bartlett 2014, pp. 91–92.
  150. ^ Genovese 1998, p. 128.
  151. ^ Else 1993, pp. 96–97.
  152. ^ Genovese 1998, p. 131.
  153. ^ Else 1993, pp. 97, 554.
  154. ^ Shigematsu 2015, p. 175.
  155. ^ Patel 1985, pp. 2-3.
  156. ^ Lu 2009, p. 48.
  157. ^ Shigematsu 2015, p. 176.
  158. ^ Lyons 2000, p. 11.
  159. ^ Menon 2011, p. 24.
  160. ^ Patel 1985, p. 7.
  161. ^ Shigematsu 2015, p. 174.
  162. ^ Ito 2015.
  163. ^ Ching & Louie 2000, pp. 123-125.
  164. ^ Chang 2009, p. 94.
  165. ^ Echols 1989, p. 8.
  166. ^ Salper 2008.
  167. ^ Sethna & Hewitt 2009, p. 465.
  168. ^ Smith 2017.
  169. ^ Perincioli & Selwyn 2015, p. 1970-77 Fear and Terror.
  170. ^ Willis 1984, p. 100.
  171. ^ Willis 1984, p. 107.
  172. ^ Willis 1984, p. 110.
  173. ^ Dow 2014, p. 120.
  174. ^ Kolodney 1978, p. 300.
  175. ^ Thompson 2002, p. 337.
  176. ^ a b c Regua 2012, p. 141.
  177. ^ a b Longeaux y Vásquez 1997, p. 31.
  178. ^ Thompson 2002, pp. 341–342.
  179. ^ Longeaux y Vásquez 1997, pp. 30–31.
  180. ^ Castillo 1997, p. 46.
  181. ^ Thompson 2002, p. 339.
  182. ^ Thompson & 2002, p. 349.
  183. ^ Anonymous 1997, p. 83.
  184. ^ Thompson & 2002, p. 342.
  185. ^ Klemesrud 1970.
  186. ^ Enke 2007, p. 55.
  187. ^ Walker 1991, pp. xxii–xxiii.
  188. ^ The Winnipeg Free Press 1989, p. 35.
  189. ^ Curthoys 2003, p. 6.
  190. ^ Curthoys 2003, p. 7.
  191. ^ Curthoys 2003, p. 4.


External links

This page was last edited on 25 May 2018, at 21:37.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.