
What early feminist movement tells us about today's gender inequality
— Mohammad Asim Siddiqui
Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment declining maternity leave to a school teacher, and said she was entitled to receive maternity benefits despite having two children.
But other structural inequalities faced by women remain very much in place. According to The Time Use Survey 2024 (January-December), while men spend 132 minutes more than women on employment and related activities, women spend much more time on unpaid domestic services – 289 minutes daily compared to 88 minutes by men.
In this context, how far have we come in addressing the structural inequalities? Can legal interventions correct such entrenched disparities, or a deeper shift in societal attitude is required? These questions, which constitute the core of feminist thought, may be better understood by revisiting the emergence of the feminist movement.
The term feminism existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century, though at the time it simply meant 'having the qualities of a female'. The term became widely known in the 1890s when anti-suffragists began using it negatively to refer to women's rights activists. Political parties and other organisations soon adopted the term
Feminism's history has been marked by many ruptures. It was only during the second wave of feminism beginning in the 1960s in the US when feminism began to take shape as a concerted and continuous movement. It advanced on various fronts simultaneously, with activists working at the grassroots level while legal and political scholars were sharpening their theoretical tools.
Cut to the present, often referred to as the fourth wave of feminism, the movement has branched into diverse approaches, frameworks and methodologies, and has continued the work of what feminist scholar bell hooks described as 'a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression'.
The concrete beginning of the First Wave of Feminism, dating from 1830 to 1920 and generally identified with the suffragette movement, can be traced to the Women's Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. Attended by more than 300 men and women, the Convention passed many resolutions stressing the equality of the sexes and issued the Declaration of Sentiments – the movement's manifesto.
One of the main organisers of the event was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a pioneering figure in the first wave who continued to champion women's causes all through the 19th century. The Declaration of Sentiments marked the formal beginning of the suffrage movement. In the same year, women groups across England, France, Germany and Italy joined workers and other marginalised groups to demand equality, giving the movement an international character.
Around this time, many feminist journals also started publishing news and commentaries on women's activities. Women attacked many oppressive laws that denied them the right to make contracts, bequeath property, have rights over their children or write wills. Common demands during this phase included opportunities in education, property rights and suffrage.
The rise of capitalism and democracy in the late 18th and 19th centuries awakened a new consciousness about individual rights. Yet the change in the nature of the economy, work and wages brought about by capitalism largely benefited men, leaving women disadvantaged and increasingly dependent on men.
Similarly, early theories of individual rights also placed men at the centre. The feminist movement addressed such issues, asserting the value of women's economic labour and their rights. Estelle B. Freedman in her book No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women (2002) argues that 'feminist politics originated where capitalism, industrial growth, democratic theory, and socialist critiques converged, as they did in Europe and North America after 1800. Women and their male allies began to agitate for equal educational, economic, and political opportunities, a struggle that continues to the present.'
During the first wave of feminism, Marxism and liberalism were the two important intellectual frameworks that were deployed to talk about women's exploitation and to address the issue of inequality. While Marxism envisioned women's emancipation through the overthrow of capitalism, liberalism, rooted in the principle of rationalism and belief in just governance, emphasised equality before the law.
The liberal position on women's equality was articulated forcefully by thinkers like Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill. In her most famous work A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects (1792), Wollstonecraft, drawing on insights from enlightenment ideals of liberty, equal opportunity and rationalism, questioned the divine rights of husbands and challenged the notion of women's inferiority.
Sharply disagreeing with Rousseau, who held a contemptuous view of women's education in Emile, Wollstonecraft advocated education for both men and women. She urged women to focus on cultivating their minds rather than prioritising beauty and fashion. Wollstonecraft wrote:
'Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built upon this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice.
'And how can women be expected to cooperate unless she knows why she ought to be virtuous? Unless freedom strengthens her reason till she comprehends her duty, and sees in what manner is connected with her real good.'
Exhorting women to develop their own potential, she said that 'I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves.' It was partly due to her influence that education was the earliest demand of women in the first wave.
John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women (1869), an important liberal-feminist text that influenced the future development of feminism, makes a strong case for the emancipation of women and for female suffrage in Britain. Stressing the principle of equality, Mill categorically stated:
'The principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes – the legal subordination of one sex by the other – is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.'
The women's movement in the US was linked with the abolition and temperance (abstinence from alcohol) movements. However, many women found themselves excluded from the rank of the men-led abolitionist groups, forcing them to form women's rights groups. One reason behind the organisation of the Seneca Fall Convention was the exclusion of five US female delegates from the World Slavery Convention in London in 1840.
With alcohol consumption reaching unprecedented levels in the nineteenth century, women were the main victims of men's alcohol abuse. The formation of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1874, and later the emergence of its many branches, accelerated women's efforts to protest alcohol abuse and its association with immorality.
In a pioneering study of women's speeches and writings, Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, Vol. 1(1989), Karlyn Kohrs Campbell notes that 'temperance was an acceptable outlet for the reformist energies of women during the last decades of the nineteenth century'.
Traditionally, 'good' women could participate in the temperance movement without facing any disapproval. 'Although the WCTU accepted traditional concepts of womanhood', Campbell continues, 'it came to argue that woman's distinctive influence should be extended outside the home via the vote. Consequently, woman suffrage became acceptable to more conservative women (and men), who had rejected it before, when presented as a means for woman to protect her domestic sphere from abuses related to alcohol.'
The civil war in the US adversely affected the women's movement as the focus of the nation gradually turned to patriotism and national interests, with women's demands becoming secondary. Women's groups had fully supported the cause of the Union and the abolition of slavery, expecting in return support for their rights.
However, their hopes were dashed when Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which dealt with voting rights and was ratified in 1868, introduced the word male into the US Constitution for the first time. This provision granted voting rights to all American males above 21 years. Women challenged their exclusion in the Supreme Court, which rejected their demand for suffrage in 1875.
An important development in the suffrage movement was the merger of two rival women organisations – the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). The merger led to the formation of a more influential organisation – the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) on February 18, 1890. Though its leaders often differed sharply over methods and policies, the new organisation made serious efforts for woman's right to vote.
The entry of fiery activist Alice Paul into the NAWSA in 1910 took the concerns of the organisation from state suffrage to national Constitutional amendment. Her conflict with the policies of NAWSA led her to form the National Woman's Party. These efforts culminated in the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1920, granting women the right to vote.
What were the key demands of the First Wave of Feminism? How did early feminist movements navigate societal expectations of womanhood and morality?
What role did Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill play in shaping early feminist thought?
Do you think the Supreme Court's ruling on maternity leave signal a genuine shift in the broader approach to gender justice?
In a country where women spend over three times as much time as men on unpaid domestic work, what policy interventions can ensure equitable sharing of household responsibilities?
(Mohammad Asim Siddiqui is a Professor in the Department of English at Aligarh Muslim University.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
NEW DELHI: Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the Houses, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
New Delhi: Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Belly Fat Removal Without Surgery? The Cost Might Surprise You (See Prices) Belly Fat Removal | Search Ads Undo But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." Live Events A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.