Radical Feminism: Theory & Examples

What Is Radical Feminism?

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that seeks to dismantle the patriarchal power and gender roles that keep women oppressed. Radical feminists believe gender inequality is rooted in men’s need to control women. The word ‘radical’ means ‘of or relating to the root.’

Radical feminists thus see patriarchy, a system of male domination, as the root cause of inequality between men and women. They seek to uproot it entirely, rather than reform it. This is not a problem of a few prejudiced individuals.

Most radical feminists treat patriarchy as a systemic domination of females by males that recurs across historical periods and cultures, rather than something tied to one economic system.

They differ on its exact basis, but most agree it involves men’s appropriation of women’s bodies and sexuality, through control of reproduction, the family, or violence.

They aim to address the root causes of oppression through systemic change and activism, rather than through legislative or economic reform. Radical feminism requires a global change of the system itself.

The goal is total liberation.

Radical feminists theorize new ways to think about the relationships between men and women so that women can be liberated. They see women as a collective group that has been, and still is, oppressed by men.

Its intent is women-centered. Women’s experiences and interests sit at the forefront of its theory and practice. It is argued by some to be the only theory genuinely by and for women (Rowland & Klein, 1996).

Theoretical Roots of Patriarchy

Radical feminists have never agreed on a single explanation for why patriarchy exists. Two founding texts set out different accounts, and the disagreement between them still shapes the tradition today.

Firestone: Biology and Reproduction

Shulamith Firestone was one of the earliest and most influential radical feminist theorists. In The Dialectic of Sex (1970), she located the origin of patriarchy in biology rather than economics or culture.

Firestone argued that women’s oppression is the most fundamental form of human oppression, predating even capitalism. She traced its roots to women’s childbearing role.

Pregnancy, birth, and infant care historically made women materially dependent on men for protection and subsistence. Firestone argued this “biological inequality” became socially organised, and entrenched, in the institution of the nuclear family.

She described women’s shared position as a sex class. This class system, she argued, could only be abolished by eliminating the biological basis of dependency, and she controversially advocated artificial reproduction as a technological route to liberation.

Millett: Socialisation and Politics

Her focus was different.

Kate Millett offered a different route to the same conclusion. In Sexual Politics (1970), developed from her doctoral work, she analysed literature and psychoanalytic theory, including a sustained critique of Freud.

Millett argued that patriarchy operates as a political institution. On her reading, it is sustained not primarily by biology but by the socialisation of women into subordinate roles from childhood onward.

The effects reached everywhere.

Sexual relationships are themselves relationships of power, Millett argued. Literature and psychology had, for generations, naturalised male dominance by presenting it as an inevitable consequence of anatomy rather than a political arrangement that could be challenged.

Where Firestone grounded patriarchy in the body, Millett grounded it in ideology and culture. This distinction shapes later radical feminist writing.

The two accounts are not mutually exclusive, and most radical feminist writing after the 1970s draws on both. But the disagreement over which mechanism is primary is one reason radical feminism is better understood as a family of related arguments than a single unified theory.

The Family

Radical feminists recognize that there is a disproportionate amount of violence against women, including domestic abuse.

In the 1970’s radical feminists labored to reform the public’s response to crimes such as rape and domestic violence.

Before the revision of policies and laws, rape victims were often blamed for their victimization. Due to the help of radical feminists, there is more justice for victims of gender-based violence.

Radical feminists are highly critical of the traditional nuclear family, viewing it as a key institution that preserves male power.

• Exploitation: They argue that the nuclear family exploits and oppresses women. Within the family, men benefit from women’s unpaid domestic labor (housework and childcare) and “emotional labor” (providing emotional support), often giving little in return.
• Male Dominance: Radical feminists see the family as a patriarchal unit where men control decision-making and resources. They contend that traditional family values reinforce this hierarchy.
• Divorce and Lone Parenthood: Consequently, radical feminists often view divorce and lone parenthood positively, seeing them as opportunities for women to escape male domination and gain independence.

Crime, Deviance, and the Law

Radical feminist perspectives have significantly influenced the study of criminology and deviance.

• Patriarchy as a Cause of Crime: They argue that women’s crime often originates in their experiences of patriarchy and exploitation. For example, crimes like shoplifting or prostitution may be survival strategies for women with few economic resources.
• Violence Against Women: Radical feminists place a strong emphasis on crimes committed against women, such as rape and domestic violence, viewing them as extreme extensions of gender inequality and tools used by men to maintain power. They reject the idea that these are isolated incidents, framing them instead as systemic issues.
• Prostitution and Pornography: Radical feminists often view prostitution not as a choice but as a form of sexual slavery that institutionalizes women’s dependence on men,. They also argue that pornography promotes violence against women and reinforces patriarchal cultural myths.
• The Legal System: They criticize the criminal justice system and the law as being patriarchal institutions that protect male power. For instance, they argue that laws regarding prostitution disproportionately punish women while ignoring male customers.

Key Study: Brownmiller (1975) on Rape as Social Control

The single most influential radical feminist analysis of a specific crime is Susan Brownmiller’s treatment of rape. It repays reading in full. The argument is load-bearing for the whole “crime as patriarchal control” claim made throughout this article.

Aim: Brownmiller challenged the then-dominant view of rape as an isolated act of individual deviance or overwhelming desire. She argued rape is instead a social and historical institution. Its real target, on her account, was not one man, but all women as a group.

Method: Brownmiller’s method was a wide-ranging historical, legal, and cultural analysis, not an empirical survey, spanning war, law, slavery, and criminal statistics across history. She examined how legal codes and social attitudes have treated rape, and how its threat has shaped women’s freedom of movement. The evidence spanned centuries.

Results: Rape, Brownmiller argued, is driven not by sexual desire but by the desire for power and dominance. Legal systems have historically treated rape less as a crime against the woman than as a property crime against the men who “owned” her. Ownership, not consent, was the frame.

Conclusion: Rape should be reconceptualised as a tool of intimidation, not a matter of a few disturbed individuals. In Brownmiller’s own words, it is “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

This makes it a paradigm case for systemic, group-level control.

The analysis was groundbreaking. It shifted public and legal discourse away from rape as uncontrollable lust and toward rape as power. It directly influenced law reform, including the eventual criminalisation of rape within marriage.

Its central limitation is methodological. As a historical and textual synthesis rather than a systematic empirical study, its claims about universal male intent are difficult to test directly.

Critics also argue that treating rape as an expression of all men’s collective interest risks overlooking the very unequal distribution of actual offending among men.

Real-World Applications and Examples

Radical feminist theory is not only an academic argument. It has shaped real institutions, reforms, and movements, and offers concrete examples of the theory in action.

Organisations and the Workplace

Liberal feminist writers such as Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) argued that women’s disadvantage in corporations was a problem of unequal access to existing power structures. This was soluble, in principle, by promoting more women into them.

Political theorist Kathy Ferguson took a different, radical feminist line in The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy (1984). She argued that bureaucratic organisation itself is a patriarchal form.

Bureaucracy structures “feminine” subordinate roles, such as compliance, deference, and emotional labour, into its lower rungs regardless of who occupies them. Simply placing more women in management does not remove this underlying gendered logic, Ferguson argued. Only dismantling bureaucratic domination itself would work.

This dispute is a direct instance of the wider disagreement between radical and liberal feminism. Is placing more women in institutions enough, or must the institutions themselves be restructured?

Criminal Justice Reform and Activism

Radical feminist campaigning fed directly into criminal-justice reform from the 1980s onward. This includes specialist police training for handling rape complainants, and dedicated “rape suites” designed to be less intimidating than a standard police interview room.

It also includes the eventual criminalisation of rape within marriage. This followed centuries of English law holding that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife. The reasoning: she had irrevocably consented to intercourse for the duration of the marriage.

Legal reform was not the whole story.

Activism mattered too. Radical feminist ideas generated collective action well beyond the second wave. “Take Back the Night” marches reclaimed women’s freedom to occupy public space at night. Later demonstrations against victim-blaming drew on this same analysis of rape as systemic, not incidental.

Support followed. Rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, and women’s health collectives were founded directly by radical feminist activists in the 1970s, as alternatives to patriarchal institutions. Many remain part of the social service landscape in most Western countries today. This is one of the tradition’s most concretely institutionalised legacies.

Criticisms

Critiques of radical feminism differ depending on the theoretical standpoint from which they originate.

Radical feminists identify patriarchy as the fundamental cause of women’s oppression and the primary social division. Sociologists and theorists from Marxist, functionalist, multicultural, and poststructuralist perspectives challenge this view.

Essentialism and the Neglect of Race and Ethnicity

A primary criticism levelled against radical feminism is that it tends to be essentialist and ethnocentric.

Radical feminism posits a universal “sisterhood” based on shared gender oppression. Critics argue this focuses on the experiences of white, middle-class, heterosexual women. It ignores the distinct experiences of women of color.

Multicultural Feminism:

Critics raise a narrower charge too. Radical feminism, they argue, fails to account for the intersection of race, class, and gender.

Multicultural feminists reject a purely patriarchy-based account. Race, class, and gender interact, they argue, to create a “triple burden” for women of color.

Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) argued that the experiences of African American women are shaped by forces that oppress them simultaneously, not one after another. Their status cannot be understood by simply adding racism to sexism, because the oppression is multiplicative.

Postcolonial Critique:

Postcolonial theorists raise a related objection. Chandra Talpade Mohanty (1988) criticised Western feminists for constructing a monolithic “Third World Woman”, portrayed as uniformly poor, victimised, and traditional against a “liberated” Western woman.

This framing obscures the specific cultural and historical contexts of women in the Global South. It also overlooks their agency as political actors in their own right.

Neglect of Capitalism and Class

Marxist and socialist feminists criticise radical feminism for overemphasizing patriarchy at the expense of economic factors.

Capitalism vs. Patriarchy:

While radical feminists view patriarchy as the root of oppression, socialist feminists argue that women’s oppression results from dual roles as paid and unpaid workers within a capitalist economy.

They argue that radical feminism ignores how capitalism benefits from women’s unpaid domestic labour and low wages.

Economic Determinism:

From a traditional Marxist perspective, radical feminism is criticised for failing to recognise that the roots of conflict are often economic (class-based) rather than purely patriarchal.

Marxists argue that ending capitalism is the necessary step to achieve gender equality, a point radical feminists dispute by arguing that patriarchy exists even in non-capitalist societies,.

Criticisms Regarding the Family

Radical feminists view the nuclear family as a key site of oppression where men exploit women’s labour and dominate decision-making.

This view faces opposition from Functionalists and New Right thinkers.

Ignoring Positive Aspects:

Critics argue that radical feminists ignore the positive aspects of family life and the satisfaction many women derive from their roles as wives and mothers.

Functionalists maintain that the family provides essential emotional support and stability for adults (the “warm bath” theory) and that the division of labour is functional rather than purely exploitative,.

Devaluing Choice:

Critics suggest that by characterizing traditional roles solely as oppressive, radical feminists may devalue the choices of women who prioritize family and domestic life.

Some research indicates that women may find satisfaction in “self-sacrifice” for their families, which radical feminists dismiss as “false pleasure” or the result of oppression.

Criminology and Victimhood

In the field of criminology, radical feminist perspectives have been critiqued for their characterisation of female behaviour and the legal system.

• Gender-Blindness in Reverse: While seeking to highlight crimes against women, radical feminist criminology has been criticised for focusing excessively on male criminality against women (such as rape and domestic violence) while ignoring female criminality.
• Essentialism in Crime: Critics argue that some radical feminist approaches imply that men are naturally aggressive and women are naturally passive victims. This biological determinism is challenged by evidence that women can also be violent and that social conditions (poverty, racism) play a massive role in victimization and offending for both sexes.
• Prostitution: Radical feminists often view prostitution as a form of sexual slavery and institutionalised dependence on men. This view is criticised by those who argue that for some women, sex work may be a rational economic choice or survival strategy within a capitalist system, rather than solely an expression of patriarchal dominance.

Views on Men and Masculinity

Radical feminism is often perceived as portraying men solely as the enemy.

• Universal Male Oppression: Critics argue that radical feminism implies all men share the same power and oppress all women. This overlooks the fact that many men (e.g., working-class men or men of color) are also oppressed by the capitalist or colonial systems and do not possess the same patriarchal “dividend” or power as elite white men.
• Crisis of Masculinity: Some sociologists argue that the rise of feminism and the decline of traditional male jobs have led to a “crisis of masculinity,” leaving men insecure and uncertain of their role, which radical feminism fails to adequately address.

Poststructuralist and Postmodernist Critiques

Poststructuralists challenge the very categories radical feminists rely on.

• Fixed Identities: Poststructuralists and postmodernists argue that categories like “woman” and “man” are not fixed or essential truths but are socially and linguistically constructed. They criticise radical feminism for relying on essentialist notions of “womanhood” that do not account for the fluidity of identity and the differences among women,. They suggest that there is no single “truth” of female experience.

Is Patriarchy Really Universal?

A more specific version of the essentialism critique targets the concept of patriarchy itself. Patriarchy itself is the target here. Radical feminists have generally treated patriarchy as a phenomenon that has existed across virtually all historical periods and cultures. Few societies are treated as exceptions.

Critics argue this leaves too little room for genuine historical and cross-cultural variation in how, and how much, women are subordinated. It risks a kind of biological reductionism: attributing the whole complex, historically variable phenomenon of gender inequality to a single, unchanging cause.

Scale is not the only problem.

Treating patriarchy as universal also tends to flatten real differences that race, class, and colonial history make to women’s experience of subordination. This reinforces the essentialism criticism above from a different angle.

Comparison With Liberal Feminism

A comparison sharpens the point.

Liberal feminism accepts the existing structure of society: the market, the family, representative democracy. It seeks equal access to that structure for women. It treats inequality as a matter of removable legal and attitudinal barriers.

Radical feminism rejects this as insufficient, because it leaves patriarchal power relations themselves untouched. The two traditions still share practical common ground, including support for reproductive rights and ending domestic violence, more than their theoretical dispute might suggest.

Contemporary Research

The evidence now speaks for itself.

Radical feminist theory rests on a specific, checkable claim. Violence against women, it holds, is not a marginal problem confined to a minority of “deviant” men, but a pervasive feature of women’s lives worldwide. Large-scale contemporary research now allows this claim to be tested directly.

Global Prevalence of Violence Against Women

Aim: Sardinha et al. (2022) set out to produce comparable global, regional, and national estimates of the lifetime and past-year prevalence of physical or sexual intimate-partner violence against women.

Method: The researchers compiled a database of 366 population-based studies, capturing survey responses from over two million women across 161 countries. This represented roughly 90% of the world’s female population aged 15 and over. A Bayesian model estimated prevalence by age, country, and year.

Results: An estimated 27% of ever-partnered women aged 15–49 worldwide have experienced physical or sexual intimate-partner violence in their lifetime, with 13% experiencing it in the past year alone. Prevalence was markedly higher in lower-income than higher-income countries.

Conclusion: Intimate-partner violence against women was already highly prevalent across virtually every world region before the COVID-19 pandemic. Current rates of progress are not on track to meet international targets for eliminating it.

As a synthesis of hundreds of studies, this directly substantiates the radical feminist claim that such violence is pervasive rather than confined to a small number of individual offenders.

Does Structural Inequality Predict Attitudes Toward Violence?

Sardinha and Nájera Catalán (2018) analysed survey data from 49 low- and middle-income countries, covering more than 1.1 million women and men. The question: was a husband ever justified in violence? Overall, 36.4% of respondents justified such violence in at least one circumstance.

Women’s economic rights and female literacy were among the strongest protective factors reducing acceptance of violence, while political conflict increased it. This large, cross-national dataset ties the acceptability of violence against women to measurable features of women’s structural position, fitting radical feminism’s structural emphasis.

Does the Evidence Support Radical Feminist Claims About Prostitution?

Here the contemporary literature complicates the classic radical feminist position. That position holds prostitution is inherently exploitative, regardless of legal framework.

Platt et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. It pooled 40 quantitative and 94 qualitative studies across multiple countries and legal models.

Criminalisation was linked to substantially higher odds of violence against sex workers and of HIV or other infection, while a fully decriminalised jurisdiction (New Zealand) showed improved workplace safety.

This does not resolve the underlying argument. But it shows much of the measurable physical harm is tied to the legal and policing environment, not the activity itself.

Strengths

Strengths of radical feminism lie primarily in its ability to expose and politicize the oppression of women within both public and private spheres, challenging established sociological and criminological perspectives.

Exposing the “Dark Side” of Family Life

A major strength of radical feminism is its critical analysis of the family, which counters the “rosy” picture often presented by functionalists.

• Challenging Idealization: Radical feminists highlight that the nuclear family is not always a harmonious unit but can be a site of exploitation and oppression. They argue that the family often benefits men more than women, with men receiving the majority of the benefits from women’s unpaid domestic and emotional labor.
• Identifying Labor Burdens: They have successfully drawn attention to the “triple shift” performed by women, encompassing paid work, housework, and “emotional labor” (investing time in the psychological well-being of family members).
• Validating Alternatives: By viewing the traditional family as a source of patriarchal control, radical feminism frames divorce and lone parenthood not as social problems, but as valid choices that offer women independence and escape from male domination.

Politicizing Violence Against Women

Radical feminism has been instrumental in bringing issues of violence against women from the private sphere into the public and political arena.

• Redefining Crime: Radical feminists argue that domestic violence and sexual assault are not isolated incidents but systemic tools used by men to maintain power. They have pushed for these acts to be taken seriously as crimes rather than private matters.
• Improving the Justice System: Their advocacy has led to tangible changes in the criminal justice system. For example, feminist pressure in the 1980s led to police forces adopting more sensitive approaches to rape victims, such as awareness training and the introduction of “rape suites,” which encouraged more victims to report crimes.
• Creating Support Systems: Radical feminists advocate for and have established alternative, women-centered institutions, such as rape crisis centers and shelters for victims of domestic violence, to support women outside of patriarchal structures.

Challenging “Malestream” Sociology and Criminology

Radical feminism has corrected gender blindness in academic disciplines.

• Centering Women: They criticized “malestream” sociology for focusing on male concerns and ignoring female issues. This shift has ensured that women’s experiences as victims and offenders are studied seriously.
• Expanding Definitions of Victimization: Feminist victimology has highlighted that state definitions of victimization are often too narrow. They have expanded the understanding of domestic violence to include verbal abuse, psychological manipulation, and sexual intimidation.
• Exposing the Justice System: Researchers have used radical perspectives to show how the legal system often “re-victimizes” women, such as through aggressive cross-examination in rape trials.

Consciousness Raising and Cultural Change

Radical feminism has played a key role in changing societal attitudes and women’s self-perception.

• The Personal is Political: By asserting that “the personal is political,” radical feminists have helped women understand that their individual problems (such as dissatisfaction in marriage or fear of crime) are rooted in wider political and social structures.
• Challenging Essentialism: While they believe biological differences (like childbearing) historically led to dependence, radical feminists argue that gender roles are socially constructed and can therefore be changed. This perspective has helped transform assumptions about what women are capable of achieving.
• Mobilization: The movement has mobilized women to challenge “rape myths” and reclaim public spaces, such as through “Take Back the Night” marches, asserting that women should not live in fear of male violence,.

History Of Radical Feminism

The Second Wave (1960s–1970s)

Radical feminism emerged as a distinct and forceful branch of the “Second Wave” of feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

During this period, activists argued that legal equality, the goal of liberal feminists, was not enough. The root of women’s oppression, they argued, was patriarchy: a system of male domination that permeates all aspects of society, from the state to the family.

Key Theorists and Texts:

• Shulamith Firestone: In The Dialectic of Sex (1970), Firestone argued that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of oppression, predating capitalism. She traced the roots of patriarchy to biological differences, specifically women’s role in childbearing, which historically created dependence on men.
• Kate Millett: In Sexual Politics (1970), Millett analyzed literature and psychoanalysis (specifically criticizing Freud) to expose how patriarchy operates as a political institution that relies on the socialization of women into subordinate roles.
• Susan Griffin: In 1971, Griffin published influential work framing rape not as an isolated crime but as a tool of patriarchal control used to keep women in a state of fear.

Key Events and Actions:

• 1968 Miss America Protest: New York Radical Women demonstrated against the exploitation of women at the pageant. They famously threw items symbolizing oppression (high heels, girdles, bras) into a “freedom trash can.” Media reports of this event gave rise to the myth of “bra burning,” though no bras were actually burned.
• Institution Building: Radical feminists moved beyond theory to create alternative institutions, establishing rape crisis centers, shelters for battered women, and women’s health collectives to operate outside patriarchal structures.

Evolution and Critique (1980s–Present)

As the movement matured, it faced internal and external challenges that shaped its history:

• The Pornography Debate: By the 1980s, a divide emerged regarding pornography. Radical feminists often viewed it as a cause of violence against women, while civil libertarians and other feminists worried about censorship and freedom of speech.
• Intersectionality: Early radical feminism was criticized for focusing on the experiences of white, middle-class women and ignoring the “triple burden” of race, class, and gender faced by women of color. This led to the development of multicultural feminism and critical race theory, which argued that gender cannot be understood in isolation from other identities.
• Academic Integration: By the late 1980s, feminist theory began to integrate more formally into academic disciplines. For example, the British International Studies Association (BISA) conference in 1988 marked a milestone in bringing feminist analysis into International Relations (IR).

Historically, radical feminism has functioned in some contexts as a “reactionary modernism”: a movement that rejects the current order while using modern, revolutionary methods to demand change. It rebels against the status quo, seeking a fundamental restructuring of society rather than mere reform.

While some of its specific positions have been debated, its historical legacy lies in identifying patriarchy as a systemic force and politicizing the “private” sphere of women’s lives.

References

Atkinson, T. G. (2014). The Descent from Radical Feminism to Postmodernism. In presentation at the conference “ A Revolutionary Moment: Women’s Liberation in the Late 1960s and the Early 1970s,” Boston University.

Barry, K. (1979). Female sexual slavery. New York University Press.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Simon & Schuster.

Cottais, C. (2020). Radical Feminism. Gender in Geopolitics Institute. Retrieved 2022, August 19, from: https://igg-geo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Technical-Sheet-Radical-feminism.pdf

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

De Beauvoir, S. (2010). The second sex. Knopf.

Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Temple University Press.

Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. William Morrow.

Friedan, B. (2010). The feminine mystique. WW Norton & Company.

Greer, G. (1971). The female eunuch.

Greer, G. (2007). The whole woman. Random House.

Griffin, S. (1971). Rape: The all-American crime. Ramparts, 10(3), 26–35.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. Doubleday.

Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30(1), 61–88.

Nachescu, V. (2009). Radical feminism and the nation: History and space in the political imagination of second-wave feminism.  Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 3 (1), 29-59.

Platt, L., Grenfell, P., Meiksin, R., Elmes, J., Sherman, S. G., Sanders, T., Mwangi, P., & Crago, A. L. (2018). Associations between sex work laws and sex workers’ health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies. PLOS Medicine, 15(12), e1002680.

Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 5 (4), 631-660.

Rowland, R., & Klein, R. (1996). Radical feminism: History, politics, action. In Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed (pp. 9–36).

Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S. R., & García-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813.

Sardinha, L., & Nájera Catalán, H. E. (2018). Attitudes towards domestic violence in 49 low- and middle-income countries: A gendered analysis of prevalence and country-level correlates. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0206101.

Thompson, D. (2001).  Radical feminism today. Sage.

Tong, R., & Botts, T. F. (2003). Radical Feminism. Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories. London: Routledge.