Feminism: The Rights We Fight For—and the Ideas We
Must Question
By Alina Khan
A woman asks for her inheritance, and she is told to protect the
family’s honour.
A girl wants an education, and she is reminded that her place is at
home.
A woman speaks against injustice, and suddenly, the discussion is
no longer about the injustice. It is about her character, her tone, her
clothes, and whether she has become “too modern.”
But here is a question worth asking: When
a woman demands what is rightfully hers, why does society so often treat her
demand as the problem?
This question lies at the heart of the debate surrounding feminism.
Yet the word itself has become so controversial that people often reject or
defend it before understanding what it actually means.
Some see feminism as a necessary struggle for women’s rights.
Others associate it with hostility towards men, the rejection of tradition, or
the promotion of ideas that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Neither a slogan nor a stereotype is enough to explain an entire
movement.
To understand feminism, we must examine why it emerged, how it
evolved, what modern feminism represents, and where its ideas deserve
support—or critical questioning.
What Is
Feminism, Really?
In its broadest sense, feminism is a collection of ideas and
movements concerned with challenging injustices faced by women and advancing
their social, economic, political, and legal rights. However, there is no
single definition that every feminist accepts. Feminists disagree about what equality
means, which problems deserve priority, and what changes society needs.
At its foundation, feminism asks whether women are being denied
opportunities, rights, safety, or dignity because they are women.
Can a girl receive an education without unnecessary restrictions?
Can a woman own property, make decisions about her future, and participate in
public life? Can she report harassment without being blamed for it?
These are not minor questions. They concern a woman’s ability to
live with dignity and exercise rights that should not depend on her gender.
However, supporting women’s rights and agreeing with every feminist
argument are not the same thing. A person may believe that women deserve
education, justice, protection, and fair opportunities without accepting every
ideology associated with modern feminism—or even choosing to identify as a
feminist.
The label is debatable. The injustice must still be
examined.
Why Did
Feminism Emerge?
Feminism did not emerge simply because women wanted to compete with
men. It developed in response to historical conditions in which women were
denied rights and opportunities that men could exercise more freely.
In different societies and periods, women faced restrictions on
education, property ownership, employment, political participation, and legal
independence. The nature and extent of these restrictions varied across
countries, classes, and communities. There was never one universal female
experience.
A significant landmark in the United States was the Seneca Falls
Convention of 1848. Its Declaration of Sentiments challenged women’s exclusion
from political participation and described injustices involving property,
education, employment, and voting rights.
The movement continued to evolve.
Early organised campaigns often concentrated on legal and political
rights, including women’s suffrage—the right to vote. Later movements broadened
the discussion to employment discrimination, unequal expectations within
families, sexual harassment, violence, and the social norms that restricted
women’s lives.
Consider the difference between having a legal right and being able
to exercise it.
A woman may legally possess a right to inherit property, yet face
emotional pressure from relatives to surrender it. A girl may technically be
allowed to study, yet be discouraged because her family believes educating a
daughter is unnecessary.
A right written on paper means little if society
makes exercising it a punishment.
This is one reason the debate did not end when particular laws
changed. Legal progress matters, but social attitudes and institutional
practices can continue to obstruct women’s opportunities.
It is also important to recognise that women’s rights were not
advanced by women alone. Men participated in reform movements, challenged
discriminatory laws, and supported women’s demands. The struggle for justice
has never required every man to be an enemy.
Modern
Feminism: One Word, Different Ideas
One of the biggest misunderstandings about feminism is the
assumption that every feminist believes the same things.
Modern feminism is not one unified ideology. It includes different
schools of thought, priorities, and approaches to social change. The following
are broad explanations, not rigid categories; many contemporary thinkers
combine ideas from more than one school.
Liberal feminism
focuses on equal legal rights, educational opportunities, employment, political
participation, and freedom from discrimination. It generally seeks to remove
barriers that prevent women from participating equally in society.
Radical feminism
examines how deeply rooted structures of male power and gender hierarchy shape
women’s lives. Many radical feminists argue that discrimination cannot be
resolved through legal reform alone because power imbalances are also
reproduced through social institutions, relationships, and cultural
expectations.
Socialist and Marxist feminism explore the relationship between women’s oppression, economic
systems, class, and labour. These approaches draw attention to the ways women’s
paid work, unpaid domestic labour, and caregiving can be undervalued or
exploited.
Intersectional feminism examines how gender interacts with other factors—such as class,
race, disability, and social status—to shape a woman’s experiences. A wealthy
woman and a poor woman may both face sexism, but they may not have the same
resources, risks, or opportunities. The concept of intersectionality was
developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw to explain how overlapping forms
of discrimination can be missed when each is considered separately.
Contemporary feminist debates also include questions about
sexuality, bodily autonomy, gender identity, family structures, religious
traditions, and the meaning of personal freedom.
These debates are not settled. Feminists disagree among themselves
about them.
That distinction matters because criticising one feminist position
does not automatically disprove every other form of feminism. Equally, a
position should not become immune to criticism simply because someone presents
it as feminist.
A serious discussion must identify the specific idea
being debated rather than treating a diverse movement as if it had one voice.
When Did
Feminism Become a Question of Hating Men?
A movement concerned with women’s rights should not require hatred
of men.
Criticising harassment, abuse, coercion, discrimination, or unfair
power structures is not the same as declaring an entire gender guilty. A woman
can speak honestly about the harm caused by particular men without believing
that all men are harmful.
The distinction is essential.
If a woman says, “I have experienced mistreatment by men, and I
want it to stop,” she is describing an experience and demanding accountability.
If someone says, “All men are worthless, and every man deserves to
suffer,” the statement has moved from criticism of behaviour to hostility
towards an entire group.
The same principle applies in reverse. A man cannot justify
contempt for all women by pointing to the actions of some women.
Anger can explain where a statement comes from; it does not automatically
make the statement fair.
There is another important distinction: acknowledging that men may
face difficulties does not erase the specific injustices women experience. Nor
does discussing women’s suffering require denying men’s struggles.
The aim should not be to decide which gender deserves more hatred.
It should be to identify harmful behaviour, unequal treatment, and the systems
that allow them to continue.
Men can be part of the problem when they perpetuate injustice. They
can also be part of the solution when they challenge it.
Equality does not require replacing one group’s
humiliation with another’s.
Islam and
Women’s Rights: Principles Versus Practice
For Muslim readers, the discussion cannot be separated from an
important distinction: what Islam teaches and what Muslim societies practise
are not always the same.
The Qur’an explicitly recognises women’s entitlement to
inheritance. Surah An-Nisa, verse 4:7, states that women have an apportioned
share of what parents and close relatives leave behind.
The precise shares are explained in the relevant inheritance
verses, including Surah An-Nisa, verses 4:11–12. Recognising a woman’s right to
inherit, however, is not the same as claiming that every inheritance-related
question has an identical answer for men and women. Islamic inheritance rules
assign shares according to specified family relationships and circumstances.
The practical question remains: are the prescribed rights being
honoured, or are cultural expectations being used to deprive women of them?
A daughter may be told that claiming her share will damage family
relationships. A sister may be pressured to transfer property to her brothers.
A woman may be made to feel selfish for asking for something that the law and
her religion recognise as her right.
Family harmony is valuable, but it cannot be used as
a convenient excuse to conceal injustice.
Marriage provides another example. Sahih al-Bukhari 5136 addresses
the requirement to seek a woman’s permission before marriage. Yet in some
communities, family pressure and social expectations can make a woman’s wishes
difficult to express or enforce.
The existence of a religious principle does not guarantee that
every community follows it.
At the same time, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Islam and
every form of feminism necessarily agree on every question. Muslims may support
women’s rights while disagreeing with particular feminist positions on
sexuality, family roles, religious authority, or other moral questions.
Defending women from injustice does not require abandoning faith.
And invoking faith should not become a way to excuse injustice.
The responsibility is to understand religious teachings carefully,
distinguish them from cultural customs, and examine claims with knowledge
rather than assumptions.
Is Islamic
Feminism the Same as Islam?
No. The terms are related in some discussions, but they are not
interchangeable.
Islam is a religion with its own sources, teachings, and
interpretive traditions.
Islamic feminism is a term used by some Muslim scholars and
activists who seek gender justice through interpretations of the Qur’an and
Islamic intellectual traditions. They examine how religious texts have been
interpreted and question interpretations they believe have justified women’s
unequal treatment.
Not all Muslims who advocate women’s rights identify as Islamic
feminists. Some regard the term as useful; others prefer to discuss women’s
rights directly through Islamic teachings without adopting a feminist label.
There are also disagreements among Muslim scholars and communities
about the methods and conclusions of Islamic feminist thinkers.
That is why it is misleading to say either that all feminism is
automatically compatible with Islam or that every discussion of feminism is
necessarily opposed to Islam.
The more useful questions are specific:
Does a particular claim accurately represent Islamic teaching? What
evidence supports its interpretation? Is a cultural custom being presented as a
religious requirement? And does the proposed argument recognise the relevant
rights and responsibilities?
A label cannot settle a religious question. Evidence,
interpretation, and honest reasoning matter.
Aurat March:
What Should We Actually Evaluate?
In Pakistan, the Aurat March has become one of the most visible and
contested expressions of feminist activism. Held around International Women’s
Day, it brings together participants who raise concerns about issues including
gender-based violence, harassment, economic inequality, family pressures, and
women’s place in public life.
Academic research describes the movement as a coalition of people
and groups with varied demands, rather than a perfectly uniform body with a
single interpretation of every issue. Research has also examined the
controversy surrounding slogans such as Mera Jism Meri Marzi and the
different meanings that supporters and critics attach to them.
This diversity is important when evaluating the march.
Some people support it because they believe it draws attention to
problems that are often ignored. Others criticise particular slogans, methods,
or ideological positions because they believe those choices conflict with their
moral or religious values, or risk alienating the wider public.
These concerns should be examined rather than dismissed automatically.
But criticism must also be fair. One controversial slogan cannot,
by itself, establish what every participant believes. Similarly, the existence
of legitimate concerns raised by the march does not mean every slogan or demand
must be accepted without question.
A balanced assessment should ask:
•
What
specific problem is being highlighted?
•
What
does the slogan mean in its actual context, and how are different people
interpreting it?
•
Is
the proposed solution fair, practical, and consistent with the principles it
claims to defend?
•
Does
the discussion engage with the substance of the demand, or merely attack the
character of the women making it?
A movement should be judged by its claims, actions, methods, and
consequences—not by blind loyalty or automatic condemnation.
It is possible to recognise the need to address violence and
discrimination against women while disagreeing with particular slogans. It is
also possible to criticise a slogan without using that disagreement to dismiss
every concern raised by women.
That is not indecision. It is a demand for a more
careful debate.
Does Freedom
Mean the Same Thing to Everyone?
For some people, feminism represents the freedom to make personal
decisions without discrimination. For others, certain contemporary feminist
arguments about freedom conflict with their religious or moral convictions.
This disagreement becomes particularly visible in discussions about
clothing, modesty, and religious practice.
A woman who wears a niqab should not automatically be assumed to be
oppressed, uneducated, or incapable of making decisions. A woman who does not
wear one should not automatically be judged as immoral or lacking faith.
Clothing alone cannot reveal the full story of a person’s beliefs,
character, or circumstances.
The important questions include whether a woman is being coerced,
whether she can make decisions without intimidation, and whether she is treated
with dignity regardless of the choice she makes.
Muslims may hold different views about religious obligations,
including modest dress. Those disagreements deserve thoughtful discussion. They
do not justify humiliating women or pretending that appearance alone tells us
everything about their lives.
More broadly, freedom does not have to mean the absence of every
moral boundary. People can understand freedom through different religious,
ethical, and political frameworks.
The challenge is to discuss those differences honestly while
identifying coercion, abuse, and unfair treatment wherever they occur.
A woman’s dignity should not depend on whether her
choices match our expectations of what a woman should be.
Can Women Also
Deny Other Women Their Rights?
Yes. And this is a part of the discussion that deserves far more
attention.
Imagine a brother who insists that his sister must receive her
rightful inheritance. Now imagine a mother who tells her daughter that higher
education is unnecessary because she will eventually marry. Or a woman who
pressures her daughter-in-law to surrender her inheritance to the family.
These examples do not mean that men and women have always held
equal social power, or that male-dominated institutions and discriminatory
structures are irrelevant. They show something more specific:
Injustice can be upheld by people of any gender.
Sometimes, a woman who has herself lived under restrictive
expectations may reproduce those expectations in the next generation. She may
believe that the customs she endured are necessary, or that another woman
should make the same sacrifices she was expected to make.
Understanding why this happens does not excuse the behaviour.
Nor should we use examples of women mistreating women to shift
responsibility away from men who commit injustice. Responsibility must be
assigned according to actions, circumstances, and the structures involved—not
according to a convenient assumption about gender.
A fair analysis asks who is denying the right, who has the power to
change the situation, and what beliefs or institutions allow the injustice to
continue.
This also challenges women to examine their own role in society.
Do we encourage girls to pursue knowledge? Do we respect a woman
who refuses an unfair demand? Do we stand beside a sister when she claims her
inheritance, even when doing so creates tension within the family?
Or do we become defenders of the same restrictions we once wished
to escape?
Being a woman does not automatically make someone an
ally of women. What matters is whether her actions protect or undermine another
woman’s rights.
So, What Should
We Take From Feminism?
Perhaps the most productive approach is neither to accept feminism
as an unquestionable ideology nor to reject it as a single, universally harmful
movement.
Instead, separate the issues.
When feminism identifies genuine discrimination, the evidence should
be taken seriously. When it challenges a harmful custom, that custom should be
examined rather than defended simply because it is familiar. When a particular
feminist argument conflicts with a person’s religious or moral principles, the
disagreement should be explained clearly and fairly.
And when someone claims to support women’s rights, their actions
should be examined as carefully as their words.
Do they support a woman’s education when the family disagrees? Do
they respect her right to inherit? Do they condemn harassment without blaming
the person targeted? Do they question an unfair custom even when it benefits
them?
These questions reveal more than a label ever could.
Women’s rights should not be treated as a competition between men
and women. Nor should women be required to adopt a particular ideology before
their suffering is taken seriously.
A society can respect men without denying women. A Muslim can
defend women’s rights while carefully evaluating modern feminist ideas. And a
woman can disagree with aspects of feminism without becoming an opponent of
justice.
The key is to be precise about what we support, what
we question, and why.
The Final
Question Is Not Who Claims to Support Women
It is what happens when supporting a woman becomes inconvenient.
When she asks for her inheritance, do we stand beside her—or ask
her to sacrifice it for family honour?
When she wants an education, do we help her move forward—or remind
her of the limits we have set for her?
When she questions a harmful tradition, do we examine the
tradition—or put her character on trial?
And when the person denying her rights is another woman, do we
still recognise the injustice?
A movement should be open to criticism. Religious principles should
be represented honestly. Traditions should not be beyond examination. And no
individual should be excused from accountability simply because of their
gender.
Rights must be defended. Ideas must be questioned.
Injustice must be challenged—regardless of who commits it.
Because equality means little when we defend it in public but deny
it inside our own homes.
If a woman must fight her own family, her own community, and
sometimes even other women to claim a right that is already hers, the failure
is not hers for asking.
The failure is ours for making her ask.
References
1.
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Explains the different meanings of feminism and the distinction
between feminist ideas and political movements.
2.
U.S.
National Archives. “A Declaration for the Rights of Women.” Discusses the 1848
Declaration of Sentiments and the historical demands concerning women’s legal,
educational, economic, and political rights.
3.
Aikau,
Hokulani K., Karla Erickson, and Jennifer L. Pierce. “Feminism, First-,
Second-, and Third-Wave.” Wiley Online Library. Examines the historical
development and limitations of the “wave” model of feminism.
4.
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Political Philosophy.” Discusses liberal,
radical, socialist, and Marxist approaches within feminist political thought.
5.
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Feminist Metaphysics.” Includes a discussion of
intersectionality and the interaction of multiple forms of discrimination.
6.
The
Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa, 4:7 and 4:11–12. English translation, Sahih
International.
7.
Sahih
al-Bukhari 5136. Book of Wedlock (Marriage), chapter on seeking a woman’s
permission in marriage.
8.
Al-Sharmani,
Mulki. “Islamic Feminism Scholars and Their Interpretive Approaches.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Islamic Reform. Oxford University Press, published
online 21 May 2026, pp. 710–727.
9.
Kelso,
Erin. “Women Marching for Solidarity: 5 Years of Aurat March in the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan.” Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 48, 2024, pp.
113–132.
10.
Zaidi,
Shehr Bano. “Sloganeering at Pakistani Aurat (Women) March: A Diffractive
Reading.” University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics and Literature,
vol. 8, no. 1, 2024, pp. 357–368.
Comments
Post a Comment