In the podcast Genre and Justiceshe discusses Eliot's use of women as scapegoats to illustrate the injustice of the distribution of happiness in Victorian England.
Acknowledging this does not go quite far enough, however, for monistic theorists such as MacKinnon could grant this much.
So it can never be the case that the treatment of a woman has only to do with her gender and nothing to do with her class or race. And if under these circumstances only those who are literate are entitled to vote. However, if we were to adopt this terminological convention, it would be harder to identify some of the interesting sources of disagreement both with and within feminism, and the term 'feminism' would lose much of its potential to unite those whose concerns and commitments extend beyond their moral beliefs to their social interpretations and political affiliations.
A second problematic strategy has been to consider as paradigms those who are oppressed only as women, with the thought that complex cases bringing in additional forms of oppression will obscure what is distinctive of sexist oppression.
Some might prefer to define feminism in terms of a normative claim alone: feminists are those who believe that women are entitled to equal rights, or equal respect, or… fill in the blank with one's preferred account of injusticeand one is not required to believe that women are currently being treated unjustly.
Those who employ this history often depict feminist as waning between the two world wars, to be "revived" in the late 's and early 's as what they label "Second Wave" feminism. Admittedly, the claim that women are disadvantaged with respect to rights and respect is not a "purely descriptive" claim since it plausibly involves an evaluative component.