The East-West dialogue: methodical diversity and frailties of feminist accounts

The paper addresses escalating disputes in contemporary feminist theory concerning how to identify and clarify persistent gender inequalities. It examines perspectives from Maria Lugones, Elizabeth Spelman, and Sally Haslanger on systemic oppression of women and the need for both pragmatic and theoretical approaches that diversify and amplify women’s voices. While agreeing with the aim to empower women, the author argues against expecting or imposing a universal feminist theory that consolidates disparate women’s experiences. Instead, the paper emphasizes embracing historical and cultural heterogeneity to foster productive conversations among women about their distinct conceptions of feminism. The author outlines the plan: (1) elaborate the problem raised by Lugones and Spelman about the silencing of women of color within white-dominated feminist discourse; (2) analyze implications and limitations of their claims by discussing why women in China may not share these grievances; (3) explain the significance of these issues using Haslanger’s views and the author’s account of feminism in China in relation to Ruism, Daoism, and Buddhism.

The paper reviews and critically engages with key feminist theorists: (1) Lugones and Spelman’s “Have We Got a Theory for You!” argues that differences among women silence women of color and problematize the demand for a singular “woman’s voice.” Spelman (as a White-Anglo Saxon woman) frames feminism as a response to women’s exclusion from male-centric accounts of the world and highlights the importance of who speaks and to whom. She underscores intersectional identities and how privileges of skin color, class, and ethnicity amplify white women’s voices while marginalizing others. Lugones, from a “Hispana” standpoint, critiques systemic exclusion, describing a “we vs. you” dynamic and the inadequacy of existing feminist theories to articulate Hispanas’ experiences, including the complicating role of English-language dominance. (2) The author extends this critique to translation, arguing that effective, non-imperial translation is necessary to capture the perspectives and significance of feminist concerns beyond the Anglo-American context. (3) Haslanger’s intersectional account targets the social relations constituting men as dominant and women as subordinate, urging resistance to patriarchal ideologies across institutions (art, religion, philosophy, science, law). She advocates deconstructing raced and gendered classifications and even refusing gender/race as categories, while acknowledging political usefulness depends on context. The literature collectively motivates examining how context, language, and culture shape feminist theorizing and its translatability.

The paper employs a comparative, interpretive-philosophical methodology grounded in textual analysis and contextual translation. It juxtaposes Western feminist theories (Lugones, Spelman, Haslanger) with Chinese philosophical and socio-legal traditions to assess translatability and universality of feminist claims. Sources include classical Chinese philosophies (Ruism/Confucianism via The Analects and related texts; Daoism via Daodejing and Daoist practices like qigong; Buddhism via The Lotus Sutra) and contemporary legal frameworks (Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China on marriage and domestic relations). The author integrates historical-cultural analysis with reflective, first-person insights as a Chinese woman educated in both China and the United States to illuminate how norms are lived and perpetuated. The approach foregrounds how language, ritual, religion/philosophy, and law co-constitute gender roles, and evaluates implications for feminist theory’s cross-cultural applicability.

• Western feminist critiques identify persistent gender inequalities, but their frameworks—often shaped by white women’s experiences and Anglophone discourse—may inadequately represent women of color and non-Western contexts.
• Translation is pivotal: without culturally and politically sensitive translation practices, feminist theories risk reproducing cultural imperialism and failing to capture local meanings and grievances.
• In China, gender norms are historically embedded in Ruism (ritual propriety, familial piety, social harmony; women’s filial roles), Daoism (Yin-Yang dynamics; feminized virtues like softness and harmony; masculine-coded vigor in practices like qigong), and Buddhism (scriptural depictions of women’s corporeal/spiritual inferiority and narratives like the dragon girl’s transformation), as well as socio-legal structures (e.g., Civil Code provisions on marriage and domestic violence).
• Despite legal proscriptions against IPV and unequal treatment, underreporting and cultural norms often sustain patriarchal power dynamics and stigmatize divorce, shaping women’s strategies toward resilience and pragmatic accommodation.
• Marriage practices (betrothal gifts and dowries) reflect complementary gendered expectations (provision/protection vs. grace/kindliness) rather than a universally oppressive zero-sum arrangement, complicating direct application of some Western feminist prescriptions.
• Haslanger’s intersectional analysis is valuable for critiquing ideology-rhetoric complexes of race, sex, and gender, yet its political utility and category refusals are context-dependent.
• A universal, consolidated feminist theory is neither feasible nor desirable; acknowledging heterogeneity and fostering plural, culturally situated feminisms can better support intercontinental dialogue and social progress.

The analysis demonstrates that the research question—whether feminist theory can be universalized across divergent cultural and political contexts—must be answered negatively. Western feminist accounts highlight structural patriarchy and the need for intersectionality, but their assumptions, languages, and institutional horizons do not straightforwardly translate to Chinese contexts shaped by distinct philosophical-religious traditions and sociopolitical conditions (including censorship and entrenched ritual norms). By tracing how Ruism, Daoism, and Buddhism historically codify and naturalize gender roles, the paper shows why many Chinese women’s grievances and strategies do not align neatly with Western feminist agendas. Translation, both linguistic and cultural, emerges as a precondition for meaningful cross-context theorizing and activism. The findings argue for plural, situated feminisms that engage differences without imposing homogeneity, and for intercontinental dialogue that is historically informed, open-minded, and sensitive to local practices and constraints.

The paper contributes a comparative framework that (1) critiques the dominance and limitations of white-centric, Anglophone feminist theories; (2) reconstructs Chinese gender norms through Ruist, Daoist, and Buddhist lenses and contemporary law; and (3) advances translation as essential to cross-cultural feminist discourse. It calls for resisting universalization of “woman’s experience,” embracing heterogeneity, and re-examining canonical Chinese traditions to discern both shared and divergent concerns with other feminisms. Future work should expand translations and analyses of Chinese feminist sources, deepen empirical study of gendered practices (e.g., IPV reporting, marriage economies), and develop dialogical methodologies that include diverse women’s voices in co-producing theory and praxis across contexts.

The paper acknowledges limited availability and translation of Chinese feminist sources, and potential untranslatability of certain grievances due to theological and historical complexities. It is a reflective, interpretive essay rather than an empirical study, with no systematic data collection; thus generalizability is constrained. Political censorship and underreporting (e.g., IPV) limit accessible evidence. The author’s vantage point (a young Chinese woman educated in both China and the United States) may shape emphases and interpretations.