The subject of feminism cannot be purely a fiction, as some postmodern writers suggest, produced by the discourses of power.

The universal basis for the categorisation 'woman' will, no doubt, be constantly shifting but it is important not to deny it's existence altogether. There is a partly biological basis for this identification. The 'nature' of woman may be conceptualised in the early Greek sense of a force or a power, in its turn shaped by forces outside it, rather than in terms of some set of properties.

When it comes to deep and difficult ethical matters - such as the relation of an individual to God, or, I think, an individual caught up in the sublimity of a revolution then things are very different and the Kantian ethic is shown to be limited in its value.

Autonomy is the capacity to act on principles that are one's own and one will exercise this capacity by means of a process of rational reflection on these principles. Autonomy is thought to be necessary for attributing political responsibility.

However, within the limits of the human, it is important to recognise our common humanity. I think that a perspective based on common human needs has the most chance of being accepted and this does not depend on any particular metaphysical outlook.

I believe that a concept that may have some flaws is nonetheless important as a tool to critique abuses on all sides of the political spectrum. In the end, I think that a more useful 'universal' concept than that of a 'right', though, is a 'need'.

The subject of feminism cannot be purely a fiction, as some postmodern writers suggest, produced by the discourses of power.