Feminism as a social and political movement has been changing and developing its points,

objectives and perceptions, resulting in the great struggle of interests, corresponding to the
different dates and groups that, throughout history, have seen collective benefits, such as
individual. The black book of the new left, particularly in its Chapter 2, presents the different
waves of feminism and how it has been altered by different ideologies, from being a movement
that sought equality between men and women, to being a shock radical that presents objectives
totally different from what its origins refer to.

Laje (2016) states that

Feminism cannot be approached as a univocal ideology, its various expressions are usually
differentiated through "waves" that follow each other through history, and that carry with them
important theoretical political changes with respect to their predecessors (p. .32).

It is therefore unquestionable that feminism is approached through different stages, each of which
is differentiated by the systems of thought; however, the different waves of the movement will be
critically analyzed.

In principle, it is necessary to clarify that the first stage of feminism was born in the Renaissance,
from the hand of individuals who had equality of the sexes as their common goal, that is, equality
in social, political and economic aspects. In this stage, thinkers emerge who are "passionate" to
show that women are found, have the same capacities and possibilities as a man.

The first wave of feminism was totally marked by the liberal revolutions around the world, at this
point Laje (2016) expresses:

But the first feminist wave was not going to express itself with all its force but because of the new
social, political and economic conditions that derived from the liberal-inspired revolutions of the
18th century. And it should not be surprising that this has been the case, considering the
ideological framework in which they originated and developed, based on the natural equality
between men and individual freedom. And this without neglecting, of course, the importance of
the economic factor: these revolutions that will bring liberal capitalism to the world, will create
new living conditions for women, who see in front of them a whole new universe full of
possibilities outside of home. (p.33)

It is then a consequence of the liberal revolutions the heyday of feminism, where the search for
political and social equality was a matter of total importance for the men and women of the time.
In principle, these liberal revolutions brought equality and freedom to the countries, but only to
men, that is why the different outraged social groups continued to fight over the years, to the
point of achieving their goal.

Laje (2016) rightly states the following

For this reason, the first wave of feminism, of a liberal nature, also known as "suffrage", was
fundamentally characterized by the emphasis placed on equality before the law, claiming civic and
political rights for the female sex, which, far from representing an evil social, was a great
contribution in favor of Justice. (p.36)

Although it is true that feminism in this period achieved legal and political equality between men
and women, the great referent of the Austrian school, von Mises (1922), made a kind of
prediction, since he mentioned what would happen to the feminist movement. , following years:

As long as the feminist movement limits itself to equalizing the legal rights of women with those of
men, to giving them security regarding the legal and economic possibilities of developing their
faculties and expressing them through acts that correspond to their tastes, their desires and their
financial situation , it is only a branch of the great liberal movement that embodies the idea of a
free and calm evolution. If, going beyond these demands, the feminist movement believes that it
must combat institutions of social life in the hope of removing, by this means, certain limitations
that nature has imposed on human destiny, then it is already a spiritual child of the socialism.
Because it is a characteristic of socialism to seek in social institutions the roots of the conditions
given by nature, and therefore subtracted from the action of man, and pretend, by reforming
them, to reform nature itself.

As we can see, von Mises is not wrong, on the contrary, there is great truth in the aforementioned
quote and this is how the subsequent waves of feminism not only stripped themselves of the
liberal discourse, but also relocated themselves in the trench of the front (socialism) as we can see
in the following letters.

Now, referring to the second wave of feminism, this is merely linked to the ideology of the
detriment of the peoples, that is, the Marxist-socialism.

This branch is tied to the ideas of Engels, because from his socialist ideas he builds a way of seeing
feminism and also mentions that the oppression of women is the result of nothing more and
nothing less than the institution that watches over by private property; Engels made an intimate
relationship between his economic theory and the feminist movement, because in simple words
he uses and compares the enslaved proletariat with the figure of the woman and the bourgeois
full of privileges in relation to the man.

Laje (2016) states

Well, it is the appearance of private property that overthrew the “matriarchal communist
paradise” and brought us the regime of male domination. Private property, the cause of the
exploitation of the classes, is also the cause of the exploitation of the sexes. (p.40).

Finally, this characteristic feminism had as its ultimate goals, the destruction of the family and the
role that women play in it, raised the idea that women should get rid of their natural task in order
to achieve a kind of insurrection against the status quo that " imposed by society”, this was clearly
part of a kind of socialist master plan, since finally the long-awaited statism could be achieved.

Laje (2016) appropriately exposes

What it seeks (socialism) is much more than that: it is the generation of a centrally planned order
that, placing the State at the center of social life, totalizes all social relations, absorbing and
controlling them as it pleases. In such a way that under communism the destruction of the family
institution is clearly foreseen, which will be engulfed by state intervention. (p.43)

After having approached the first stages of feminism, one that had as its ultimate goal the freedom
and adhesion of women in society and another in which she was compared as an oppressed
subject being almost or equal to the proletariat; however, in the third wave of feminism, the
cultural is raised, that is, women are conceived as a socially constructed term over the years.

In this period, as it is well mentioned, it is biased by the cultural aspect, in this wave all natural
determination characteristic of women is left aside, giving rise to what Laje (2016) mentions.

The result would be the image of a human person suspended in nothingness, alienated from all
external reality, incapable of orienting their cultural guidelines according to what, for obviously
natural reasons, is auspicious for their maintenance and growth. (p.56)

This does not mean that not much of the development of the human being is due to the cultural
aspect, it is more wrong to express such an argument, because culture is, with the passing of the
years, a reason for the growth of the individual; but it is necessary to limit that the human being
before culture, is nature.
Exhibits Laje (2016)

Man is culture, but also nature. Or rather, man is nature, but he is also culture: in that order. And
just as true as this is the fact that his culture triumphs when it is not detrimental to nature. (p.56)

Wanting to express in this quote, nothing more and nothing less than the human being cannot
deny his natural appearance, his role given by nature, the activities he must carry out, the needs
he has and also the functioning of his own body, it is then wrong, from my point of view, the
famous phrase of Simone de Beauvoir "woman is not born, is made", is wrong.

Laje (2016) presents a Beauvoir inconsistency by mentioning the following:

Strikingly, de Beauvoir recognizes this fact, which alone would suffice to overthrow her
fundamental thesis that there is nothing but culture in woman. “Pregnancy, childbirth,
menstruation reduced her ability to work and condemned her to long periods of impotence; To
defend herself against enemies, to ensure her sustenance and that of her progeny, she needed the
protection of warriors and the products of hunting and fishing, to which men were dedicated ”

It is here then where the theory and the phrase "innovative" falls apart, because by expressing the
aforementioned, it intrinsically accepts that physical strength and reproduction explain the
"exclusion" (assignment of tasks according to natural functions) of women from the elementary
tasks, which means then that it is by nature itself the cultural formation of women, so it cannot be
ignored in an analysis of women and their condition.

In conclusion, it is necessary to mention the following. Although feminism has been a movement
which achieved (through its first wave) the political, social, legal equality of women in relation to
men, therefore at this point it can be said that it was beneficial and self-fulfilling for women in
general, but later this was embraced with the ideas of Marx and Engels , and it was at this point
where his decline would come, because they believed that by fighting institutions of social life with
the hope of altering the natural limitations in relation to man they were going to get more
freedoms, when in reality it was the opposite.

They are just one more part of the progressive agenda.