Defining and re-defining feminist identity has long preoccupied feminist scholars and activists; moreover, in light of the increasing influence of queer theories, feminists continue to debate the utility of the categories ‘woman’ and ‘female’. Despite attempts to move away from dichotomous binaries that govern gender and feminist identities, inclusion and exclusion continue to frame much of the discourse. Hence, the construction of gender and feminist identities necessarily impacts upon our understanding of the issues surrounding political representation - who counts as female and who counts as a feminist? Scholars, in arguing for both the descriptive representation of women (the presence of women politicians) and the substantive representation of women (the representation of women’s interests), have sought to reject essentialist claims by making distinctions between the representation of women’s and feminist’s interests, and between the presence of female bodies and feminist minds (Childs, 2007). Who claims to speak on behalf of women and feminists, therefore, has implications for those interested in exploring gendered and feminist political representation. Indeed, epistemological and ontological questions necessarily frame how we explore who, where, when, why and how the representation of women and feminist interests occurs. Furthermore, when politicians claim to advance a feminist cause, which feminist cause are they referring to? Which types of feminists are represented and which excluded? This paper explores these issues within a third wave feminist paradigm: a framework that privileges intersectionality and a widening definition of feminism. The research draws together theoretical and empirical research undertaken in the UK and US in order to explore the challenges that the third wave poses to our understanding of political representation.
