A large slice of humble pie

Since my introductory seminar I've had to tuck myself in even closer to the PhD table and reach for a slice of humble pie....with cream (and ice-cream). I went back to basics to examine exactly what kind of feminism I espouse. I don't like labels and I don't like labelling, but it all comes down to the dreaded epistemology and ontology.

Turning to epistemology, what bothers me is that I do not believe that we can ever make objective  assessments: our personal/cultural bias always informs the lens by which we observe phenomena. However, this means that I am left with an absence of a principled, normative criteria for evaluating beliefs from different epistemological perspectives. In philosophical circles this is called the bias paradox.

Different types of feminisms have different approaches to this paradox:

• Liberal feminists believe that men and women are equal and that what's needed is bureaucratic reform, i.e. changes to law and procedures, to eliminate discrimination and prejudice. If I were a liberal feminist I would be arguing that women's voices should be heard, I would listening to those voices, and then arguing for system reform.
• Revolutionary feminists e.g. radical, Marxist, and eco feminists believe that women are united around a common sisterhood and that, in the case of radical feminists, women are essentially different from men. If I were a revolutionary feminist, I'd be listening to the unique voices of women, seeking to revalue women's knowledge, and arguing for radical changes that value feminine particularity. 
• Postmodern feminists believe that gender is discursively produced, and that the subject is a product of history and culture. If I was a postmodern feminist I would be seeking to recognise the experiences of multiple voices, looking at how the symbolic constructions of femininity and masculinity are created and analysing who is served by these constructions. Following Kristeva, I would also be examining how people resist these constructions. 
• Poststructuralist feminists similarly believe that gender is discursively produced, and that the subject is a product of history and culture, but they go one step further. If I were a poststructuralist feminist I would be doing most of the activities of the postmodern feminists, but I would be pointing out that resistance is also socially constructed. The end result for both postmodern and poststructuralist feminists is the presentation of new knowledge that contributes to a political project.

Please forgive my truncated version of very complex theory. What I've done is try to understand what my desired aim is and align it to a feminism. But I'm afraid that I am a "patchwork feminist" which makes this alignment all the more difficult.