Her removal of the women’s suffrage campaign, and her acrimonious opposition to the social transparency dogmas that influenced many feminist reformers, inspired many feminists to reject her as an enemy of women’s liberty and a man’s woman. This paper will focus on the Emma Goldman, and that in her own unique way, she was not only a radical feminist but one of the most deep-seated of her time. In all, this paper also focuses on Bell Hooks’ concept of transcendence and immanence from the Second Sex. The fact that Goldman was an avant-garde rather than a systematic theorist presents a problem for any discourse of her beliefs. Of course, she had specific ideas that were always evolving. It will also be imperative to depict the context in which her ideas were modeled, as unlike other feminist radicals, Goldman’s struggle for women was second to her struggle for equality for all. Further, this paper will also discourse Goldman’s early influences that worked upon her consciousness and made her a dissident. Emma Goldman was born and raised in a Russian province of Kovno on 29th June 1869. In her memoirs entitled Living my Life she explains how she gleaned in the community around her demoralizing repercussions of erratic system where wives and children are beaten, Jews ostracized and peasant beaten, guidelines made and broken at the whim of those in power. There was no place for her where she could resort for refuge in her family. Her dictatorial father whom she refers to as the nightmare of my childhood picked her out as the object of his often rages, consequently making sure that from the starting point her advancement was largely in upheaval. In 1882 the family relocated to St. Petersburg, and after a year, the experienced changed everything in her whole life. The same year saw the bloody assassination of Tsar Alexander 11, which was the culmination of numerous decades of increasing radical activity focused towards the Tsarist despotism. Further, Populism had originally arisen as response to the explosive European revolutions of 1848. For this case, nearly all the Russian affluence and authority were focused in the hands of tiny wealthy aristocracy, which clearly live off a wide-ranging subjugated populace of uneducated and underprivileged peasants. In repulsion against the mounting poverty and injustice around them, scholars such like Nikolai Chernyshevski and Alexander Herzen, somehow nurtured by far-reaching thought from Western Europe, started to evolve a particularly Russian prototype of socialism. They held that Russia could bypass capitalism in the walk toward socialism. At this rate, Emma Goldman started to read the outlawed tracts and censored novels that disseminated amid her sister’s students friends and mourn the insurgents, many of whom had been incinerated, exiled to Siberia or executed by the despotic government. With the books and tracts influencing her, she began questioning more and more the community in which she lived. The notions of the Populist openly inspiring her, she started falling prey later to anarchist notions. She chronicles this in her memoirs when she asserts “they had been my inspiration ever since I had first read of their lives.”(21) Further, the eminence of women in the Russian revolutionary crusade was an unusual phenomenon within the framework of the 19th century European left. The crusade was maybe the only environment in which women were treated as equals.