User:Gmsrubin/sandbox: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User sandbox}} |
{{User sandbox}} |
||
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->For materialist feminists, the oppression of women is in no way due to any biological nature or [[metaphysical]] essence. Rather, it is thought of as purely social and as defining the categories “women” and “men.” [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] is analyzed as the ideology of domination par excellence, because by making the categories of our society eternal essences, it denies that they are products of history and therefore of domination, and that having been constructed they can also be destroyed.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1977 |title=Variations sur des thèmes communs |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40619101 |journal=Questions Féministes |issue=1 |pages=3–19 |issn=0154-9960}}</ref> They are therefore opposed to any discourse which would attempt to explain the situation of women by any internal characteristic of this group, in particular those of an [[anatomical]] nature, such as the capacity to give birth or a physical weakness of women relative to men, as well as those of a psychological or psychoanalytic nature which presuppose a different [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] for men and women.<ref>{{Citation |last=Guillaumin |first=Colette |title=The Practice of Power and Belief in Nature |date=1996 |work=Sex In Question |editor-last=Adkins |editor-first=Lisa |editor-last2=Leonard |editor-first2=Diana |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203646250-10/practice-power-belief-nature-lisa-adkins-diana-leonard?context=ubx&refId=784d9cbd-9840-4f8d-a64c-cf718a54a17d |access-date= |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0-203-64625-0}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->'''Psychanalyse et Politique''', or '''Psych et Po''', was a French [[collective]] founded by [[Antoinette Fouque]] in 1969.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Stewart |first=Danièle |date=1980 |title=The Women's Movement in France |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173940 |journal=Signs |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=350–354 |issn=0097-9740}}</ref> The collective presented itself as a political tendency of the [[mouvement de libération des femmes]] and proposed an articulation of the unconscious and history.''<ref>''Le Torchon brûle'', {{numéro|3}}, {{p.|18}}, 1971.</ref>'' Psych et Po is at the origin of [[Éditions des Femmes]], the magazine [[:fr:Des_femmes_en_mouvements|Des femmes en movements]], the newspaper [[:fr:Le_Quotidien_des_femmes|Le Quotidien des femmes]], and “women's bookstores” in [[Paris]], [[Marseille]] and [[Lyon]].<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
For Christine Delphy, "to start from oppression defines a materialist approach, oppression is a materialist concept".<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Delphy |first=Christine |last2=Leonard |first2=Diana |date=March 1980 |title=A Materialist Feminism is Possible |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1057/fr.1980.8 |journal=Feminist Review |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=79–105 |doi=10.1057/fr.1980.8 |issn=0141-7789}}</ref> She stated that materialism is the only theory of history that views [[oppression]] as a basic reality of women's lives, and that this is why women and all oppressed groups need materialism to investigate their situation. She states that the domestic mode of production was the site of patriarchal exploitation and the material basis of the oppression of women, and that [[marriage]] is a labor contract that gives men the right to exploit women.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
Delphy maintains that there were two modes of production in our society: industrial and domestic. The first mode allows for capitalist exploitation while the second allows for familial and patriarchal exploitation.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last1=Barrett |first1=Michèle |last2=McIntosh |first2=Mary |date=1979 |title=Christine Delphy: Towards a Materialist Feminism? |journal=Feminist Review |issue=1 |pages=95–106 |doi=10.2307/1394753 |jstor=1394753}}</ref> She and [[Diana Leonard]] harshly criticize the distinction between production and reproduction. For them, constructing a theory of patriarchy which sees women as only serving the reproduction of workers amounts to reinjecting the patriarchal and naturalist ideology (which only thinks of women as strictly necessary to reproduction of the species and which obscures all the work they carry out) in the concept of patriarchy<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Delphy |first=Christine |title=L'exploitation domestique |last2=Leonard |first2=Diana |last3=Boisset |first3=Annick |date=2019 |publisher=Éditions Syllepse |isbn=978-2-84950-738-4 |series=Nouvelles questions féministes |location=Paris}}</ref>. Furthermore, the term “reproduction” leads to confusion: are we talking about biological reproduction, the reproduction of the labor force (the renewal of the “arms” necessary for work), or social reproduction (the reproduction of the class division of society, and the distribution of new individuals in these classes)?<ref name=":1" /> |
|||
Nicole-Claude Mathieu is also very critical of approaches that present women as “reproducers of producers”. They would tend to eliminate women from the production workforce, and would mask production relations between men and women. Finally, motherhood being thought of as an immediate given, and therefore naturalized, she considers that these approaches prevent a sociological analysis of reproduction itself, such as that constructed by [[Paola Tabet]]. |
|||
Revision as of 02:18, 8 April 2024
For materialist feminists, the oppression of women is in no way due to any biological nature or metaphysical essence. Rather, it is thought of as purely social and as defining the categories “women” and “men.” Naturalism is analyzed as the ideology of domination par excellence, because by making the categories of our society eternal essences, it denies that they are products of history and therefore of domination, and that having been constructed they can also be destroyed.[1] They are therefore opposed to any discourse which would attempt to explain the situation of women by any internal characteristic of this group, in particular those of an anatomical nature, such as the capacity to give birth or a physical weakness of women relative to men, as well as those of a psychological or psychoanalytic nature which presuppose a different psyche for men and women.[2]
For Christine Delphy, "to start from oppression defines a materialist approach, oppression is a materialist concept".[3] She stated that materialism is the only theory of history that views oppression as a basic reality of women's lives, and that this is why women and all oppressed groups need materialism to investigate their situation. She states that the domestic mode of production was the site of patriarchal exploitation and the material basis of the oppression of women, and that marriage is a labor contract that gives men the right to exploit women.[3]
Delphy maintains that there were two modes of production in our society: industrial and domestic. The first mode allows for capitalist exploitation while the second allows for familial and patriarchal exploitation.[4] She and Diana Leonard harshly criticize the distinction between production and reproduction. For them, constructing a theory of patriarchy which sees women as only serving the reproduction of workers amounts to reinjecting the patriarchal and naturalist ideology (which only thinks of women as strictly necessary to reproduction of the species and which obscures all the work they carry out) in the concept of patriarchy[5]. Furthermore, the term “reproduction” leads to confusion: are we talking about biological reproduction, the reproduction of the labor force (the renewal of the “arms” necessary for work), or social reproduction (the reproduction of the class division of society, and the distribution of new individuals in these classes)?[5]
Nicole-Claude Mathieu is also very critical of approaches that present women as “reproducers of producers”. They would tend to eliminate women from the production workforce, and would mask production relations between men and women. Finally, motherhood being thought of as an immediate given, and therefore naturalized, she considers that these approaches prevent a sociological analysis of reproduction itself, such as that constructed by Paola Tabet.
- ^ "Variations sur des thèmes communs". Questions Féministes (1): 3–19. 1977. ISSN 0154-9960.
- ^ Guillaumin, Colette (1996), Adkins, Lisa; Leonard, Diana (eds.), "The Practice of Power and Belief in Nature", Sex In Question, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0-203-64625-0
- ^ a b Delphy, Christine; Leonard, Diana (March 1980). "A Materialist Feminism is Possible". Feminist Review. 4 (1): 79–105. doi:10.1057/fr.1980.8. ISSN 0141-7789.
- ^ Barrett, Michèle; McIntosh, Mary (1979). "Christine Delphy: Towards a Materialist Feminism?". Feminist Review (1): 95–106. doi:10.2307/1394753. JSTOR 1394753.
- ^ a b Delphy, Christine; Leonard, Diana; Boisset, Annick (2019). L'exploitation domestique. Nouvelles questions féministes. Paris: Éditions Syllepse. ISBN 978-2-84950-738-4.