Suchergebnisse

part 1 Thinking with patriarchy -- chapter Notes -- chapter 2 Remembering Rome and reading the Bible -- chapter 3 Absolutism, democracy and God -- chapter Patriarchalism and democracy -- chapter Notes -- chapter 4 Patriarchy, matriarchy and the origins of humanity -- chapter 5 Patriarchy and the making of sisterhood -- chapter 6 Patriarchy in feminist scholarship and activism from the 1980s to the end of the millennium -- chapter 7 Contesting patriarchy today.

AbstractPatriarchy is more than just "sexism." It is a social formation of male‐gendered power with a particular structure that can be found with striking regularity in many different arenas of social life, from small‐scale contexts like the family, kin groups, and gangs, up through larger institutional contexts like the police, the military, organized religion, the state, and more. At the same time, patriarchy never stands alone, and always exists in complex intersections with other forms of power. In this article, I look at patriarchy from both points of view—that is, from both an exclusively gendered perspective, and from a perspective in which patriarchy cannot be divorced from white supremacy, normative heterosexuality, and normative able‐bodiedness. Finally I briefly consider contemporary right‐wing extremist (fascist) politics, in which the toxic intersectional brew of patriarchy, white supremacy, heteronormativity, and ideologies of bodily perfection are mobilized in pursuit of mass political control and domination.

The concept `patriarchy', while being vital for feminist analysis, has been criticised for not being able to deal with historical and cross-cultural variation in the forms of women's subordination. This paper presents a new way of theorising patriarchy to meet these objections; one which is flexible enough to take account of its various forms, but rigorous enough to be an effective tool for analysis. It leaves behind base-superstructure models of patriarchy in which there is only one base, which have led to many of the rigidities which have been identified, arguing instead for a model of patriarchy as six partially-interdependent structures. The paper concludes with a discussion of the different forms of patriarchy in recent British history.

Les théories féministes ont assigné des significations variées au concept de 'patriarchié'. Dans cet article, j'identifie deux conceptualisations principales de 'patriarchie' que ľon retrouve dans la littérature: 1/ patriarchie en tant que dominance male, une caractéristique de la société; et 2/ patriarchie en tant que système autonome. La deuxième école de pensée a spécifié un concept de système 'sex/gender' qui représente un progrès théorique considérable. Je critique certains usages représentatifs de 'patriarchie' pour leur réductionnisme, et en particulier pour leur compréhension superficielle de la structure sociale et leur postulat ?un désir de pouvoir inné chez les hommes. Si ľon veut donner au concept de 'patriarchie' la moindre puissance analytique, son référent devra être constitué de ľintégration des processus de reproduction générationnelle, de reproduction des individus dans leur vie quotidienne au moyen du travail domestique et matemel, et de la production ?idéologie et ?identité sexées. Plus généralement, la compréhension de ľinégalité entre les sexes requiert que nos objets ?analyse incluent les niveaux structurel et individuel.This paper examines the different meanings that feminist theorists have given to the concept of 'patriarchy.' Two major conceptualizations appear in the literature: 1/ patriarchy as male dominance, a characteristic of society; and 2/ partriarchy as an autonomous system. Within the second school of thought, the specification of a 'sex/gender system' represents an important theoretical advance. I criticize representative treatments of 'patriarchy' for their reductionism, especially their crude understanding of social structure and their assumption of an innate male desire for power. I argue that if the concept of 'patriarchy' is to be given analytical depth, then its referent must be the integrated processes of generational reproduction, the reproduction of individuals in their daily lives through housework and motherwork, and the production of gender identity and ideology. More broadly, an understanding of gender inequality requires analysis both at the level of social structure and at the level of the individual.

In this article, I, using Paul C. Mocombe's structurationist theory of phenomenological structuralism against feminist theories, put forth the argument that the third wave (1990 to the present) of feminine activism against the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism has given rise to feminine patriarchy, the push by women for equality of opportunity, recognition, and distribution with their white male counterparts by recursively organizing and reproducing the patriarchy of the society, which is institutionalized as the nature of reality as such, in a genderless position of their own. Hence, women have pushed for integration and equality in the Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism as gender neutral agents of the protestant ethic against any other alternative forms of system or social integration, which renders their historical activism dialectical, oppressive, and exploitative; they, paradoxically, reify, commodify, and glorify their sexual female identity as feminine men.

"Motherhood in Patriarchy" pioneers the argument that the current Western understanding of motherhood is a patriarchal one based on a long historical tradition of subjection and institutionalization. The book makes an important contribution to women's studies on reproduction, feminist theory, motherhood and welfare politics, and offers alternative perspectives.

"Motherhood in Patriarchy" pioneers the argument that the current Western understanding of motherhood is a patriarchal one based on a long historical tradition of subjection and institutionalization. The book makes an important contribution to women's studies on reproduction, feminist theory, motherhood and welfare politics, and offers alternative perspectives.

Public debate in Germany, particularly in the western Germanmedia, grew heated in 1991 and 1992 over the role of intellectuals inEast German society and their collaboration with or resistance to theStasi. Sparks flew with particular intensity when Wolf Biermann,former East German dissident musician and poet, accused SaschaAnderson, erstwhile East German dissident poet, of being a Stasiinformant and an "asshole" (while there was some disagreementover the latter charge, the former, at least, turned out to be accurate).As the debate raged, some observers commented that it seemedmore a clash of male egos than a serious attempt to analyze the past.In a 1993 book on the dissident literary community, a West Germancommentator suggested the Stasi debate was a conflict among "threeegomaniacs … [Wolf] Biermann, [writer Lutz] Rathenow, [Sascha]Anderson." East German author Gabriele Stötzer-Kachold hadmade a similar suggestion in 1992.