Most of these people just don't understand the theoretical underpinning of radical feminism. They don't get that gender has a materiality.
-
Perhaps it's my understanding of your use of materiality.
I was using the term in Marxist sense (which includes the social relations between people), because rad fem is essentially a class analysis.
-
-
Most feminists I knew (and know) had little time for Marxism, particularly the revolutionary feminists.
-
Well, there are socialist feminists - e.g., MacKinnon's "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State". But obviously there's a big tension between
-
Marxism & feminism in that the former locates the basis of oppression in our relationship to the means of production. But the materiality...
-
of class struggle has its analog in how radical feminism conceptualizes gender hierarchy. That's the point. Gender has a material basis, it
-
isn't something that just exists in the mind, to be overthrown at a whim. It's a fundamental structuring principle of patriarchal society.
-
I get the idea. Is an 'objective' gender divide a necessity within that framework?
-
Within that framework, gender is an abstraction specified in binary terms (so, eg., Nancy Hartsock talks in terms Weberian ideal-types).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.