Reply to Imbrišević: Moving Outside the Bubble of Gender Critical Feminism

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Sport Ethics and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-11-23 DOI:10.1080/17511321.2022.2150784
Michael Burke
{"title":"Reply to Imbrišević: Moving Outside the Bubble of Gender Critical Feminism","authors":"Michael Burke","doi":"10.1080/17511321.2022.2150784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite the claim in Miroslav Imbrišević’s paper about differences between the positions of Jon Pike and myself, there are also significant overlaps. I endorsed the WR consultative process that Jon was part of, agreed that Jon had produced a compelling argument, and agreed with the lexical framework of the argument. Miroslav’s major contentions with my argument appears to be that it dresses up patriarchal outcomes in feminist clothes, and that it ignores the voices of women [athletes] in coming to its conclusions. In this paper, I address the charges by suggesting that both emanate from Miroslav’s attempts to see gender critical feminism as the gauge against which all positions need to be judged. My position is that this school of feminism will lead to largely conservative outcomes in the discursive and organizational hierarchies in sport, so that any individual benefits that accrue to female athletes will be less substantial than the loss of transformational potential in women’s sport.","PeriodicalId":51786,"journal":{"name":"Sport Ethics and Philosophy","volume":"57 1","pages":"223 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sport Ethics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2022.2150784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite the claim in Miroslav Imbrišević’s paper about differences between the positions of Jon Pike and myself, there are also significant overlaps. I endorsed the WR consultative process that Jon was part of, agreed that Jon had produced a compelling argument, and agreed with the lexical framework of the argument. Miroslav’s major contentions with my argument appears to be that it dresses up patriarchal outcomes in feminist clothes, and that it ignores the voices of women [athletes] in coming to its conclusions. In this paper, I address the charges by suggesting that both emanate from Miroslav’s attempts to see gender critical feminism as the gauge against which all positions need to be judged. My position is that this school of feminism will lead to largely conservative outcomes in the discursive and organizational hierarchies in sport, so that any individual benefits that accrue to female athletes will be less substantial than the loss of transformational potential in women’s sport.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回复Imbrišević:走出性别批判女权主义的泡沫
尽管在米罗斯拉夫Imbrišević的论文中声称乔恩·派克和我的立场不同,但也有显著的重叠。我赞同乔恩参与的WR协商过程,同意乔恩提出了一个令人信服的论点,并同意这个论点的词汇框架。Miroslav对我的论点的主要争论似乎是,它用女权主义的外衣来装扮男权的结果,并且在得出结论时忽视了女性(运动员)的声音。在本文中,我通过暗示这两种指控都源于米罗斯拉夫试图将性别批判女权主义视为评判所有立场的标准。我的立场是,这一女权主义流派将在体育运动的话语和组织等级制度中导致很大程度上保守的结果,因此,女性运动员获得的任何个人利益都不如女性体育运动变革潜力的损失那么大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Book Symposium: Alfred Archer and Jake Wojtowicz’s Why it’s OK to be a Sports Fan Fair Play Principle in Esports Be a good sport: A care ethical inquiry into sport parenting Weight in sport: changing the focus from ‘weight-sensitive sports’ to risk groups of athletes The etymological evolvement and redefinition of ‘game’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1