没有女权主义的女权主义

Q3 Social Sciences Issues in Legal Scholarship Pub Date : 2011-12-20 DOI:10.2202/1539-8323.1141
Marc S. Spindelman
{"title":"没有女权主义的女权主义","authors":"Marc S. Spindelman","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking a critical perspective on the question of feminism’s situation, this essay urges feminists to consider the benefits, both theoretical and political, of doing feminism without feminism. Contrary to how this may sound, this is not to recommend the wholesale abandonment of feminism, or less, a break. Rather, it is to recognize how feminism has always been defined by underlying normativities and politics that are analytically separate and distinct from feminism itself. It is also to suggest that these normativities and politics have been the field of feminism’s greatness and the source of its theorizing’s deepest and most enduring strengths. With these suggestions in hand, the essay sketches possible agendas from different feminist perspectives, the idea being to point out how feminism’s present and its future—a future without feminism but not without everything feminists have fought for and cared about—can be as bright a promise and sign of hope as it ever was in the high points of feminism’s past.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"2020 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1141","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feminism Without Feminism\",\"authors\":\"Marc S. Spindelman\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1539-8323.1141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Taking a critical perspective on the question of feminism’s situation, this essay urges feminists to consider the benefits, both theoretical and political, of doing feminism without feminism. Contrary to how this may sound, this is not to recommend the wholesale abandonment of feminism, or less, a break. Rather, it is to recognize how feminism has always been defined by underlying normativities and politics that are analytically separate and distinct from feminism itself. It is also to suggest that these normativities and politics have been the field of feminism’s greatness and the source of its theorizing’s deepest and most enduring strengths. With these suggestions in hand, the essay sketches possible agendas from different feminist perspectives, the idea being to point out how feminism’s present and its future—a future without feminism but not without everything feminists have fought for and cared about—can be as bright a promise and sign of hope as it ever was in the high points of feminism’s past.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"volume\":\"2020 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1141\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文以批判的视角审视女权主义的处境问题,敦促女权主义者考虑在没有女权主义的情况下做女权主义的理论和政治上的好处。与这听起来相反,这并不是建议彻底放弃女权主义,或者更少,是一种休息。相反,它是要认识到女权主义是如何一直被潜在的规范和政治所定义的,这些规范和政治在分析上与女权主义本身是分开的。这也表明,这些规范和政治一直是女权主义伟大的领域,也是其理论化最深刻和最持久的力量的来源。有了这些建议,这篇文章从不同的女权主义角度勾勒出可能的议程,其目的是指出女权主义的现在和未来——一个没有女权主义的未来,但并非没有女权主义者为之奋斗和关心的一切——如何能像女权主义过去的巅峰时期一样,成为一个光明的承诺和希望的标志。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Feminism Without Feminism
Taking a critical perspective on the question of feminism’s situation, this essay urges feminists to consider the benefits, both theoretical and political, of doing feminism without feminism. Contrary to how this may sound, this is not to recommend the wholesale abandonment of feminism, or less, a break. Rather, it is to recognize how feminism has always been defined by underlying normativities and politics that are analytically separate and distinct from feminism itself. It is also to suggest that these normativities and politics have been the field of feminism’s greatness and the source of its theorizing’s deepest and most enduring strengths. With these suggestions in hand, the essay sketches possible agendas from different feminist perspectives, the idea being to point out how feminism’s present and its future—a future without feminism but not without everything feminists have fought for and cared about—can be as bright a promise and sign of hope as it ever was in the high points of feminism’s past.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Legal Scholarship
Issues in Legal Scholarship Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Legal Scholarship presents cutting-edge legal and policy research using the format of online peer-reviewed symposia. The journal’s emphasis on interdisciplinary work and legal theory extends to recent symposium topics such as Single-Sex Marriage, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, and Catastrophic Risks. The symposia systematically address emerging issues of great significance, offering ongoing scholarship of interest to a wide range of policy and legal researchers. Online publication makes it possible for other researchers to find the best and latest quickly, as well as to join in further discussion. Each symposium aims to be a living forum with ongoing publications and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Current understanding of extracellular vesicle homing/tropism. Tort Policy in a Plural Context: Pathways Towards Objective Liability in UAE Tort Law Eliciting Best Evidence from a Child Witness: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India Bumped Redundancy and the Range of Reasonable Responses: To what Extent, if any, should Employers Consider Bumping? Life after Mirab v Mentor Graphics Limited UKEAT/0172/17DA Deconstructing the Opacity of Pari Passu Clause as a Pathway to Interpretative Clarity: Guidepost to Optimal Adjudicatory Outcomes
×
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