Feminist theories

Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 2021

VIANA, Nildo. Gender and Ideology: For a Marxist Critique of the Ideology of Gender. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND EDUCATION, v. 4, p. 1-7, 2017., 2017

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue of gender ideology in a critical and Marxist perspective. Criticism of the gender ideology is now a must, as well as present their social roots and their relationship to a particular historical period. Based on the critical analysis of the work of Joan Scott and his inspiring sources, especially Bourdieu, it seeks to show the ideological roots of gender conception. The present paper aims to discuss the issue of gender ideology. We won't do an archeology of genre term, as some have done 1 ,nor will pursue its etymological roots, nor its past uses, but only its recent use and its ideological character. The critique of gender ideology is, nowadays, a necessity as well as present its social roots and its bond with a certain historical period. Before we begin, let's clarify what we mean by ideology, since this is a polysemic term. Here we use the Marxist conception of ideology 2 , according to which it is a systematization of false consciousness, that is, a illusory thinking system. Ideology is a systematic way of false consciousness produced by the ideologists.What we term as gender ideology is the conception that places the construct 3 "gender" as a fundamental term of the analysis of the issue of women and even of society as a whole. We won't present here the most diverse works that discuss and use the construct "gender".We will elect one of the most cited and influential works on this issue for analysis, although other references are made throughout this text. It is the text of the historian Joan Scott 4 , Gender: A Usefull Category of Historical Analysis. Joan Scott presents in her text an overview of different conceptions of feminist thought and of the use of the construct (which she denominated category) genre. The various concepts are presented descriptively, with superficial observations, and the author's point of view is presented peripherally, with a minimum contribution to the discussion around the issue that is proposed to treat.In fact, this defect to take long descriptions of feminist conceptions, consisting of all or almost all of the text, is quite common and is repeated in Scott's article. She states that the term gender in its most recent use occurred among American feminists, "who wanted to insist on the fundamentally social quality of distinctions based on sex". This use was aiming to reject biological determinism that would be implicit in the use of the terms "sex" and "sexual difference". The term gender would present a relational view and would present men and women in reciprocal terms, preventing the separate study of both. But the author points out that more important than that is that gender "was a term offered by those who claimed that women's scholarship would fundamentally transform disciplinary paradigms" 5. A new methodology and epistemology would be with the term gender, giving it meaning. However, this position did not come right away: For the most part, the attempts of historians to theorize about gender have remained within tradicional social scientific frameworks, using longstanding formulations that provide universal causal explanations. These theories have been limited at best because they tend to 1 Stolke, 2004.

Perspectives, 2004

Bloomsbury Companion to Political Philosophy, 2015

Communication, Culture & Critique, 2008

Sexualization is Number 23 of the ''Top 25 Trends That Changed America,'' according to the March 26, 2007, issue of USA Today. The newspaper added an operational definition: ''Strip clubs for executives. Hooters. Paris Hilton. Britney Spears. Wardrobe malfunction. Online pornography. Girls Gone Wild. Viagra. Erectile dysfunction ads.'' Consistent with its reputation for terseness and cryptic lists, USA Today did not elaborate; but presumably the first seven elements involve women aggressively and profitably performing for men, perhaps with the implication that they also enjoy doing so. Notably, USA Today made sexualization a ''trend,'' not a problem, except for men, for whom Viagra would solve what pornography could not solve. The many ''critical'' tasks in communication can be addressed in many ways and using many methods, as essays in this journal's inaugural issue attest. Arguably, key tasks for critical scholars now include revisiting the conceptual monopoly of gender and dismantling the apparently seamlessly chained linkages, if not conflation, of sexgender-sexual-woman-feminine-feminist. Disrupting this series is crucial if feminist critiques are to be useful and productive in addressing institutions, systems, and processes that are manipulative, exploitative, and even oppressive. In particular, slippage in the use of ''gender'' has diverted critical attention away from sex and sexualization. It has undermined the effectiveness of feminist analysis and the potential of feminist theorists to distinguish when gender or even sexism is the primary issue-from when other oppressive systems or discriminatory processes are what require intervention. The rarity of significant challenges to entrenched terms, concepts, and theories is understandable. Taking on canonical scholarship and often-cited scholars is risky. As this journal acknowledges and aims to correct, publishing such critiques can be difficult. Yet, Moi's (in Williams, 2006) remark regarding the necessity of critical reasoning in feminist theory applies more broadly: ''No intellectual field can refuse to think.'' In this spirit, I call for continued rethinking of Rubin's highly influential work on the ''sex/gender system,'' published a generation ago. Rubin's somewhat idiosyncratic exegesis (i.e., ''critical explanation'') of anthropological and psychoanalytic treatments of the sex/gender system was important and remains valuable. Its impact for feminism is incalculable: The language of gender is entrenched not only

The social realities of the developed and the under developed world are different and so is the nature and reality of feminism within them. The differences in communal culture, social hierarchy and economic structures are responsible for such variations. The growth of a woman within a social environment, her thought process, and the way her familial traditions and beliefs mould her cultural and mental outlook are all to be considered. These factors vary so much owing to the nation, culture and community that the nature and reality of feminism in each space becomes distinct from one another. Generalizing these complexities into a few simplistic structures, therefore, creates gaping discrepancies in such studies. Economic independence alone cannot ensure a woman's liberty and autonomy. The realities of women in the Western world and those of the East are different and thus are the processes through which feminism manifests itself in these societies. But those who ignore these facts in order to propose themselves as the spokes-people for feminism internationally, often make this mistake. The differences between the aspirations, beliefs, expectations and demands of European or American women are drastically different from those of the women of the third world. Thus, international feminism is an elusive concept.