FEMINISM REIMAGINED. RECODED.

The contemporary debate centering round the circumference of feminist discourse has of late been very potent in addressing the issues of certain prejudiced notions in our existing patriarchal structure. This paper is an attempt to show the ongoing paradox existing in the world of feminism which has thoroughly critiqued the patriarchal culture and has naturalized sexual identities, thereby glorifying man's supremacy and dominion. The patriarchal culture lionized the ideals of brevity, courageousness, and intellect and thought of these as the only special possessions of man in society. The qualities of being submissive, kind and caring in nature is considered to be " ideal " and exclusive qualities of a woman. Even though these qualities are " ideal " to women, they are discarded from being considered as universal in nature and are thought of as insignificant in the mainstream societal structure. These qualities are treated as inferior, and exclusively womanly and hence cannot make their stand in the conventional patriarchal social order. For this reason a dilemmatic situation arises here. My effort is to show that this dilemma cannot be exposed in the sense of gender specific human qualities.

Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 1988

The central aim of this paper is to argue that sex is an important area of study for philosophers, and that the present vitality of the philosophy of sex stems largely from the contributions of feminist thinkers. "Sex" refers to three distinct areas: gender sex, erotic sex, and sexual politics. In all these areas, prejudice and habit create difficulties in discussing sex; underlying those prejudices are some traditional models of the person in which sexuality threatens the real self. Feminist philosophy of sexuality involves critiques of those models, and of various forms of gender with them. RESUME Le but principal de cet expose est de fa ire valoir 1'importance pour les philosophes, des problemes de la philosophie de la sexualite, et parliculierement de la pensee feministe en ce domaine. "Sexualite" designe trois domaines distincts: la division des sexes, l'eroiisme, et les aspects politiques. Dans les trois domaines, les prejuges rendent difficiles la pensee aussi bien que le discours. Derriere ces prejuges, il y a des conceptions traditionnelles de la personnequi opposent la sexualite et le moi authentique. La philosophie feministe de la sexualite fait la critique de tels modeles, ainsi quede plusieurs formes d'essentialisme qui s'y rattachent.

Further Adventures of the Dialectic of Sex, 2010

For the last twenty years, feminist theory has been presented as a series of ascending waves. This picture has had the effect of deemphasizing the diversity of past scholarship as well as constraining the way we understand and frame new work. The aim of this series is to attract original scholars who will offer unique interpretations of past scholarship and unearth neglected contributions to feminist theory. By breaking free from the constraints of the image of waves, this series will be able to provide a wider forum for dialogue and engage historical and interdisciplinary work to open up feminist theory to new audiences and markets.

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

Political Studies, 1994

The ten books this article is centred on all engage with feminism.' They in no way constitute a representative sample, but they are fairly typical of work which has been appearing during the early 1990s under this broad title.* Together they convey an impression of immense diversity, but this is indeed symptomatic of recent work. In fact most of the contributors here feel obliged to ask what feminism can mean today in the light of its recent dispersals. At one time there could have been a broad consensus that it is a body of political ideas reflecting on, and contributing to, the movement for women's liberation from oppression organized along gender lines. If there was some dissent as to what this might finally look like, there was agreement that the task of academic feminism was to render women visible: by rediscovering their contribution to history and by making them the focus of empirical research. It was taken for granted that such studies would demonstrate ways in which sexual inequality is systematically reproduced through social structures and cultural biases that sustain personal as well as public relations of oppression. It followed that women saw themselves seizing the moral high ground, wedding their findings to demands for a just distribution of rights and resources and perhaps developing more visionary and 'feminine' criteria of justice and images of the good life. Something of this earlier optimistic confidence does remain, especially in those primarily narrative accounts (like Valerie Bryson's or Sheila Rowbotham's) that recall the history of women's struggles and remind us of the gains and reversals won or suffered there. Indeed, many of the books here re-invoke this

For other paper in the SI see: http://fty.sagepub.com/content/current

Pakistaniaat, 2013

New Woman Fiction, 2000

The Crisis of Gender and Sexuality 117 [I]t must never be forgotten that the differences which nature has fixed between the sexes are insuperable. .. The protectors of 'true womanhood' insist on these differences; but the insurgents ought to insist on them too. It is not only useless, it is suicidal to deny them. .. The perpetual. .. unassailable differences, organic and functional, biological and psychological, between men and women are just the safeguard which may enable men without scruple and apprehension to make women their political peers. Women may safely be relieved from political disabilities simply because they can never become men. J. B. Bury, 'The Insurrection of Women' (1892) 1 At a time when even those sympathetic to the women's movement asserted rigid notions of sexual difference, if only to deflate conservative fears about the sexual anarchy that would follow in the wake of women's political emancipation, feminists challenged the biological and psychological premise on which the sex/gender equation was based. While in the motto to this chapter women's claim to citizenship is linked to their inalterable difference from men, New Woman writers, arguing for women's rights on the grounds of their essential sameness, suggested in their cross-dressing narratives that women could, in fact, become men. The last chapter explored the degree to which masculinity became the target of feminist anger. By seeking to incriminate virtually all contemporary men of inherent immorality, and by contrasting male sexual violence with the caring ethic of many women, writers mobilized gendered stereotypes about intrinsically 'male' and 'female' traits. At the same