Hypatia 16 (2):67-74 (2001)
|Abstract||: Linda Nicholson argues that because gender is socially constructed, feminist theorizing must be about an expansive multiplicity of subjects called "woman" that bear a family resemblance to each other. But why did feminism expand its category of analysis to apply to all cultures and time periods when social constructionism led lesbian and gay studies to narrow the categories "homosexual" and "lesbian"? And given the multiplicity of genders, why insist that feminist subjects are different, resembling women rather than a multiplicity including women as well as not-women and not-men?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Claudia Card (1998). Radicalesbianfeminist Theory. Hypatia 13 (1):206 - 213.
Harry Brod (1987). The New Men's Studies: From Feminist Theory to Gender Scholarship. Hypatia 2 (1):179 - 196.
Silvia Stoller & tr Nielsen, Camilla (2005). Asymmetrical Genders: Phenomenological Reflections on Sexual Difference. Hypatia 20 (2):7-26.
Linda Alcoff & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.) (2007). The Blackwell Guide to Feminist Philosophy. Blackwell Pub..
Ann Garry (2011). Intersectionality, Metaphors, and the Multiplicity of Gender. Hypatia 26 (4):826-850.
Luce Irigaray (2007). Je, Tu, Nous: Toward a Culture of Difference: With a Personal Note by the Author. Routledge.
Chris J. Cuomo (1998). Thoughts on Lesbian Differences. Hypatia 13 (1):198 - 205.
Mary Libertin (1987). The Politics of Women's Studies and Men's Studies. Hypatia 2 (2):143 - 152.
Cheshire Calhoun (2002). Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet: Lesbian and Gay Displacement. OUP Oxford.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #51,719 of 551,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?