David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
French materialist feminists such as Christine Delphy and Monique Wittig maintain that the social fact of women’s exploitation by men within the family pre-exists and produces gender differences as well as the perception that men and women belong to different biological sexes. They take this position to be ‘materialist’ because it puts social facts prior to ideas and beliefs and so puts the ‘material’ prior to the ‘ideal’. However, I shall claim, drawing on arguments of Sebastiano Timpanaro’s, that this is an incomplete form of materialism because it neglects the shaping of social facts by their interaction with biological facts, notably the biological difference between the sexes. Wittig, though, denies that there is any ‘fact’ of biological sexual difference. Wittig claims that we only believe in and perceive two biological sexes due to the influence of gender expectations. I will try to show that Wittig’s arguments for this claim undermine themselves and actually presuppose that there are two biological sexes. I will conclude that, given that there are two biological sexes, a fully materialist form of feminism must take account of sex difference in theorising gender inequalities
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Sarah S. Richardson (2010). Sexes, Species, and Genomes: Why Males and Females Are Not Like Humans and Chimpanzees. Biology and Philosophy 25 (5):823-841.
Mari Mikkola (2011). Ontological Commitments, Sex and Gender. In Charlotte Witt (ed.), Feminist Metaphysics. Springer 67--83.
Dr Axel Randrup, Cognition and Biological Evolution an Idealist Approach Resolves a Fundamental Paradox.
Lisa Edwards & Carwyn Jones (2007). A Soft Gynocentric Critique of the Practice of Modern Sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (3):346 – 366.
Alice H. Eagly & Wendy Wood (2005). Universal Sex Differences Across Patriarchal Cultures [Not Equal] Evolved Psychological Dispositions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):281-283.
Dr Axel Randrup, Cognition and Biological Evolution an Approach From Idealist Philosophy Resolves a Fundamental Paradox.
Dean Zimmerman (1999). The Compatibility of Materialism and Survival. Faith and Philosophy 16 (2):194-212.
Alexa Schriempf (2001). (Re)Fusing the Amputated Body: An Interactionist Bridge for Feminism and Disability. Hypatia 16 (4):53-79.
Charles T. Wolfe (2005). “The Materialist Denial of Monsters”. In Charles Wolfe (ed.), Monsters and Philosophy. 187--204.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads7 ( #304,000 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?