Can I explain (away?) the counterexample trope? Absolutely. Are you likely to buy the explanation? Shrug.
System of patriarchal injustice vs. systems of patriarchal injustice is something I'm working through right now, actually. Systems is more flexible, and sometimes avoids the monolithicness when, yeah, it does sound a little absurd. OTOH, hegemony is part of the concept of patriarchy, and moving it to systems plural is in a way moving away from the idea of systemic injustice itself and towards isolated acts, which would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure the negative evaluation of physicality and emotionality is not inherently a sexism issue given that those qualities are also attributed to other non-powerful categories such as racial minorities.
Absolutely, it's an injustice issue, and all forms of systemic injustice are intersectional with each other. I'll often use "patriarchy" to use the entire complex of systemic injustice--sexism, racism, antisemitism, ageism, ableism, classism, etc.--and "feminism" to mean theoretical approaches which identify and work against these forms of systemic injustice, but I am trying to move away from this usage because it privileges sexism over other forms of injustice in a very second-wave feminist way. (Many or at least some second-wavers argued that all forms of injustice other than sexism were in fact merely symptoms of sexism, a view I once found extremely persuasive.) But while racism operates in similar (but not exactly mappable) ways to sexism, I think the specific dynamics discussed here are more sexist than racist or classist, insofar as the types of systemic injustice can be separated out from each other (which isn't very far).
My masters program is interdisciplinary and my undergrad majors were English and philosophy&religion. Does that answer your question?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-02 12:35 pm (UTC)System of patriarchal injustice vs. systems of patriarchal injustice is something I'm working through right now, actually. Systems is more flexible, and sometimes avoids the monolithicness when, yeah, it does sound a little absurd. OTOH, hegemony is part of the concept of patriarchy, and moving it to systems plural is in a way moving away from the idea of systemic injustice itself and towards isolated acts, which would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure the negative evaluation of physicality and emotionality is not inherently a sexism issue given that those qualities are also attributed to other non-powerful categories such as racial minorities.
Absolutely, it's an injustice issue, and all forms of systemic injustice are intersectional with each other. I'll often use "patriarchy" to use the entire complex of systemic injustice--sexism, racism, antisemitism, ageism, ableism, classism, etc.--and "feminism" to mean theoretical approaches which identify and work against these forms of systemic injustice, but I am trying to move away from this usage because it privileges sexism over other forms of injustice in a very second-wave feminist way. (Many or at least some second-wavers argued that all forms of injustice other than sexism were in fact merely symptoms of sexism, a view I once found extremely persuasive.) But while racism operates in similar (but not exactly mappable) ways to sexism, I think the specific dynamics discussed here are more sexist than racist or classist, insofar as the types of systemic injustice can be separated out from each other (which isn't very far).
My masters program is interdisciplinary and my undergrad majors were English and philosophy&religion. Does that answer your question?