Search results

Este artículo recorre las diversas formas en que el trabajo ha sido objeto de análisis en la teoría feminista. Identifica dos enfoques analíticos generales que, si bien comparten la idea de que la devaluación social del trabajo que realizan las mujeres es una característica definitoria de la desigualdad y laopresión que sufren, difieren en sus conceptualizaciones sobre el poder social y, por ende, en sus proyectos políticos para la emancipación de las mujeres. El primero, "feminismo de la igualdad", se centra en la división sexual del trabajo; el segundo, "feminismo de la reproducción social", se central en el trabajo reproductivo como elemento clave para la reproducción continua de la sociedad capitalista. El artículo analiza ambas perspectivas y da los argumentos de por qué el segundo enfoque logra superar las debilidades del primero.

Este artículo recorre las diversas formas en que el trabajo ha sido objeto de análisis en la teoría feminista. Identifica dos enfoques analíticos generales que, si bien comparten la idea de que la devaluación social del trabajo que realizan las mujeres es una característica definitoria de la desigualdad y laopresión que sufren, difieren en sus conceptualizaciones sobre el poder social y, por ende, en sus proyectos políticos para la emancipación de las mujeres. El primero, "feminismo de la igualdad", se centra en la división sexual del trabajo; el segundo, "feminismo de la reproducción social", se central en el trabajo reproductivo como elemento clave para la reproducción continua de la sociedad capitalista. El artículo analiza ambas perspectivas y da los argumentos de por qué el segundo enfoque logra superar las debilidades del primero. ; This article takes a look at the various ways in which labor has been assessed in feminist theory, within which two broad analytic approaches can be discerned. They both identify the societal devaluing of and restrictions on the work women do as defining features of women's inequality and oppression, but they differ in their conceptualizations of social power and, relatedly, in their political projects for women's emancipation. The first one, "equality feminism", focuses on the sexual division of labor, whereas the second one, "social reproduction feminism", focuses on reproductive labor as a key element in the ongoing reproduction of capitalist society. The article analyses both perspectives and argues that the second approach succeeds in overcoming the weaknesses of the first.

Em sua busca por capturar a natureza contraditória e constituída por muitas camadas das subjetividades e das posições sociais através de uma perspectiva que insiste no caráter dinâmico e complexo do social, o feminismo interseccional tem inspiradoas feministas marxistas a levar o feminismo da reprodução social para além da preocupação estreita das relações gênero/classe. Ainda assim, mesmo suas articulações politicamente mais radicais, não alcançam uma teorização completa da lógica integrativa que defendem. Esse artigo explora as raízes dessa teorização insufi ciente,e sugere que ao compreender o social como constituído pela atividade humana prática cujo objeto (o mundo social e natural) é organizado de maneira capitalista, o feminismo da reprodução social ressalta a relação dialética entre o todo capitalista e suas diferentes partes. O desafi o para o feminismo marxista é adotar esta abordagemdialética apoiando-se nos insights do feminismo intersec-cional para capturar de maneira mais convincente a unidade de um todo social complexo e diverso.

Seeking to capture the multi-layered, contradictory, nature of subjectivities and social positions through a framework which insists upon the complex, dynamic nature of the social, intersectionality feminism has inspired Marxist-Feminists to push the social-reproduction feminism paradigm beyond a narrow preoccupation with gender/class relations. Yet even its most politically radical articulations stop short of fully theorising the integrative logic they espouse. This article explores the roots of this under-theorisation, and suggests that a more fully integrative ontology informs certain formulations of social-reproduction feminism. In understanding the social as constituted by practical human activity whose object (the social and natural world) is organised capitalistically, social-reproduction feminism highlights thedialecticalrelationship between the capitalist whole and its differentiated parts. The challenge for Marxist-Feminism is to embrace this dialectical approach while building on the insights of intersectionality feminism to more convincingly capture the unity of a complex, diverse social whole.

Perhaps it is the nature of the Marxist Left that its legacy be both amorphous and contentious. After all, so many people drop in and out of it over time, debates regularly flare up and die down without much resolution, and our groups and activities are generally small and scattered. Today, only a few journals, organizations, and books exist as spaces in which we can disentangle the threads of our history and present, offering some form or definition. And that task, as Luxton's contribution shows, is important. In revisiting the Marxist-feminist story, capturing the vibrant, multivalent character of organizing and protest, and provoking a discussion of its contours in the pages of this journal, she helps to cultivate what Alan Sears calls 'a learning Left.'. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractRecent scholarship on Mary Wollstonecraft portrays her as either a liberal who disrupts the boundaries between public and private spheres or as a proto-socialist paving the road for a class-based feminism. Neither of these characterizations adequately captures the radical quality of her work. A close study of her views on class and family place her squarely within the liberal tradition of political economy. While she politicizes these institutions and, in so doing represents a threat to the latenineteenth-century British ruling classes, she neither disrupts the basic tenets of liberalism nor seriously anticipates the class insights of socialist feminism.

I presented the 2019 Hans O. Mauksch address at the American Sociological Association annual meeting in New York City on August 13, 2019. In this address, I explore how sociology faculty perceive their physical bodies in relationship to teaching. After reviewing the literature, I surveyed a national sample of sociology faculty from diverse institutional contexts to find out how aware they were of their bodies in the classroom. I also asked questions related to how aging, chronic illness, and other health issues might affect the utilization of their bodies in teaching. Finally, a third area of research emphasized whether or not sociology faculty saw teaching as performative, and if yes, in what ways. This article is adapted from that address.