难道我不是女权主义者吗?

Celina Romany
{"title":"难道我不是女权主义者吗?","authors":"Celina Romany","doi":"10.4324/9781003059141-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I want to recover my faith in feminism during the 1990's. The feminism that gave me the strength to understand the story of a woman born and raised in a colony who migrates to the metropolis, feminism as a liberation project. The feminism which launches a multi-faceted attack on legal institutions that perpetuate substantial inequities. The current state of feminist legal theory makes me wonder if I am still a feminist. The feminism I see myself associated with has a capital F. That which aims at eradicating the various forms of oppression that affect all women, a project overlooked by \"small-town\" feminism. I am willing to risk being outside current postmodern theoretical trends by supporting capital letters. My capital letters connote expansion, breadth and inclusion. Far from claiming privileged access to truth with a capital T, feminism with a capital F thrives in a room with a great view of narratives about intersections. Feminist legal theorists belong to a norm-forming group involved in what Robert Cover has described as the creation of new legal meanings.' As he suggested, we need to examine the juris-generative operation of such a group and how the process of creating new legal meanings depends on sustaining narratives. Narratives that define both the vision of the juris-generative group and its location in making its work a viable alternative. Today, I'd like to critique the feminist narratives that sustain the creation of feminist legal theory as new legal meaning. My principal claims are: 1) that the feminist narrative deployed as a foundation with its monocausal emphasis on gender falls short of the liberation project feminism should be about: the emancipation of all women, 2) that feminism so defined cannot adequately address the shortcomings of liberal legalism and 3) that postmodernism, although helpful in counteracting feminist essentialism by giving space and voice to a multiplicity of accounts, nevertheless lacks a material analysis of macrostructures of inequality and thus lacks translation potential for social change. Feminist legal theory needs to allow room for the destabilization of gender as both a conceptual and practical tool of analysis. Feminist legal theory moves","PeriodicalId":83555,"journal":{"name":"Yale journal of law and feminism","volume":"27 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ain’t I a Feminist?\",\"authors\":\"Celina Romany\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781003059141-20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I want to recover my faith in feminism during the 1990's. The feminism that gave me the strength to understand the story of a woman born and raised in a colony who migrates to the metropolis, feminism as a liberation project. The feminism which launches a multi-faceted attack on legal institutions that perpetuate substantial inequities. The current state of feminist legal theory makes me wonder if I am still a feminist. The feminism I see myself associated with has a capital F. That which aims at eradicating the various forms of oppression that affect all women, a project overlooked by \\\"small-town\\\" feminism. I am willing to risk being outside current postmodern theoretical trends by supporting capital letters. My capital letters connote expansion, breadth and inclusion. Far from claiming privileged access to truth with a capital T, feminism with a capital F thrives in a room with a great view of narratives about intersections. Feminist legal theorists belong to a norm-forming group involved in what Robert Cover has described as the creation of new legal meanings.' As he suggested, we need to examine the juris-generative operation of such a group and how the process of creating new legal meanings depends on sustaining narratives. Narratives that define both the vision of the juris-generative group and its location in making its work a viable alternative. Today, I'd like to critique the feminist narratives that sustain the creation of feminist legal theory as new legal meaning. My principal claims are: 1) that the feminist narrative deployed as a foundation with its monocausal emphasis on gender falls short of the liberation project feminism should be about: the emancipation of all women, 2) that feminism so defined cannot adequately address the shortcomings of liberal legalism and 3) that postmodernism, although helpful in counteracting feminist essentialism by giving space and voice to a multiplicity of accounts, nevertheless lacks a material analysis of macrostructures of inequality and thus lacks translation potential for social change. Feminist legal theory needs to allow room for the destabilization of gender as both a conceptual and practical tool of analysis. Feminist legal theory moves\",\"PeriodicalId\":83555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale journal of law and feminism\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale journal of law and feminism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003059141-20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale journal of law and feminism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003059141-20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

我想在90年代恢复对女权主义的信心。女权主义给了我力量去理解一个在殖民地出生长大的女人移居到大都市的故事,女权主义是一项解放事业。女权主义对法律制度发起了多方面的攻击,使严重的不平等得以延续。女权主义法律理论的现状让我怀疑我是否仍然是一个女权主义者。我认为自己与女权主义有关,这是一个大写的f。它旨在消除影响所有女性的各种形式的压迫,这是一个被“小镇”女权主义所忽视的项目。我愿意冒着脱离当前后现代理论趋势的风险,支持大写字母。我的大写字母意味着扩展、广度和包容性。女权主义并没有声称有特权获得真理,而是在一个对交叉点的叙述有很好看法的房间里茁壮成长。女权主义法律理论家属于一个规范形成的群体,参与了罗伯特·Cover所描述的新法律意义的创造。正如他所建议的那样,我们需要研究这样一个群体的法理生成操作,以及创造新的法律意义的过程如何依赖于持续的叙述。叙述既定义了法理生成组的愿景,也定义了它在使其工作成为可行替代方案中的位置。今天,我想批判女权主义叙事,这些叙事支撑了女权主义法律理论作为新的法律意义的创造。我的主要主张是:1)女权主义叙事以其对性别的单一强调为基础,没有达到女权主义应该追求的解放目标;所有女性的解放,2)如此定义的女权主义不能充分解决自由主义法律主义的缺点,3)后现代主义虽然有助于通过给多种说法提供空间和声音来抵消女权主义的本质主义,但缺乏对不平等宏观结构的实质性分析,因此缺乏对社会变革的翻译潜力。女权主义法律理论需要为性别的不稳定提供空间,作为一种概念和实践的分析工具。女权主义法律理论走向
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ain’t I a Feminist?
I want to recover my faith in feminism during the 1990's. The feminism that gave me the strength to understand the story of a woman born and raised in a colony who migrates to the metropolis, feminism as a liberation project. The feminism which launches a multi-faceted attack on legal institutions that perpetuate substantial inequities. The current state of feminist legal theory makes me wonder if I am still a feminist. The feminism I see myself associated with has a capital F. That which aims at eradicating the various forms of oppression that affect all women, a project overlooked by "small-town" feminism. I am willing to risk being outside current postmodern theoretical trends by supporting capital letters. My capital letters connote expansion, breadth and inclusion. Far from claiming privileged access to truth with a capital T, feminism with a capital F thrives in a room with a great view of narratives about intersections. Feminist legal theorists belong to a norm-forming group involved in what Robert Cover has described as the creation of new legal meanings.' As he suggested, we need to examine the juris-generative operation of such a group and how the process of creating new legal meanings depends on sustaining narratives. Narratives that define both the vision of the juris-generative group and its location in making its work a viable alternative. Today, I'd like to critique the feminist narratives that sustain the creation of feminist legal theory as new legal meaning. My principal claims are: 1) that the feminist narrative deployed as a foundation with its monocausal emphasis on gender falls short of the liberation project feminism should be about: the emancipation of all women, 2) that feminism so defined cannot adequately address the shortcomings of liberal legalism and 3) that postmodernism, although helpful in counteracting feminist essentialism by giving space and voice to a multiplicity of accounts, nevertheless lacks a material analysis of macrostructures of inequality and thus lacks translation potential for social change. Feminist legal theory needs to allow room for the destabilization of gender as both a conceptual and practical tool of analysis. Feminist legal theory moves
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信