2011
DOI: 10.7202/1002323ar
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Le dilemme entre politiques et pouvoir

Abstract: Citoyenne est-il réellement le féminin de citoyen? En prenant comme point de départ le mode d’accession des femmes à la citoyenneté, j’analyserai successivement trois éléments. D’abord, il sera question de la « victimisation » des femmes et de ses conséquences politiques. Ensuite j’aborderai le problème de la confusion, dans l’action politique se réclamant du féminisme, entre les femmes perçues comme groupe social dont il faut satisfaire les besoins et les femmes comme actrices politiques. Finalement, il sera … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…But for most of the history of modernity, the systemic inequality between men and women was truly the elephant in the livingroom, in plain sight, yet unseen, because it was reified as a natural phenomenon. Underpinning the bifurcation between the public and private sectors (i.e., market and state) that is constitutive of capitalism, modernity renewed and redefined the age-old split between the public and private spheres, for a long time relegating women to the latter, as subalterns at the service of men (Lamoureux, 2002;O'Brien, 1989O'Brien, , 1981Pateman, 1988aPateman, , 1988bBrowne, 1991). As modern social thought raised up the public spheres of political and economic activity as realms in which man could engage in the rational pursuit of general and particular interests, it conceived the private sphere as the place of emotion and irrationality, of love, intimacy, caring, and giving (Pulcini, 2005).…”
Section: Autonomy Interdependency and Carementioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…But for most of the history of modernity, the systemic inequality between men and women was truly the elephant in the livingroom, in plain sight, yet unseen, because it was reified as a natural phenomenon. Underpinning the bifurcation between the public and private sectors (i.e., market and state) that is constitutive of capitalism, modernity renewed and redefined the age-old split between the public and private spheres, for a long time relegating women to the latter, as subalterns at the service of men (Lamoureux, 2002;O'Brien, 1989O'Brien, , 1981Pateman, 1988aPateman, , 1988bBrowne, 1991). As modern social thought raised up the public spheres of political and economic activity as realms in which man could engage in the rational pursuit of general and particular interests, it conceived the private sphere as the place of emotion and irrationality, of love, intimacy, caring, and giving (Pulcini, 2005).…”
Section: Autonomy Interdependency and Carementioning
confidence: 98%
“…The latter were subject to a further bifurcation, some aspects being constructed as social and cultural, susceptible to refinement and taste, while others (those associated with the body in its materiality: labor, sexuality, disease and death) were constructed as natural and requiring domination by the masculine forces of science and reason (Federici, 2004;Theweleit, 1987;Merchant, 1980). Although women have acquired civil, political and economic rights in most liberal-democratic states, and although the struggles of women to achieve those rights continue, the division of labor between men and women remains unequal, while state family and social policies generally continue to imprison women in Wollstonecraft's dilemma: women can gain formal recognition as citizens on a par with men, but the substantive inequality of their position in the division of labor undermines their status; alternatively, women can obtain some recognition of their role in the division of labor, e.g., in the form of social policies -but the latter institutionalize women's status as minors in relation to men (Pateman, 1988a;Lamoureux, 2002;Lewis, 2007).…”
Section: Autonomy Interdependency and Carementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Plusieurs politologues féministes ont à cet égard démontré que le concept de citoyenneté n'est pas neutre; androcentré, il n'a pas tenu compte de l’évolution historique des droits ni des réalités spécifiques des femmes (Dietz, 1998; Lister, 1997; Pateman, 1988; Walby, 1994). Par exemple, Lamoureux (2002) rappelle que les femmes ont obtenu des droits sociaux avant l'obtention de droits politiques, car jusque-là considérées comme des non-citoyennes, devant avant tout être protégées (par le mari, le père). En outre, l'exclusion sociohistorique des femmes du domaine citoyen repose principalement sur la construction sociohistorique d'une nature immanente de la féminité-maternité (Lamoureux, 2001), sur laquelle s'est appuyées la division des sphères privée-publique et son corollaire, la division sexuelle du travail (Lister, 1997; 2007; 2011; Marques-Pereira, 2003; 2004).…”
Section: La Problématique Citoyenneté Des Femmes âGéesunclassified
“…Ces groupes sont donc voués à suivre l'ordre établi par d'autres. L'exclusion historique des femmes de la citoyenneté universelle et de la sphère publique se traduit encore aujourd'hui par leur faible présence dans les espaces décisionnels (Lamoureux, 2002;Tremblay, 1996). L'impérialisme culturel procède d'une généralisation des pratiques, usages et valeurs du groupe dominant à l'ensemble de la société.…”
Section: Localisation Du Quartier Sainte-marie Sur L'île De Montréalunclassified