Diferencia entre revisiones de «Feminismo Radical»

sin resumen de edición
Sin resumen de edición
Sin resumen de edición
 
(No se muestra una edición intermedia del mismo usuario)
Línea 48: Línea 48:
Redstockings and The Feminists were both radical feminist organizations, but held rather distinct views. Most members of Redstockings held to a [[materialism|materialist]] and anti-[[psychologism|psychologistic]] view. They viewed men's oppression of women as ongoing and deliberate, holding individual men responsible for this oppression, viewing institutions and systems (including the family) as mere vehicles of conscious male intent, and rejecting psychologistic explanations of female submissiveness as blaming women for collaboration in their own oppression. They held to a view—which Willis would later describe as "neo-[[Maoism|Maoist]]"—that it would be possible to unite all or virtually all women, as a class, to confront this oppression by personally confronting men.{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=124—128}}
Redstockings and The Feminists were both radical feminist organizations, but held rather distinct views. Most members of Redstockings held to a [[materialism|materialist]] and anti-[[psychologism|psychologistic]] view. They viewed men's oppression of women as ongoing and deliberate, holding individual men responsible for this oppression, viewing institutions and systems (including the family) as mere vehicles of conscious male intent, and rejecting psychologistic explanations of female submissiveness as blaming women for collaboration in their own oppression. They held to a view—which Willis would later describe as "neo-[[Maoism|Maoist]]"—that it would be possible to unite all or virtually all women, as a class, to confront this oppression by personally confronting men.{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=124—128}}


[[File:Ellen willis.png|thumb|[[Ellen Willis]]]]
[[Archivo:Ellen Willis.png|miniaturadeimagen]]


The Feminists held a more [[idealism|idealistic]], psychologistic, and [[utopianism|utopian]] philosophy, with a greater emphasis on "[[sex role]]s", seeing [[sexism]] as rooted in "complementary patterns of male and female behavior". They placed more emphasis on institutions, seeing marriage, family, prostitution, and heterosexuality as all existing to perpetuate the "sex-role system". They saw all of these as institutions to be destroyed. Within the group, there were further disagreements, such as Koedt's viewing the institution of "normal" sexual intercourse as being focused mainly on male sexual or erotic pleasure, while Atkinson viewed it mainly in terms of reproduction. In contrast to the Redstockings, The Feminists generally considered genitally focused sexuality to be inherently male. [[Ellen Willis]], the Redstockings co-founder, would later write that insofar as the Redstockings considered abandoning heterosexual activity, they saw it as a "bitter price" they "might have to pay for [their] militance", whereas The Feminists embraced [[separatist feminism]] as a strategy.{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=130–132}}
Las Feministas tenían una filosofía más [[idealista | idealista]], psicologista y [[utopía | utópica]], con un mayor énfasis en "[[roles sexuales]] s", viendo el [[sexismo]] como enraizado en " patrones complementarios de comportamiento masculino y femenino ". Pusieron más énfasis en las instituciones, viendo el matrimonio, la familia, la prostitución y la heterosexualidad como todos existentes para perpetuar el "sistema de roles sexuales". Vieron a todos ellos como instituciones a destruir. Dentro del grupo, hubo más desacuerdos, como que Koedt consideraba que la institución de las relaciones sexuales "normales" se centraba principalmente en el placer sexual o erótico masculino, mientras que Atkinson lo veía principalmente en términos de reproducción. A diferencia de las medias rojas, las feministas generalmente consideraban que la sexualidad centrada en los genitales era inherentemente masculina. [[Ellen Willis]], la cofundadora de Redstockings, escribiría más tarde que en la medida en que los Redstockings consideraban abandonar la actividad heterosexual, lo veían como un "precio amargo" que "podrían tener que pagar por [su] militancia", mientras que Las feministas adoptaron el [[feminismo separatista]] como estrategia.{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=130–132}}


The New York Radical Feminists (NYRF) took a more psychologistic (and even [[biological determinism|biologically determinist]]) line. They argued that men dominated women not so much for material benefits as for the ego satisfaction intrinsic in domination. Similarly, they rejected the Redstockings view that women submitted only out of necessity or The Feminists' implicit view that they submitted out of cowardice, but instead argued that [[social conditioning]] simply led most women to accept a submissive role as "right and natural".{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=133–134}}
Las Feministas Radicales de Nueva York (NYRF) adoptaron una línea más psicologista (e incluso [[determinismo biológico | biológicamente determinista]]). Argumentaron que los hombres dominaban a las mujeres no tanto por beneficios materiales como por la satisfacción del ego intrínseca a la dominación. De manera similar, rechazaron la opinión de Redstockings de que las mujeres se sometían solo por necesidad o la opinión implícita de Las Feministas de que se sometían por cobardía, pero en cambio argumentaron que [[el condicionamiento social]] simplemente llevó a la mayoría de las mujeres a aceptar un papel sumiso como "correcto y natural".{{sfn|Willis|1984|pp=133–134}}


=== Forms of action ===
=== Forms of action ===
29

ediciones