What do you think?
Rate this book
Feminist Theory: A Critique of Ideology
"A crucial task for feminst scholars," wrote Michelle Rosaldo over two years ago in Signs , "emerges, then, not as the relatively limited one of documenting pervasive sexism as a social fact–or showing how we can now hope to change or have in the past been able to survive it. Instead, it seems that we are challenged to provide new ways of linking the particulars of women's lives, activities, and goals to inequalities wherever they exist."
Feminist A Critique of Ideology meets that challenge. Collected from several issues of Signs–Journal of Women in Culture and Society , these essays explore the relationships between objectivity and masculinity, between psychology and political theory, and between family and state. In pursuing these critical explorations, the contributors–liberal, Marxist, socialist, and radical feminists–examine the foundations of power, of sexuality, of language, and of scientific thought.
Feminist A Critique of Ideology meets that challenge. Collected from several issues of Signs–Journal of Women in Culture and Society , these essays explore the relationships between objectivity and masculinity, between psychology and political theory, and between family and state. In pursuing these critical explorations, the contributors–liberal, Marxist, socialist, and radical feminists–examine the foundations of power, of sexuality, of language, and of scientific thought.
313 pages, Paperback
First published December 15, 1982
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 7, 2023
Hmmm, mixed thoughts about this collection. It was quite difficult to get through - definitely on the more academic, dense, and wordy side of things - and it used footnotes instead of endnotes, which was sometimes annoying, as oftentimes half of the pages of the articles were taken up by endless footnotes which, by their blinding presence, made me feel it was necessary to read them (when I usually skip them when they're at the end). Most centrally, though, I disagreed with the ideological positions/conclusions of many of the theorists in this anthology, and when I was about 1/3 of the way through the book, I felt prepared to shift the mental 3 star rating I had envisioned down to a 2 star one.
As I got further along, and the current shifted from "psychoanalytic or linguistic or postmodernist or liberal feminist" positions to more radical ones (and I did appreciate some socialist ones, too), and as the the topics discussed turned to ones which were easier to agree with regardless of which brand of feminism they were written from (I'm speaking here primarily of feminist literary criticism/theory), I felt less ticked off/repulsed/disdainful/opposing and started to enjoy it a lot more. Several of the articles were strong enough to yield 4 stars, but, in the end, I thought 3 stars would be the most honest rating to give this book.
I enjoyed the collection of articles on compulsory heterosexuality and being able to see the academics taking each other's words and arguing/extending arguments, but, somewhat unsurprisingly (given the area of feminism I prefer to read in - radical feminism and lesbian feminism), my favorite papers were probably the opening and closing ones, those by Catharine MacKinnon and Susan Griffin.
Several in the middle were also great, but they're less memorable (due to being in the middle, not either end), and I'm not going to bother looking through the book to find them.
As for my least favorite - several were very aggravating, but the most memorable was Kristeva's, not only for her way of writing (I'm sorry, but I doubt I will ever be able to enjoy that postmodernist, linguistically crazy, French-feminist-style, type of writing) but also for some of the positions she takes up. I was actually very surprised that this book was published in 1982, as that article, and many of the other similarly styled ones felt like they were from the 90's.
In any case! That's about the sum of my thoughts on this book. I did feel smarter after reading it, and glad I'd gotten through, despite my earlier resistance. (At a certain point, I became deadset on finishing it.) Because I persevered, I was happy to notice that it contains writing from radical feminists as well, and not just the other categories of feminist, though definitely there were less radical articles than any others. Of course, I noticed MacKinnon right at the beginning, but I didn't see anything similar forthcoming for a while, so I thought she might be the only exception.
This anthology was interesting, but I definitely prefer the less ponderous and more concrete, practical type of feminist books (like some of the ones I've read most recently, notably the one on femicide).
As I got further along, and the current shifted from "psychoanalytic or linguistic or postmodernist or liberal feminist" positions to more radical ones (and I did appreciate some socialist ones, too), and as the the topics discussed turned to ones which were easier to agree with regardless of which brand of feminism they were written from (I'm speaking here primarily of feminist literary criticism/theory), I felt less ticked off/repulsed/disdainful/opposing and started to enjoy it a lot more. Several of the articles were strong enough to yield 4 stars, but, in the end, I thought 3 stars would be the most honest rating to give this book.
I enjoyed the collection of articles on compulsory heterosexuality and being able to see the academics taking each other's words and arguing/extending arguments, but, somewhat unsurprisingly (given the area of feminism I prefer to read in - radical feminism and lesbian feminism), my favorite papers were probably the opening and closing ones, those by Catharine MacKinnon and Susan Griffin.
Several in the middle were also great, but they're less memorable (due to being in the middle, not either end), and I'm not going to bother looking through the book to find them.
As for my least favorite - several were very aggravating, but the most memorable was Kristeva's, not only for her way of writing (I'm sorry, but I doubt I will ever be able to enjoy that postmodernist, linguistically crazy, French-feminist-style, type of writing) but also for some of the positions she takes up. I was actually very surprised that this book was published in 1982, as that article, and many of the other similarly styled ones felt like they were from the 90's.
In any case! That's about the sum of my thoughts on this book. I did feel smarter after reading it, and glad I'd gotten through, despite my earlier resistance. (At a certain point, I became deadset on finishing it.) Because I persevered, I was happy to notice that it contains writing from radical feminists as well, and not just the other categories of feminist, though definitely there were less radical articles than any others. Of course, I noticed MacKinnon right at the beginning, but I didn't see anything similar forthcoming for a while, so I thought she might be the only exception.
This anthology was interesting, but I definitely prefer the less ponderous and more concrete, practical type of feminist books (like some of the ones I've read most recently, notably the one on femicide).
Displaying 1 of 1 review