No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
As I understand it, Professor Abrams wants to explore between modern feminist theories of women's agency and the liberal norm of autonomy.(1) What are these feminist theories? How might they transform theories about autonomy? I find this entire analysis problematic because underlying feminist theory, as Abrams explains it, is not sound. According to Abrams, women's lives are marked by constraints that make difficult for them to exercise autonomy. She gives two reasons for this: (1) The forces of social construction of gender, impose greater constraints or produce less desirable characteristics among women ... [and] may make difficult to distinguish one's own norms from those [of others.](2) (2) Women are integrally connected to through relations of dependence and of dominance.(3) The needs of those who are dependent on them, therefore, often supplant choices and opportunities of caregiver.(4) A woman in such relationships, have little sense of making rules to she is subject.(5) Also, for caregiver in family, it is complicated to distinguish one's own norms from those arising from repeated performance of this activity, or from strong social norms that structure consciousness of girls and women in this society.(6) Abrams summarizes in this way: Women's lives, according to feminist theory, are marked by constraints that make difficult for them to exercise kinds of autonomy described in liberal theory. The relationships of dependence and dominance that are paradigmatic for many women constrain their ability to achieve moral independence or even, in many cases, to experience values that structure their daily lives as their own.(7) Thus, according to Abrams, although perhaps there is such a creature as an autonomous individual in this society, because men oppress women, is much more likely that person who will achieve moral independence will be a man and not a woman. Abrams also notes that those social norms which both reflect and perpetuate power inequalities(8) between men and women affect marginalized groups(9) in same way.(10) I understand this argument to mean, therefore, that in America is also easier for white people to be autonomous than is for black people, because many white Americans oppress black Americans; and in Nazi Germany, was more likely that Nazis would be autonomous than Jews, because Nazis oppressed Jewish people. This seems very strange. How is that social construction of gender might limit women's ability to distinguish their own norms from norms of and would not similarly limit men's ability to do same? How is possible that women could be connected to others, and constrained through relations of dependence and domination, but those would somehow not be similarly connected to women and thus similarly constrained? Also, how wonderful for men! They not only get all benefits that might come from exploiting women, but they also get to possess valuable human attribute(11) of autonomy at same time! The truth is, of course, not as Abrams suggests.(12) Men's ability to distinguish their norms from norms of others is seriously limited by effort they expend in creating, maintaining, and imposing social norms that create gender; and men too are powerfully connected to women in a relationship of dependence and domination. Both Abrams's argument and my critique sound much too abstract. I would like therefore to give some depth to my comments by describing my visit to town of Williamsburg for this conference, and by situating this description within context of racial oppression in America. Let me start out by saying that I, like many other African-Americans, find problematic to visit those southern communities that make a living by celebrating their antebellum past. …
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.