Dominique Meeùs
Dernière modification le
Bibliographie :
table des matières,
index des notions —
Retour à la page personnelle
Auteurs : A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z,
Auteur-œuvres : A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z,
Explanations of gender inequality are often classified either as radical-feminist or socialist-feminist […] This dichotomous classification is now surpassed by recent writings which themselves fall into two: some argue that dichotomy in the explanation of gender inequality should be overcome by saying that this inequality results from a single system of capitalist patriarchy; others argue that inequality is the outcome of an interaction of autonomous systems of patriarchy and capital. This would produce four categories of writings on gender inequality — and a fifth, as well, for the sake of completeness, for those writings based on the theoretical insignificance or non-existence of gender inequality:
Sylvia Walby, Patriarchy at Work, 1986:19-20. The debate about domestic labour thus occurs in a context which takes as a basic presumption the centrality of capital and is merely concerned with the exact delineation and relation of the elements of this system. This framework seriously limits the type of questions and answers which are possible in the issue of how to understand gender relations; most writers on the topic have next to nothing to say about gender relations per se; they discuss only the relationship of domestic labour to capitalism.