MASCULINITY TO ANTI-MASCULINISM
the social relations of sex from an oppressive
Note: Léo Thiers-Vidal
is working on a PhD in philosophy on
materialist feminism and its epistemological
consequences for men wanting to do
critical research on social relations
of sex. He’s a 32 years old,
white, straight man who grew up in
an upper social class family in Belgium.
He has been involved in the anarchist
movement in Belgium and France on issues
as squatting, anti-speciesism, environmentalism
and radical feminism till 1998.
He then worked within a grassroots
perspective on the issue of children
sexually abused by their fathers and
contributed to “Mères
en Lutte”, a small self-support
group with and for concerned mothers.
He also worked within Cabiria, a community health and social rights group with
and for prostitutes. He’s currently
involved in fighting sexual harassment
within higher education. He lives in
article discusses the specific link between
knowing subjects “men” and
research object “social relations
of sex”. The subjective structuring
as oppressor related to the membership
of the social group men is discussed
as an obstacle to producing pertinent
knowledge. Identifying male egocentrism
and a disadvantaged epistemological condition
as main obstacles, the author proposes
leads of thought on the possible transformation
of male subjectivity and the development
of committed research, articulated around
the elaboration of an anti-masculinist
published in Nouvelles Questions Féministes, a French-language
review, Vol. 21, n° 3, pp. 71-83,
December 2002. It
has been translated by Léo Thiers-Vidal and upgraded by Peter Claes and
In this article, I propose to analyse
the way male researchers committed
to the struggle against women’s
oppression by men, can optimise their
scientific and political efficiency
when analysing social relations of
these men want to produce
non-biased and pertinent
analyses, they are confronted
with a double difficulty.
On the one hand, to fully
understand feminist analyses
which point to their existence
as a permanent source of
on the other hand, to learn
to manage the inner conflicts
that come with it in order
to be able to maintain a
productive, involved and
distanced look at their oppressive
construction and behaviour.
The study of social relations of sex insistently
questions the link between knowing subject and research object. Due to the emotional,
sexual, corporal and identity related anchorage produced by the specific organisation
of social relations of sex, all theoretical and political questioning implies
that committed male researchers should re-evaluate their personal construction
and their life.
As members of the oppressive group, they have
to learn that their subjectivity is constructed/structured by the male position
in society, i.e. the fact that they benefit from material wealth, social liberties,
qualities of life and androcentric representations as far as they oppress women.
In order for committed male researchers, to produce non-biased and pertinent
analyses, they have to develop an anti-masculinist conscience: an awareness of the fact that, as oppressors,
their subjectivity is constructed/structured in a particular
way, as well as an awareness of the consequences of this
construction in order to avoid masculinist bias.
The central question which emerges from such an
awareness is: in what way does a dominant position produced by oppressive behaviour
construct/structure the epistemological relationship to the issue of social relations
of sex? In other words, in what way are analyses of social relations of sex influenced,
and even limited, by the fact that committed male researchers belong to the social
Analysing the social relations of sex: the gendered gap
Several feminist researchers have analysed the
link between the social position of women and a
feminist analysis of social relations of sex. Christine
Delphy writes as early as 1975: “Oppression
is a possible conceptualisation of a given situation;
and this conceptualisation can only come from one
viewpoint, i.e. a precise place in this condition:
the oppressed one” (1998: 281). Yet, few
committed male researchers have considered this
aspect. At best, they consider it selectively,
recalling a certain differentialist idea of complementarity.
This states that men are in less of a position
to analyse the oppressed’ life, but they
are in an equal or better position to analyse the
oppressors’ life hence the necessity of involving
more men in feminist research (Welzer-Lang, 1999).
consider it crucial to go deeper into this epistemological question as it conditions
committed male researchers in relation to the issue of social relations of sex.
Analysing the effects of a social position on the production of knowledge can
have important repercussions on the masculinist imaginary of the “neutral,
autonomous and rational knowing subject” that denies the specificity of
men’s life. This analysis may also transform men’s inscription in
committed research. Very often committed male researchers have the impression
that they have to choose between mimetically and guiltily copying feminist analysis
or developing an independent and liberating male agenda (Welzer-Lang, 1996).
When one discusses the epistemological link between the male social position
and the analysis of social relations of sex, one can, on the contrary, leave
this false choice behind and consider an innovating way of doing committed male
Feminist analyses offer a crucial perspective
on the epistemological importance of life, but participating in feminist activism,
however, can enrich this perspective. Participating in activist dynamics, uncontrolled
by men, makes the meaning of the slogan “the personal is political” clear,
but not in the same way for feminists and committed men. During an anti-patriarchal
camp organised some years ago in the Ariège region of France, women-only
/ men-only and mixed gender discussion groups brought an asymmetrical experience
of life to the surface from women and men, and therefore an asymmetry of topics
for consideration and ways of dealing with them. Very quickly, divisions arose:
committed men joyfully left men–only workshops where they had discussed
sexual experiences, fantasies, emotional expression… while feminists gravely
left women-only workshops where they had discussed sexual violence and it’s
consequences on their sexuality and integrity.
Over the course of the camp, this
gulf grew until it provoked a clash. Feminists demanded that committed men became
conscious of this gulf caused by the oppression experienced by women, and of
the hierarchy of gendered positions. They opted, despite their anger and pain,
for a very educational approach, however, the men refused to work towards a collective
answer and to accept this invitation. Moreover, feminists signalled that they
had been progressively excluded from mixed interactions. Men began to look awkwardly
away and the companionship / friendliness that had previously existed disappeared.
Let’s take another example: during discussions,
parties and encounters organised by members of radical feminist groups from Lyon,
some committed men learned, through participating and thinking, that the feminists’ input
concerning social relations of sex were more pertinent than those of committed
men. These men didn’t often manage to understand the topics discussed,
or to identify the ins and outs of a question, nor to understand what seemed
so self-evident for these radical feminists.
In the face of this gendered gap, most committed
men developed the following judgment: considering feminist’s input as more
pertinent than committed men’s ones signifies “being guilt ridden,
under feminists’ thumb”, even “castrated”; opposing this
signifies “being critical, supporting feminists but vigilant against any
submission”. The link between gendered social positions and the analysis
of social relations of sex wasn’t questioned by these committed men, and
this resistance blocked any constructive collaboration between feminists and
The gendered gap revealed during these activist
encounters – the oppositional conceptualisations of social relations of
sex as oppression – is not due to a lack of information on men’s
part which should be filled up in order to find some equilibrium. The people
participating all had a close variety of information: there were heterosexuals
and homosexuals, people with years of experience and those with very little,
academic and non-academic….
The reason only feminists developed analyses
based on issues of power, is because the shared information and experiences rang
that way for them because of their experiences. “Because even when words
are shared, their connotations are radically different. That’s why several
words have a pleasurable connotation for the oppressor and take on the meaning
of suffering for the oppressed” (Rochefort in Mathieu, 1991: 132).
The gap that appeared between feminists and committed men is therefore a persisting
consequence of oppression. While
the structural position of feminists in social relations of sex creates common
political topics which question reality in terms of power, the structural position
of committed men creates topics that are also common to their social group but
which, on the contrary, hide/veil relations of oppression.
position, androcentrism and analytical ability
If this gendered gap persists between feminists
and committed men and if it isn’t related
to information but to experiencing hierarchical
social positions, how can you more accurately describe
this gendered link between the knowing subject
and the object of knowledge? From studying feminist
standpoint epistemology (Hartsock, 1998) two principal
lines of thought emerge. The first one is androcentrism,
defined as male emotional, psychological and political
egocentrism, the second concerns analytical ability,
determined by a specific male “expertise”.
The first line of thought on the gendered link between the knowing subject
and the object of knowledge concerns the respective motivation of feminists and
committed men. Feminists participating in the camp interpreted their experiences
politically because only such a politicised analysis responded to their objective
interest: being able to build up conceptual tools in order to struggle efficiently
against an oppressive reality. What motivates these women is precisely the fact
that defining men as oppressors and their action as oppressive corresponds to
saying how reality really is. This is for them, a source of emancipation.
On the contrary, committed men did not interpret their experiences politically
because this would reflect a male reality of inflicting violence, exploitation,
appropriation and an absence of empathy towards women. Now, if men want to maintain
their material, psychological, sexual and mental quality of life, they’re
better off hiding the oppressive nature of their relations with women from themselves.
What motivates these men to participate in these group dynamics is the possibility
to talk about themselves, “what worries [them] is man, i.e. [themselves],
again and as always” (Mathieu, 1999: 308). So they voluntarily talk about “sex
roles” or the male “prison” - that which also makes it possible
for them to feel like victims – or about other forms of oppression, denying/deadlocking
their own oppressive behaviour.
Therefore, androcentrism characterises committed male dynamics and analyses.
This consists of two elements: emotional and psychological egocentrism, granting
an excessive importance to your own feelings and experiences, and political egocentrism,
reducing feminism to a tool designed to improve your own fate.
From the inside, as a committed man who has participated in “pro-feminist” groups
in several countries, this emotional and psychological egocentrism is mainly
expressed by a refusal to empathise with women. Any mention of violence inflicted
by men against women – if it hasn’t already been avoided first on
the pretext of not being determined by a feminist agenda – is dismissed
in many ways. It is either used to discuss their own suffering (“but I
suffer too”), or it is thrown back at other men or a system which “controls” them
(hegemonic masculinity, patriarchy). It is either turned against women (“but
they have to benefit from it in some way ?”), or it is avoided through
making yourself feel so guilty that you can remain focused on yourself (“it’s
awful, I suffer from being dominant”). It seems to be impossible for most “committed” men
to simply accept that men’s behaviour diminish or even destroy women’s
(quality of) lives. Their refusal to empathise can be explained by the hypothesis
that as if fully recognising the existence of women would threaten their own
However, androcentrism also implies political egocentrism: when discussing
relations between women and men, these men start talking about their own personal
experiences while progressively excluding the experiences of actual women
in their own lives. Feminism thus functions as a therapeutic tool designed
to improve men’s quality of life. Men use feminist analysis to transform
their lives in order to experience even more well-being; if this doesn’t
work, they reject feminism.
You can, thanks to this first
line of thought about the gendered link between knowing subject and object of
knowledge, identify a central obstacle to the pertinent production of knowledge
on social relations of sex from a male social position. The egoistic defence
of their own interests and of those of their social group motivates committed
men to exclude the oppressed experiences of women from their analysis, and to
remain focused on their own experiences. Refusing to empathise with women enables
committed men to remain linked to the social group of men in general. Only theoretical,
political and personal work on this aspect of male subjectivity will enable a
break in this link with the social group of men to emerge and create an anti-masculinist
A second line of thought on the gendered link between knowing subject
and object of knowledge concerns analytical ability. You have to consider how
living from an oppressive social position constructs/structures your way of being
in the world. Feminist standpoint epistemology enables us to understand that
living as a woman or a man in a hierarchical society produces asymmetrical “expertises”,
forms of pre-political awareness of how social relations of sex work.
The notion of expertise stresses the fact that women and men are
active knowing subjects, acting in a given social structure and processing information
and analyses allowing them to get their bearings. It can be distinguished from
the concepts of role, disposition, socialisation or performativity by the fact
that it stresses the practical awareness which social actors develop of social
relations of power. These expertises are asymmetrical due to the fact that women
accumulate information, feelings, intuitions and analyses from the violent consequences
of the oppression they suffer, going back to its source, thus developing knowledge
on the actual relations in their lives. Due to the fact that women’s experience
is permanently marked by the effects of oppression, this expertise takes up an
important space, often remaining conscious and concerns the dynamics of oppression
On the contrary, men accumulate from infancy onwards information, feelings,
intuitions and analyses on the maintenance and improvement of their quality of
life because, as men, they don’t have to “serve” or submit
themselves to women. Therefore, what they learn everyday in their relations with
women remains focused on themselves. Listening more to women may make them question
their behaviour, thus cost them psychic and emotional energy, even the abandonment
or loss of actual advantages. Moreover, unveiling their emotional functioning,
may offer women a means of resistance but may also offer men relief and therapeutic
support by women. A good dosage of indifference and distance discourages any
initiative by women while expressing interest and attachment may enable obtaining
some emotional and sexual services.
In short, men have a whole repertoire of attitudes consciously intended
for obtaining this or that result in their relations with women. One can say
that their expertise is egocentric. It takes up less space then the relational
expertise of women because being the oppressor enables them to take an interest
in other issues: study, career, leisure, and activism. This male expertise is
conscious at certain moments, mainly in infancy, but it progressively becomes
a kind of masculinist intuition. Men thus build up expertise about the actual
means of oppression (Mathieu,
1991): they learn to test the functionality and efficiency of certain attitudes,
behaviours, words, absences of words and feelings, in their relations with women.
It is this asymmetry that constitutes the epistemological qualitative
leap represented by the expertise from women’s lives. Women build an important,
conscious and relational expertise, informed by their permanently oppressed life,
in relation to the dynamics of oppression, while men build a non-relational expertise,
in relation to the means of oppression, focused on themselves and where the experiences
of women are practically absent. This asymmetry of pre-political expertises -
that constitute elements of gendered ways of being in the world - enables a better
understanding of the persisting gap between feminists and committed men, and
of the gendered link between knowing subject and object of knowledge.
Feminists conceptualise social relations of sex as oppression in opposition
to committed men because an asymmetry exists in the analytical abilities in regard
to social relations of sex. This asymmetry has to be thought of, in fine,
as an epistemological privilege for feminists and an epistemological disadvantage
for committed men (Hartsock, 1998). This particular epistemological condition
has to be carefully considered because it constructs/structures the epistemological
relation of committed male researchers to social relations of sex. It is thus
important to develop committed research from an oppressive social position which
mobilises male specific expertise while taking into account committed male researchers’ lesser
ability to analyse the dynamics of oppression.
Just as male egocentrism, male epistemological particularity constitutes
a central obstacle to the production of a pertinent analysis on social relations
of sex. These two elements construct/structure male common subjectivity and thus
specifically condition their relation with the research object. These obstacles
explain why so few men commit themselves to this subject but also why their treatment
of the issue of social relations of sex often remains biased, despite a good
knowledge of feminist analyses.
This particular contruction/structuring is above all a disadvantage: given
their belonging to the oppressive social group, nearly nothing motivates or enables
committed male researchers to question deeply what their existence is founded
on. It is thus important to transform male subjectivity in such a way that it
fully integrates into its analyses the existence of women and their oppressed
lives. This implies that men should question their personal life and distance
themselves/break away from their social group and their masculinity. However,
that which constitutes a disadvantage nevertheless enables men to contribute
to the analysis of certain aspects of social relations of sex, within the framework
of feminist theory.
our subjectivity: two phases
I propose to identify elements which could transform
committed male researchers’ particular subjectivity.
I distinguish two phases, not necessarily separate
but enabling a better understanding of this permanent,
transformative work. The first phase concerns the
adequate understanding of feminist theorising;
the second concerns participating in feminist activism,
creating a better basis for this understanding.
The first phase of subjectivity transforming
consists of in depth reading and analysing of feminist theories. These theories
enable us to transform crucial elements of our subjectivity: the grids of perception
and analysis of social relations of sex. The founding works by Christine Delphy
(1998, 2001), Colette Guillaumin (1992), Nicole-Claude Mathieu (1991), Paola
Tabet (1998) and Monique Wittig (2001) remain essential reading. These theoreticians
clearly lay down the different dynamics of oppression, the methodological and
epistemological bases for a radical materialist feminism and lesbianism and enable
a radically innovative intellectual, emotional, political and personal investment.
The adequate understanding of these theories
plays an important role in enabling men to intellectually depart from a masculinist
world vision. By transforming the grids of perception and analysis of social
relations of sex, committed male researchers push the boundaries of the link
between themselves and their social group. Logically, there is resistance to
such a departure and this will shape the investment in committed research differently.
David Kahane (1998) identifies four modes of
investment. The poseur is willing to be seen as a “pro-feminist” but commits himself
superficially, he refuses to apply this analysis to his own theoretical and practical
tendencies. The insider commits himself politically to the feminist
project but wanting a positive self-image, he doesn’t question his gendered
behaviour and projects patriarchy on other men. The humanist considers
patriarchy as source both of benefits and costs for men and privileges a male
agenda, promoting discomforts and suffering supposedly linked to masculinity.
Finally, the self-flagellator combines a relatively in depth knowledge
of feminist theories with intolerance for ambiguity: marked by guilt and intransigence,
he withdraws at mid-way, becoming one of the previous ideal types.
These four modes of commitment recall already
discussed elements concerning committed male researchers and activists. The false
choice between mimetically and guiltily swallowing feminist analysis wholesale
or developing a male agenda can be understood as the humanist versus the self-flagellator,
while the emotional, psychological and political egocentrism of committed male
researchers crosses all four modes of commitment in different ways. In fact,
a psychological focus on yourself and your own psychological barriers continue
to predominate due to the fact that this phase occurs individually and focuses
on the intellectual. Categorising attitudes during this first phase of understanding
feminist theorising thus classifies the different degrees of mourning by different
individuals in relation to a masculinist imaginary and world vision.
The first phase enables an intellectual, limited transformation
of male subjectivity. However, a second phase is needed, enabling you to go beyond
the modes of investment described above. It consists of participating in collective
activism where the dynamics are controlled by feminists.
Feminist researchers have often stressed the
importance of political commitment, and this seems even more important for committed
male researchers as these commitments – be they informal and in daily life,
or formalised in organisation – allow a better grasp of their stakes in
social relations of sex. Participating in group dynamics such as the anti-patriarchal
camp or mainly grassroots struggle and working with feminists against several
aspects of women’s oppression enables further transformation of male subjectivity,
and the actual perception of the (micro) dynamics of oppression: male solidarity
against women, the elaborate strategies and the generally organised and intentional
characteristic of men’s oppressive behaviour.
In order to experience these intellectual notions
as « sex-ery » (Guillaumin, 1992), domestic exploitation
(Delphy, 1998), giving in and not consenting, mental invasion and heterosociality
(Mathieu, 1991), you have to let yourself be confronted with the effects of oppression
such as fear, psychological destructuring, pain, scars, poverty but also anger,
powerlessness and strategies of resistance. During this second phase, you have
to se déprendre de soi often enough and long enough in order to
give women’s experiences a less annexed and subordinated,
emotional and psychological space within yourself.
This implies a regular temporary abandonment
of your oppressors’ viewpoint in order to grant the oppressed’ viewpoint
a more important permanent, intellectual and emotional place. This “decentring” – renouncing
egocentrism – enables you to go beyond the limited modes of investment
related to a purely intellectual understanding of feminist theorising. Recognising
experientially women’s oppression, an analysis based on empathy neutralises
male resistances to feminist theories and opens up roads to a different, more
committed investment in the study of social relations of sex.
The two phases of transformation – intellectually
understanding feminist theorising and participating in feminist activist dynamics
- constitute a precondition for committed male researchers, on the one hand,
to achieve a better understanding of male oppression’s dynamics through
connecting feelings, sensations, intuitions and thoughts and, on the other hand,
a less biased involvement in research. It’s not only about identifying
the strategies and techniques used by other men, but also the ways we continue
to use them, including in a feminist context. It’s necessary to become
conscious of the inherent conflicts of such a transformation of male subjectivity
in order to be able to dissociate yourself from your social group and its characteristics:
masculinity and masculinism. After this dissociation, the male researcher will
eventually be able to produce more pertinent and less biased analyses, as these
will take into account his disadvantaged epistemological condition.
of pertinent committed research
I’ve tried to show until now how much the
link between knowing subject “man” and
research object “social relations of sex” is
constructed/structured by an oppressive position
and by belonging to the social group of men. Far
from being “neutral, autonomous and rational
knowing subjects” as the masculinist imaginary
conveys, male committed researchers are confronted
by several obstacles preventing them from contributing
to the analysis of social relations of sex. The
two transformation phases of male subjectivity
enable you to contain the negative effects of emotional,
psychological and political egocentrism and of
a disadvantaged epistemological condition, but
they do not indicate how committed research can
be done. In this last part, I will formulate some
thoughts on the way committed male researchers
can take into account their particular subjectivity
while focusing on their research objects and I
will demonstrate this by use of the example of
Logically, committed male research on social
relations of sex is marked by biases also notable in committed male dynamics:
they consist of “[avoiding] the confrontation with the relation with the
other sex and the reality of that relation” (Dagenais and Devreux, 1998 :
11). The authors realise this avoidance by focusing mainly on men’s experience
without articulating it in relation to women’s experience, underestimating
this relation, express ignoring the intentional, conscious, organised nature
of the stake men have in male oppressive behaviour.
This bias partly results from the widespread
idea that committed male researchers could sufficiently contribute to the analysis
of social relations of sex by choosing male experience, the social group of men
and masculinity as study topic. But because of
male egocentrism and epistemological disadvantage, this topic choice doesn’t
provoke an analysis of men’s oppressive
behaviour. You have to work hard at distancing yourself from what you think ‘makes
sense’ - your intuition, feelings, thoughts and sensations – because
this masculinist sense prevents a different perception of male life. In order
to transform male subjectivity, committed male researchers have enabled themselves
to temporarily abandon their own viewpoints in favour of women’s viewpoints,
in order to investigate the research object differently you have to progressively
but radically de-familiarise yourself with it.
Contrary to feminist researchers, whose pre-political
expertise concerning the dynamics of oppression constitutes an important resource
enabling them to investigate this masculinist sense, male committed researchers
don’t have such a headstart. The only way to enable a comparable epistemological
split consists of effectuating regular “comings and goings” between
the research object and the feminist sense. Progressively these “comings
and goings” allow the feminist sense to become the interrogating perspective
of the research object and the researcher will thus be able to formulate questions
on the link between the particular construction/structuring of male life and
the usefulness of such a construction/structuring to improve male quality of
life at the expense of women. Through examining all aspects of men’s
behaviour, their way of being in and their way of perceiving of the world from
the perspective of the benefits men gain in their relations with women, committed
male researchers can analyse power in its gendered dimension. It is only after
having made such a split that they will be able to utilise their pre-political
expertise regarding the techniques used by men to oppress women and to rely on
their own experiences, feelings and perceptions. At that moment, their thought
process becomes anti-masculinist and can offer insight into the way men use women.
It seems to me that by proceeding in this way,
committed male researchers can pertinently contribute to the analysis of social
relations of sex by focussing their analysis of male experience on its relation
to the other sex and the different aspects constituting this oppressive relation.
Moreover, the analysis of male life shouldn’t be thought of as belonging
to or being due to male committed researchers. They see this life from the inside;
this angle isn’t better than women’s one who see it from the outside
but feel its effects, it’s different. The encounter between feminist theorising
by women researchers and anti-masculinist theorising by men researchers will
be the encounter between an epistemologically privileged theorising deprived
of an inside look and an epistemologically disadvantaged theorising provided
with an inside look.
Let’s take a concrete example: male socialisation.
Several committed male researchers analyse it primarily as a source of
violence for men, creating different forms of masculinity and producing “restraints” imprisoning
men, and as an afterthought as a source of violence against women. This
kind of analysis misinterprets the link between cause and effect, often exaggerating
its negative effects on men. Analysing male socialisation primarily through its
negative effects on men (masculinist sense) indeed prevents analysing that this
socialisation has as aim and effect to teach a generation of children to become
the actors of women’s oppression (feminist sense). If learning a masculinist
way of being in the world and seeing the world can have secondary costs, it mainly
allows one to benefit from incomparable structural privileges for the rest of
The epistemological split made possible by the
process of de-familiarising on the contrary enables you to investigate in what
way this socialisation benefits and is even crucial to the maintenance of men’s
power over women. Learning, e.g. not to express feelings or to express them selectively
and at certain precise moments, strengthens men in their relationships with women: “expressing
one’s emotions tends to strongly reduce one’s power position, power
having strong links with not expressing vulnerability” (Monnet, 1998: 197).
The topic of some male researchers, promoting the expression of emotions, appears
thus as learning one of the means of power. Male committed researchers have,
on the contrary, to study male socialisation as it constitutes several ways of
learning, often with pleasure and enjoyment, to build oneself a subjectivity,
a corporeality and a sexuality allowing at once using women and not feeling any
uneasiness or remorse.
The epistemological stake of committed research
from a male position and yet coherent with feminist theorising, consists thus
of producing knowledge, that starting from feminist analyses of the dynamics
of oppression and documents from the inside all dimensions of male oppressive
action. This can only be done if committed male researchers remain vigilant concerning
their own subjectivity and oppressive behaviour towards women. It can not be
thought of nor put in practice in isolation or between oppressors, nor can it
only be founded on “good intent”. It is thus necessary for us, male
committed researchers, to establish with feminists regular interactions not controlled
by the men’s group, in order to check the political and theoretical pertinence
of our work. Conscious of male emotional, psychological and political egocentrism
and a disadvantaged epistemological condition, it is important to be accountable
to those concerned in order to prevent the numerous problems already documented,
among which is a new exclusion of feminists by male research on social relations
of sex. Indeed, if committed male researchers can analyse from the inside the
means of male oppressive behaviour, they shouldn’t create a new male bastion
where belonging to the oppressive social group would be transformed in an epistemological
privilege against women.
Huguette and Anne-Marie Devreux (1998). « Les
hommes, les rapports sociaux de sexe et le
féminisme : des avancées
sous le signe de l’ambiguïté ». Nouvelles
Questions Féministes, 19 (2-3-4),
Christine (1998). L’ennemi principal.
I. Economie politique du patriarcat. Paris:
Delphy, Christine (2001). L’ennemi principal. II. Penser
le genre. Paris: Syllepse.
Colette (1992). Sexe, race et pratique du
pouvoir. L’idée de nature.
Nancy (1998). The feminist standpoint revisited & other
essays. Westview: Oxford.
David J. (1998). « Male feminism as oxymoron ».
In Tom Digby (Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp.
213-236). London: Routledge.
Doeuff, Michèle (1989). L’étude
et le rouet. 1. Des
femmes, de la philosophie, etc. Paris:
Nicole-Claude (1991). L’anatomie politique.
Catégories et idéologies du sexe.
Nicole-Claude (1999). « Bourdieu
ou le pouvoir auto-hypnotique de la domination
masculine ». Les Temps Modernes,
Corinne (1998). « A propos d’autonomie,
d’amitié sexuelle et d’hétérosexualité ».
In Corinne Monnet et al. (Ed.), Au-delà du
personnel. Pour une transformation politique
du personnel (pp. 31-46). Lyon: ACL.
Paola (1998). La construction sociale de
l’inégalité des sexes.
Des outils et des corps. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Léo (2001). Rapports sociaux de sexe
et pouvoir. Une comparaison des analyses féministes
radicales avec des analyses masculines engagées.
Genève/Lausanne: Mémoire de DEA
Daniel (1996). Les hommes violents.
Daniel (1999). Et les hommes ? Etudier
les hommes pour comprendre les changements
des rapports sociaux de sexe. Toulouse:
Dossier d’habilitation Université Toulouse
2 – Le Mirail.
Monique (2001). La Pensée Straight. Paris: Balland.