I was well aware that something was wrong with his position. He claimed that the oppression of women could not be as severe or as important as the oppression of the proletariat because although women were oppressed, they were not “exploited.”
I was very annoyed – and I was not alone, though like the hero of Catch 22 I thought I was being personally got at! – by one of the men in this mixed group. In my research I first discovered what a great quantity of goods change hands without passing through the market instead, these goods were passed through the family, as gifts or “inheritance.” I also discovered that the science of economics, which purports to concern itself with everything related to the exchange of goods in society, is in fact concerned with only one of the of systems of production, circulation, and consumption of goods: the market.Īt the time (between 19) I was also participating in the activities of one of the two groups that historically helped create the new feminist movement in France. Yet my director of studies at the time told me this was not possible, so I chose to study the inheritance of property instead, eventually to get back to my initial interest by an indirect route. This might have been predictable from the coherent commitment that had led me to these topics: I had wanted to work “on women,” which is to say, for me, on women’s oppression. One project was to study the transmission of family property (patrimony), and the other was to reply to criticisms of the women’s liberation movement that come from the Left.Īs it happened, when I started to do research on these two topics, I found that lack of relatedness was only apparent.
I came to my use of the concept and to the model growing out of it by way of two projects whose theoretical concerns might seem unrelated. The analysis of patriarchy in our society that I have been developing for the last fifteen years has a history I would like to detail.
0 kommentar(er)
