TL;DR: The body in context but are there really no biological differences beyond the body? as discussed by the authors is an alternative hypothesis to the Body in Context But are There Really No Biological Differences Beyond the Body?.
Abstract: Part 1 Introduction and overview. Part 2 Biological essentialism: the Biological Politics of the Late-l9th and Early 20th Centuries The Modern Period I - Just-So Stories of Socio-Biology The Modern Period II - Prenatal Hormone Theory An Alternative Hypothesis - The Body in Context But Are There Really No Biological Differences Beyond the Body?. Part 3 Andocentrism: Judaeo-Christian Theology Ancient Greek Philosophy Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory American Equal-Rights Law. Part 4 Gender Polarization: The Nineteenth Century: Sexual Inversion The Twentieth Century I - Homosexuality The Twentieth Century II - Masculinity/Femininity Beyond Science: The Feminist Celebration of Female Differences. Part 5 The Construction of Individual Gender Identity: Previous Theoretical Perspectives The Process of Enculturation The Process of Self-Construction Resisting the Culture's Lenses - The Making of a Gender Nonconformist. Part 6 Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality: The Conundrum of Difference Toward True Gender Neutrality - Eradicating Androcentrism Toward Utopia - Eradicating Gender Polarization.
TL;DR: In this paper, the core elements of feminist thought and demonstrate their relevance for criminology are sketched and discussed in three areas: building theories of gender and crime, controlling men's violence toward women, and gender equality in the criminal justice system.
Abstract: In this essay we sketch core elements of feminist thought and demonstrate their relevance for criminology. After reviewing the early feminist critiques of the discipline and the empirical emphases of the 1970s and early 1980s, we appraise current issues and debates in three areas: building theories of gender and crime, controlling men's violence toward women, and gender equality in the criminal justice system. We invite our colleagues to reflect on the androcentrism of the discipline and to appreciate the promise of feminist inquiry for rethinking problems of crime and justice.
TL;DR: In this article, the relevance of intersectionality in the context of development theory and practice, particularly by reviewing how intersectionality has been used in the area of migration studies, is discussed.
Abstract: Since the 1970s feminist theories have made considerable contributions to development theories and practice, challenged the androcentrism of much development thinking, the normative assumptions about how households behave, and the taking of heterosexuality as the norm. However, despite the uptake of feminist contributions to development, how gender based inequalities are often compounded or intersected by inequalities based on class, race and ethnicity remains largely under-theorized in mainstream development studies. This paper discusses the relevance of intersectionality in the context of development theory and practice, particularly by reviewing how intersectionality has been used in the area of migration studies.
TL;DR: A social cognitive perspective is proposed arguing that both social power and categorization processes are integral to understanding androcentrism.
Abstract: Androcentrism refers to the propensity to center society around men and men's needs, priorities, and values and to relegate women to the periphery. Androcentrism also positions men as the gender-neutral standard while marking women as gender-specific. Examples of androcentrism include the use of male terms (e.g., he), images, and research participants to represent everyone. Androcentrism has been shown to have serious consequences. For example, women's health has been adversely affected by over-generalized medical research based solely on male participants. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about androcentrism's proximate psychological causes. In the present review, we propose a social cognitive perspective arguing that both social power and categorization processes are integral to understanding androcentrism. We present and evaluate three possible pathways to androcentrism deriving from (a) men being more frequently instantiated than women, (b) masculinity being more "ideal" than femininity, and/or (c) masculinity being more common than femininity.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider McCall's (1992) proposal to correct this androcentric bias by integrating gender distinction with the concept of cultural capital, which is supported by some theoretical affinities between Bourdieu's model and Harding's (1986) feminist approach, which relate to three elements at work in the production of social life.
Abstract: Although Bourdieu’s conceptual system can be of interest to feminists, few have used it because of its androcentrism. This paper considers McCall’s (1992) proposal to correct this androcentric bias by integrating gender distinction with the concept of cultural capital. This integration is supported by some theoretical affinities between Bourdieu’s model and Harding’s (1986) feminist approach, which relate to three elements at work in the production of social life: dichotomous symbolic structure, the organization of social activity, and schemes of subjective dispositions. Some limitations to Bourdieu’s model are considered. However, in the last part of the article, it is argued that the adaptation of Bourdieu’s model is a potentially enriching approach, and an illustration is provided with examples of gendered experiences in sport.