A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
Essentially, Lacan and Miller attempted to elevate their psychoanalysis by its appropriation of semiotics beyond the shrink’s couch, and in particular tried to re-articulate Marx through (or perhaps reduce him to) semiotic theory
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
Lacan’s appropriations of Marxist analysis were generally driven by his desire for self-aggrandizement, both philosophically and perhaps psychically
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
I think feminist critique closes the gap between the Marxist and psychoanalytic critiques, and this is often the register in which feminist critics operate.
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
Both de Beauvoir and Irigaray emphatically reject the reduction of sexism and its genesis to a solely economic or psychoanalytic basis (which we may, albeit unfairly, identify with strawwomyn of Lerner or Butler) but, rather than casting aside either, conceptualize sex as the connective tissue between the unconscious and the social matrix, which in patriarchy is specifically repressed and weaponized against women.
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
The initial demographic shift from a pre-industrial to developing society can be attributed more-or-less to material improvements in people’s lives which cause them to die less. The factors contributing to the second shift, i.e. the decrease in birth rate, can almost all be laid at the feet of the de-institutionalization of patriarchy and the socio-material factors on which it relied: less subsistence agriculture, i.e., less property ownership and inheritance outside of capital; women being empowered as economic agents rather than domestic servants, investing in their own career and education; women having less children whether because they prioritize their careers, don’t have time for domestic labor, or just don’t want to.
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
This is not just hypothetical, but what we’re currently living through: the increase of rights for women—including not just advancement in education or careers but also abortion access and decreases in teen pregnancy—has resulted in a decline in population growth, because the birth rate was “artificially” inflated by the exploitation of women as a class. In other words, structurally speaking, the promise of feminism is incompatible with capitalist economy; although liberal feminism helped propel the post-Ford service economy, by unlocking new markets of labor and consumption, it now seems to have outstayed its welcome.
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
Either way, there’s an unspoken option: to refuse to compromise the gains of feminism (or to make a scapegoat of immigrants), and to reorganize society in order to meet people’s needs directly (given, again, that our productive capabilities far exceed our needs) while allowing the population to naturally decline.
See in context at A Feminist Constellation
Created: 2025-06-08
Feminism implies degrowth, as does communism as per Kohei Saito. By corollary, feminism implies communism and vice versa, not only because of shared moral grounds, but because of what society’s reproduction implies for its reorganization and what society’s reorganization implies for its reproduction.