Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T13:01:02.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Studying Ideological Diversity among Women Transforms Political Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2013

Ronnee Schreiber
Ronnee Schreiber*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent text detailing the alleged wrongs of feminism, conservatives Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly pronounced,

It is our sincere hope that this book helps support Americans who don't believe women in this country are oppressed, who know government is not the solution to women's problems, who don't believe marriage and motherhood are outdated institutions, who think men are as important as women, who think gender roles are good and exist for a reason, and who see the mainstream media for who they are (Venker and Schlafly 2011, 11).

While it may be tempting for feminists to dismiss these ideas as old-fashioned and even detrimental to women, doing so restricts how we comprehend the full range of women's political participation. In my work on conservative women, I argue that we must take such comments, and their messengers, seriously. Failing to do so means that political science broadly, and the field of women and politics more specifically, is limited in what it can tell us about ideology, identity, and political practice.

Information

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 474 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Butler, Judith. 1992. “Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of ‘Postmodernism.’” In Feminists Theorize the Political, eds. Butler, Judith and Scott, Joan. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2008. “Rethinking Women's Substantive Representation.” Representation 44 (2): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuss, Diana. 1989. Essentially Speaking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klatch, Rebecca. 1987. Women of the New Right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Susan. 1997. Splintered Sisterhood: Gender and Class in the Campaign against Woman Suffrage. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Phelan, Shane. 1993. “(Be)Coming Out: Lesbian Identity and Politics.” Signs 18 (4): 765–90.Google Scholar
Rymph, Catherine. 2006. Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 5 (3): 297–318.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1993. Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Venker, Suzanne, and Schlafly, Phyllis. 2011. The Flipside of Feminism. Washington, DC: WND Books.Google Scholar