Filters
Availability
Publication Year
Resource Type
Faculty
School/Institute
Publication Search Results
Sort
Results per page
1 - 10 of 21
-
(1991)Conference PaperThe paper argues against a need for rules, etc., to the extent that they are attempts to control events by means of a framework set up beforehand. It suggests that they are not needed if people are already acting with integrity, and that, at the very least, they are unhelpful if people are not. At worst, they are a stultifying barrier against getting anything done, they facilitate the evasion of responsibility, and they provide justifications for power games. The paper describes two examples illustrating these points.
-
(2003)Conference PaperThe paper discusses two accounts of freedom, one by John Rawls and the other by Isaiah Berlin. Rawls insists that liberty is central to justice when, at the very least, it's irrelevant, and at worst it's implicated in injustice; while Isaiah Berlin calls tyranny 'positive freedom' and then argues against it on the grounds that it's tyrannical. Both theorists are writing in the liberal tradition, which gives the appearance of redressing the effects of domination while actually leaving the status quo intact.
-
(2002)Conference PaperThis paper is a defence of Herbert Marcuse’s arguments in his paper ‘Repressive tolerance’, against critics who allege that his argument is authoritarian because he argues for an elitist vanguard and advocates violence and the closing down of debate. I argue that Marcuse does none of those things and, far from being authoritarian, his position is demonstrably anti-authoritarian. I suggest that the critics' arguments don't work because they are based on a hidden agenda—denial of the fact of social domination—an agenda whose exposure also makes sense of the liberalism to which the critics appeal to support their case.
-
(2000)Conference PaperThe paper presents a number of objections which have been raised against doctrines of rights, including Marx's objections to the doctrine of the 'Rights of Man', that it was entirely compatible with the social relations of capitalist domination. It argues that, whether or not rights claims can be used for redressing social wrongs depends on whether or not those claims recognise the existence of social domination. The cover-up is the extent to which rights claims ignore the social conditions of domination responsible for violating people's human rights. The paper concludes by arguing that the relations of domination of concern to feminism are those of male supremacy.
-
(2010)Conference Paper
-
-
-
-
(1993)Conference PaperThis paper is an attempt to understand what was involved in the disagreements during the 1970s over the feminist status of lesbianism. The 'meaning' was the meaning of lesbianism; the fights revolved around the personal/political dichotomy, whether lesbianism was a matter of individual desire, or whether it was a political choice. It discusses two 1974 issues of the Australian feminist journal, Refractory Girl, as a case study illustrating the debate.
-
(1997)Conference PaperThis paper is part of a larger project concerned with individualism as an ideology central to the social relations of male domination. In this paper I look at some of the Australian government's policy changes relating to unemployment benefit since the late 1980s. I argue that these changes ignore what is actually going on in the capitalist global economy, and instead, target 'the unemployed' as though they were personally responsible for rising levels of unemployment. I also argue that these changes demonstrate a callous indifference to people's needs, in favour of harassing, coercing and penalising capitalism's chief victims. I conclude by pointing out the links between the inhumane treatment of the unemployed and the inhumanity at the heart of male supemacist relations of ruling.