Abstract
Abstract Although androgyny has become a pervasive feature in contemporary feminist discourse and is widely accepted as a model for a rational reordering of our presently inegalitarian sexual and social arrangements, the notion itself has rarely come in for systematic criticism. It promises a shiny new world where human beings no longer exhibit “negative and distorted personality characteristics,” where the “ideal androgynous being… could have no internal blocks to attaining self-esteem.” Yet, its near irresistibility requires explanation. Why is it that to be against androgyny leads one to be immediately branded as a “naturalist,” an “essentialist,” or even worse, a “sociobiologist,” a “biological reductionist,” or the representative of other obnoxious and reactionary viewpoints?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
