Abstract
The late 1960s and early 1970s development of liberation discourses (postcolonial, racial, ethnic, gender, environmental, etc.) resulted in them turning not only and not so much into an intellectual strategy, but instead, in their entering culture as social practices, and becoming the main patterns of behavior and models of thinking. 1 In this context, the feminist discourse, 2 which initially developed as a political and legal narrative of the struggle for women’s rights, unfortunately became a world view and even an ideological discourse of opposition and competition between the sexes as it spread. In view of the above, the current cultural situation pursued by feminist activists in terms of gender can be described as a struggle for alpha leadership between an antagonist and a protagonist in the course of a liberation discourse (Gaag, 2014; Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985, pp. 551–604; Wood, 2011). Such a struggle is also often described in the terminology of Darwinian natural selection and, therefore, it is realized in social practices as an all-out war between the “oppressors” and the “oppressed,” justified by the criteria of biological (non)utility in nature or society.
Highlights
The fierce debate between the bearers of different patterns materializes in a constant confrontation, in which radicalized differences at the level of broadly defined corporeality lead to open conflict
The purpose of using such terminology is different: we want to point to cultural attitudes, which are expressed in practices that have existed for centuries before the emergence of gender theory, which were based on the respective models and which are recognized by gender theory itself
Such cultural attitudes concerning the inseparable link between male and female corporeality in the context of one social body have their origins in the oldest, archaic layers of culture and as such are still present in contemporary consciousness
Summary
The fierce debate between the bearers of different patterns materializes in a constant (almost militant) confrontation, in which radicalized differences at the level of broadly defined corporeality lead to open conflict. The purpose of using such terminology is different: we want to point to cultural attitudes, which are expressed in practices that have existed for centuries before the emergence of gender theory, which were based on the respective models and which are recognized (because they are an object of criticism and protest) by gender theory itself.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
