A soft gynocentric critique of the practice of modern sport

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (3):346 – 366 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article we propose a philosophical critique of two general, but not exhaustive, approaches to gender studies in sport, namely gynocentric feminism and humanist feminism. We argue that both approaches are problematic because they fail clearly to distinguish or articulate their epistemological and ideological commitments. In particular, humanist feminists articulate the human condition using the sex/gender dichotomy, which fails to account adequately for gendered subjectivity. For them gender difference is a contingent feature of humanity developed through socialisation. As a result, it seems that what humanist feminists regard as women in their natural ?state? is in itself ideological. The generic ?human? condition is by no means a neutral condition but rather an idea tarnished by gender history characterised by the masculine. Consequently, humanist feminists uncritically argue for inclusion in sport, with access to an equal share of the human goods available, without carefully problematising the ideological nature of the practice. Gynocentric feminists also subscribe to the sex/gender dichotomy, suggesting however, that gender subjectivity is the result of a biological imperative. For gynocentric feminists, sexual difference provides authority for adjudicating between a separate and different male and female epistemology. Accordingly, gynocentric feminists commit the genetic fallacy by condemning sport to a masculine activity and therefore incompatible with feminine value in light of its male ancestry. ?Soft? gynocentrism does not fully sanction a conception of sport which allows only traditionally female values to flourish, or at least the reason for celebrating such sports would focus upon the goods and values therein. In other words, the value of the practice for either men or women is to be found, following MacIntyre (1985), in the internal goods that characterise the particular practice. Such internal goods are, as MacIntyre argues, goods of the practice and do not belong to any particular gender or group

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Soft metaphysics : A precursor to good sports ethics.R. Scott Kretchmar - 1998 - In M. J. McNamee & S. J. Parry (eds.), Ethics and Sport. E & Fn Spon.
Play, performance, and the docile athlete.Leslie A. Howe - 2007 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (1):47 – 57.
Athletic virtue: Between east and west.Heather L. Reid - 2010 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (1):16 – 26.
Karl Marx : critique as emancipatory practice.Robin Celikates - 2011 - In Ruth Sonderegger & Karin de Boer (eds.), Conceptions of Critique in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 101--118.
Ethics in Sport.William John Morgan (ed.) - 2007 - Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
43 (#361,277)

6 months
9 (#290,637)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?