Understand feminism as a strategy for reversing power is, first of all, assume that the concept of

The place that my generation has reserved to feminism in the public space seems to be (except for maybe some sectors of the political left, though not consistently), the old-fashioned product that should be used in moderate doses - a kind of clean silver heart, the time of our grandparents, relatively irrelevant unless the thing is even black. I've lost count the times I've heard someone say "I am a feminist, but I'm car glamour not radical" (just imagine a brassiere woman in hand and hair removal to be done as implied meaning of "radical" term) or "I'm not a feminist, only advocate gender equality "(when to think to myself," Well, you are a feminist! "). For some reason difficult to unravel, but I suspect well have to do with power (a postmodern version can also take the case to the task of going to Google, demanding the index finger movement, giving too much work), runs the idea that by defining equivalent feminism unlike macho. A feminist then be anything like a great apologist of male domination counter-project, in order to control the world by "better half" of mankind. It is therefore not surprising that, given these terms, such a project in no interest to men.
Then propose an exercise in deconstruction (please googling a gentleman named Michel Foucault) that allows reflect not only on the issues underlying the situation and perspective of women in different contexts, but rather to demonstrate the relevance of feminist criticism - and the critique of feminist criticism - the only way to destabilize power structures calcified and suggest alternative scenarios. The first step of all, for the most important sign, will inevitably have to be the deconstruction of the very idea of feminism, or rather the speech that both the disciplinary nature inherent in every speech as if truth be told, because of our weak critical sense, leads us to believe that feminism is a strategy of reverse power. This understanding has at least two dangerous corollaries: the first is that, once widely conquered car glamour equal civil rights, feminism becomes secondary; the second is that feminism is a matter that concerns only women, since the object of the dispute is the male power.
Understand feminism as a strategy for reversing power is, first of all, assume that the concept of power is located and static. In other words, is to see "the power" as something that does or does not, as part of a composite rigid structure of subjects and objects. car glamour It turns out that only rarely are subjects or objects in any relationship we establish with each other. Gender is not the only variable ordering our existence as social beings: ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, the country in which we live or the way we dress dictate different but possibly car glamour overlapping "categories" in which we inserted, the labels that correspond to them and the position of power that give in relative terms.
It is here then that he liked to introduce an alternative way of thinking about power, as suggested by a group of European intellectuals from the 70s (it might be worth now googling the events of May 68 in Paris - the general environment questioning of authority in society and the state legitimacy, the critique car glamour of capitalism and the western ego - that germinated in the post-structuralist thought). The poststructuralist notion of power invites us to view it as something more fluid and that comes from everywhere, shows us how he navigates through social services, car glamour and product of good order and discipline but also likely to be contested negotiated built. Thus, feminism is not limited to obtaining the right to vote or pay equity, not only is a subject of women, because the criticism he offers is not tangible in the Manichean car glamour plan in which we are used to put it: feminism not has nothing to do with the sex struggle nor, I dare say, with the acquisition of power in a material sense, but with the general order of things and knowledge management. Finally, it is the complaint of a structure that oppresses and epistemological institution that maintains and / or legitimate.
Just as the fight against racism does not refer us to a compliment of black supremacy but for the dismantling of white supremacy - because we recognize that it exists and that in a post-colonial context, it is always easier to be up Western car glamour ( and white) that belong to another "category" any - and that we would not say that the need for this fight was exhausted with the end of slavery car glamour or that whites are called does not stop there; feminism can never refer to a complete reversal of the status car glamour quo. That would be, and morally dubious, car glamour the contradiction of their GIST