Feminism, Race, Class, and Care Perspectives

According to Ferree (2010), there have been theoretical advances in the gender perspective since the macro-micro dynamic is central and considers gender as a social relation: “rejects gender as a static norm or ideal (the so-called gender role), and instead defines gender as a social relation characterized by power inequalities that hierarchically produce, organize, and evaluate masculinities and femininities through the contested but controlling practices of individuals, organizations, and societies” (p. 424). However, I am not sure that the gender perspective from Ferree or Pyke’s (1996) exposition of the multilayered relationship between social class, race and sexuality consider the social relation of women with other women.
Pyke (1996) differentiates men in terms of their occupation as lower class versus middle and upper class but seems to leave out women’s social class assuming it is the same as the husband’s. She argues that “for the sake of clarity, however, I have centered this discussion almost exclusively on white, heterosexual, class-based masculinities. The construction of femininities can perhaps best be understood in relation to men” (p. 546). Is this true? Shouldn’t the construction of femininities consider also how women relate with each other for or against the enforcement of gender differences, or inequalities as feminists prefer to say? Arlie Hochschild talks in the introduction about her relationship with her mother and how that shaped her career and personal life. This supports my point of studying gender and femininities also with a women-women perspective.
Another point I would like the readings of this week to cover is the women in power and female politics participation. I was living in the United States during the past elections and it was interesting to read and hear different comments about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. These comments ranged from the “soccer mom” to the comprehensive and supportive woman that forgives his husband after the Lewinsky scandal, and so on. Another example illustrative of the relation of women with other women and of women in power comes from the Argentinean case. The current president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, an attractive woman with a strong character and wife of the former president (if you have never heard about her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_Kirchner) won the election (45.3% of the vote) followed by another woman, Elisa Carrió (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Carri%C3%B3), conservative and less attractive (with 22% of the vote). During the campaigns, at some point the female electorate was more inclined for Carrió and there were reports about the fear and distrust that women felt for Fernández. The male electorate preferred Cristina Fernández. Much of the discussion in the US and Argentinian cases were centered in female and male stereotypes. But stereotypes are hard to change and are there to remain long time. I am not convinced from the readings that feminist studies, the gender perspective and the race and class perspectives can help us break stereotypes.
Questions:
1) Do you agree with Connell that “all forms of femininity are constructed in the context of the overall subordination of women to men” (Pyke, 1996, p. 546)?
2) Isn’t it easier to talk about men and masculinities than it is to talk about us? Isn’t it easier to criticize others than being auto critical? Why are the authors of the acting manuals for women that Hochschild (2003) analyses mainly women?
3) To what extent current research enforces or reduces stereotypes of social relationships? How can our own research agendas challenge this?