THE SECRET SEX

OF

MONEY

Forms of female dependence

ANDROGYNOUS 21

Credits

© Clara Coria

First published in Argentina in 1986

Original title:

El sexo oculto del dinero -

Formas de la dependencia femenina

First published in English with the title:

The secret sex of money -

Forms of female dependence

© Pensódromo S.L., 2021

English translation copyright © Mark Lodge

Editor: Henry Odell - henry@pensodromo.com

Cover design: Cristina Martínez Balmaceda - Pensódromo

ISBN: 978-84-124690-0-4

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being impose on the subsequent purchaser.

Work published under the “Sur” Support Program to Translations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic.

Obra editada en el marco del Programa “Sur” de Apoyo a las Traducciones del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto de la República Argentina.

Table of Content

Cover

Title Page

Credits

Editor’s prologue

As a prologue

25 years later

Introduction

Origins

Referential framework

The contents

Some important clarifications

Bibliographic References

I. Women’s economic dependence

Economic dependence:

The phantasm of prostitution

Money and sex: a fundamental transgression (modesty, shame and guilt)

Bibliographic References

II. The benefits of economic dependence in women

The primary gain: anxiety versus freedom experienced as transgression

The secondary gains of economic dependence

Protection: a seductive siren’s call…

A suggestive triad: “small” money, restricted space and indiscriminate time

Bibliographic References

III. Love and money: maternal altruism versus manly speculation?

A female paradigm: the maternal ideal

“Mr Money is a mighty gentleman”

Professional fees or the money “that is charged”. A difficult dilemma to solve: bad mother or public woman?

Bibliographic References

IV. Money in a marital partnership

A partnership in which some people are more equal than others

“Big” money and “small” money

Money for dependence

Bibliographic References

V. A particular distribution of power: The kids are mine and the money is yours

The “queen” of the home

Are children, as instruments of power, equal to money?

The myth of the “hidden power”

Bibliographic References

VI. Men and the accumulation of money

Money, an indicator of masculinity?

“Time is money”… a white lie?

Bibliographic References

VII. Some considerations on money and its meaning in the context of psychological treatments

Do therapists have the same attitude towards the economic dependence of their male patients as they do towards their female patients?

Female (economic) dependence in psychotherapeutic treatments of women

Suggestions for a possible alternative for tackling women’s economic dependence

Bibliographic References

Further reading

About the author

Notes

Editor’s prologue

Thirty-five years have passed, indeed, and during this time, the evolution of society seems to have become increasingly bent on “money” as the leitmotiv for our existences and, along with it – despite the efforts in changing attitudes – its control over the relationships between people, both in the “public” and “private” realms, has been reinforced.

What leads a publisher to publish a book thirty-five years years after the date of its first publication, with approximately ten editions and reprints (in Spanish) since then, and to publish it in English for the first time?

We have decided to publish this book by Clara Coria because we believe that the main thrusts of her analysis are still amazingly pertinent. Her premises on the subject are still indispensable for all who are willing to rethink and critically analyze the role they play in the context of their family and society as a whole.

The dawn of the 21st century brought with it the loss of certainties, the decline of the great collective projects with the crisis of previous utopias (both for Left and the Right) and the birth of new ways of seeing the world. A focus geared towards the personal level, social and economic success, dominates current society, which is immersed in a deep crisis. In answer to this, different voices, from men and women, rise up to speak about the need to reclaim the essential values of the human being. Our prevailing culture has allowed for the emergence of a new model of man and woman that implies a break with the traditional model. The book by Clara Coria we present to you is, precisely, one of the parts contributing to the emergence of this new model.

These contents need to be read with an open mind, a sincere and self-critical attitude and a willingness to take up the difficult task of questioning oneself and shaking deep-rooted certainties in our way of life.

We are publishing this book as a part of a corpus we have decided to call Androgynous 21, a system of related published materials from which to promote the voices of men and women who advocate a greater balance between the feminine and the masculine in modern society.

We hope that both this book and its proposal interest you.

Henry Odell

As a prologue Love, money and power in a couple:
a gender-based perspective to learn
how to enjoy living together

The four key words in the title: love, money, power and couple, are, in themselves, exciting, worrying, opaque, challenging and revealing. These four nouns are the basis for the mystery of the lives of most people who have lived in the realm of Western Judeo-Christian culture and who have incorporated its principles, its ways of understanding life and, especially, the power model established between genders.

Exciting, because they pull the vital strings of exchanges between people. And all that is vital is also exciting. That is, it stimulates our greatest conscious and unconscious desires. It makes our hair stand on end, our muscles twitch, our pulse accelerate and our imagination soar. And we feel like Icarus, flying towards the sun.

Worrying, because in spite of the possible certainties some people believe they have, we are never sure of whether love, money, power and couple are what we believe they are or what we were taught they should be. Uncertainty looms at the most unexpected junctures of life, shaking the foundations we believed sustained our present and future projects. And uncertainty is worrying because, in our culture, it has been relegated to a secondary status, it has a bad reputation and it usually lacks the psychological space required to deal with it without fear. Fear of the unknown is emphasized whereas enthusiasm towards novelty and adventure are concealed.

Opaque because the apparently unambiguous and common concepts in which the words of this title are presented conceal, beneath their seemingly harmless appearance, infinite unspecified expectations, unspeakable ambitions and codes whose incompatibility is only discovered in practice. That is, when the moment comes to manage money, to take up the responsibilities of power, to share life as a couple attempting to harmonize the inevitable differences and, especially, when attempting to find and unravel the great mystery of love.

Love, money, power and couple are words that are difficult and, therefore, revealing. These concepts we “carry along” in our everyday lives, as we do with our personal history, cultural traditions or gender identity. They behave so “naturally” that they end up being obvious and, therefore, unnoticed by all. For instance: men and women tend to find it “natural” that emotional restraint is a feminine prerogative and that “protection” is a masculine obligation. In practical everyday life we can see that neither emotional restraint nor protection is universal and certainly not exclusive of either gender. Love, money, power and couple are not innocuous concepts, because the way in which we conceive them conditions our life and our environment irrevocably. It is important to keep in mind that these conditionings condition our future at all times. It is worth pointing out that, on this subject, it is often difficult to reveal even that which is not hidden, simply because the manner of understanding the concepts of couple, money, power and love have become naturalized. And sometimes, the hardest thing is to see what is before our very eyes because our outlook is limited by the prejudices we uphold disguised as “natural” certainties.

25 years later

The first edition of The Secret Sex of Money was published 25 years ago, and, since then, it has been edited and reprinted about 10 times, with this being the first English-language edition. Has the general outlook of the patriarchal model I analyzed back then changed significantly?

Even if, throughout the last decades, some women have attained the acquisition and possession of money, it still has a sexual gender, and this gender is still male. Men and women keep on perpetrating traditional concepts and methods in their interaction with money because, even though its distribution has changed somewhat, the implicit model of power it contains has not. Both men and women enter into conflict when they attempt to harmonize the old codes with new aspirations (of both genders), and they both seek strategies – which they have still not found – to attain a higher level of equality when living together.

Access to money by women has not modified the power model of patriarchal society. It is true that much has changed in the last 25 years concerning the attitudes of quite a few women to earn, manage and spend money. There have been great changes with a strong impact on female subjectivity which, therefore, also impacted male subjectivity. When it comes to most women, it is worth pointing out that the mere fact of gaining access to money did not imply a change in the power models that had been incorporated in their own subjectivity. They often assimilate these power models which have been practiced for centuries by males and end up imposing them on themselves with methods similar to the ones suffered by women for centuries. Concerning men, the masculine resistance to accept sharing important decisions concerning money, which is also frequent, has led to conflicts of such importance that they ended up affecting the very foundations of relationships, affecting, of course, love. Money does not kill love; rather, the power model wielded by those who share it does; the need to acquire the resource of power that is money, which both the female and male genders learned how to implement as a hierarchical model of domination.

Many of the changes referring to money are not far-reaching changes but, rather, cosmetic modifications that ease the conscience of men and women. In women, because their will to be autonomous tends to generate numerous internal conflicts within them. And in men, because they fear losing authority – as well as the privilege of making decisions – by sharing the power granted by money. Men and women have still not found a satisfactory way to make the transition from dependence to shared autonomy. Both are often quite disoriented in what concerns sharing money, but they often conceal this confusion with leopardist changes. Leopardism is the name given to the strategy of power that consists in allowing some superficial changes to perpetuate the system, as in the novel The Leopard, by Lampedusa, which shows Sicilian society at the times of the struggle led by Garibaldi, showing that ceding some superficial privileges allows the system as a whole to perpetuate itself. Thus, many men and women insist in stating that great changes have taken place due to the fact that women have learned how to earn it and men have accepted to share some decisions. Relevant changes will only really take place when men and women accept to review the power model they have incorporated and which they keep on validating, sometimes unconsciously. Many men refuse to challenge the model because they are unwilling to renounce the privileges granted by administering money, and many women also resist because they try to avoid the conflict caused by the clash between money-related practices and the feminine ideal they have absorbed due to the gender conditionings installed by patriarchal culture. And what’s more, men, fearing the loss of the privilege granted by the management of economic resources, tend not to collaborate with women to rethink a different, more equal and caring model.

Both meet with obstacles to generate a healthy change. The greatest obstacle in women is the difficulty in freeing themselves from the “maternal” model that lies at the base of the feminine ideal, whereas, in men, the obstacle is not being able to free themselves from the patriarchal model of hierarchy according to which they must always “have more”: more erections, more money, more wisdom, more authority, etc. in order not to run the risk of being regarded as “unmanly”. They are both trapped in the patriarchal power model based on hierarchy and the superiority of some over others. Thus, some women make the mistake of believing that attaining freedom is to “invert the situations of power” and subjugate men. And many men also make the mistake of thinking that losing privileges is falling into disgrace and losing virility. Men and women are not confronted by their differences – which enrich exchanges – but, rather, the power model they have incorporated. This is not a struggle between men and women; it is a struggle to perpetuate an authoritarian and hierarchical model in which both men and women are trapped.

A common error is to believe that the patriarchal model is exclusively masculine. It is not new for human beings to walk the paths of culture together and to become imbued with its traditions as a whole. Authoritarian and hierarchical cultures promote authoritarian and hierarchical people from both genders, even though each gender finds a different way of applying said hierarchical authoritarianism.

What I call patriarchy is a model of relationships between genders characterized by conceiving the differences between them in hierarchic terms. That is, we assume the existence of a natural hierarchy, with the males of the species at the top. This is a way of classifying human beings as superior or inferior. Within this model, equality cannot exist and, therefore, neither can solidarity. Both men and women have assimilated this model of power relationships, because we are all within a patriarchal culture. I have noticed that those men and women who dare to challenge the model are often better prepared to create relationships with a better quality of life. They both cease being confused and women no longer need to “invert the hierarchy” to feel free, and neither do men constantly need to reaffirm their manhood.

Finally, related to love and relationships, I want to insist on something as simple as it is obvious: that the surface is the consequence of the foundations it is based upon. In other words, that the way in which relationships and love develop is a necessary consequence of the model underlying the link. Both for men and women, loving the “significant other” from a patriarchal model is not the same as to do so from an equal model. It is not the same as taking up the social roles that are necessary for human development from a social imposition that implies that protection is exclusively masculine and that contention is exclusively feminine. It is not the same for the health and well-being of a couple for the women to be exclusively in charge with raising children and performing household chores whereas the man is allowed to enjoy a broad spectrum of relationships and domestic services. It is not the same as to accept the double standard, characteristic of patriarchy, which established centuries ago that there are women for enjoyment and women for breeding as natural. Just as it is not the same as men not knowing that female sexuality is multifaceted and that it does not exclusively rests on penetration. Men and women are trapped in these patriarchal impositions. Men often feel forced to submit themselves to a constant evaluation of their virility at the risk of being erased from the universe, and women suffer from a lack of satisfaction they sometimes attempt to conceal in order to avoid conflict with men. In sum, it is not the same to go through relationships and nurture love when the differences between genders promote privileges in some at the expense of others and that they are conceived in terms of hierarchy than in an equalitarian model that values differences and is enriched with them.

Independently from how each person understands and experiences love, it is important to keep in mind that the psychological well-being of a couple is highly conditioned by the power model installed by both. A grave mistake is to close one’s eyes and to avoid challenging the model that upholds the relationship. There is always a power model, and thus, to ignore it is a way of approving it and, therefore, perpetuating it.

It is necessary for men and women to move together, because, when we are separate, we are lost. It is necessary to review the patriarchal model of power because it is harmful and it traps women and men alike in crystallized roles and it plants the seed of discrimination and subsequent rebellion in the male and female subjectivities. It is necessary to redefine the concepts of love, money, power and relationships in the light of the changes that have taken place in humanity and with a power model that accepts equality. A model that is enriched with differences without said differences being conceived in terms of hierarchy. Men and women are neither better nor worse due to their differences. We are a part of the universe that needs all of its differences to maintain its life potential.

My proposal for us women and men to live together is to carry out the task of reviewing the patriarchal model and reconstructing another model that is not based on hierarchy. I know this is a difficult and constant task that requires determination and courage. I also know that few are willing to carry it out. An example of this, which I experienced myself, is that I coordinated a huge amount of consciousness-raising groups, but I never managed to convince professionals experienced in group tasks to train in the subject of the “sexual differentiation of money”, so that they could later coordinate their own consciousness-raising groups, both for women and men. The reason is simple: touching this subject implies highlighting the power models inherent in money and to become transgressors of a model that is currently a part of their own subjectivity. This task is probably a frightening one for most people.

The problem is not difference, but the hierarchy of difference.

Clara Coria

Speech at the VI Congress of the Argentine Mental Health Association about “Sex and power, clinical practice, culture and society”; Buenos Aires, Mayo 21st, 2011.

Introduction
Origins

Back in 1981, I discovered impediments that limited the way I handled money. Concerned and intrigued, I resolved to study this phenomenon by delving into myself and other women. I was particularly surprised because my economic independence, which began in adolescence, did not explain my limited autonomy. Throughout my life, I have made decisions, faced new situations and sought new horizons contrary to established patterns. I was, after all, what is commonly known as an independent woman. Yet not in my relationship with money.

My heart would race unexpectedly whenever I had to settle money matters. Though I was able to conceal my inner turmoil in such moments, it left me drained.

Pursuing a debt, discussing the terms of a contract, making an important purchase, justifying my fees, reaching agreements on financial responsibilities with my spouse, clarifying what I considered “mine” and “ours”, establishing economic criteria for my children, and all those other “trifles” of daily life did not arise spontaneously.

Far from it, I was beset by unwelcome stomachaches, ethical concerns (“money is demeaning”), aesthetic discomfort (“it’s dirty and ugly”), and indefinite deferrals (“I’ll deal with it tomorrow”).

They either paralyzed me or forced me to adopt vindictive stances and/or one of “what do I care”.

Clearly, I was an independent woman, and yet I was not.

I had no alternative but to face facts: in financial matters things are neither what they seem nor what many people believe them to be.

Looking around me, I was shocked and relieved in equal measure to learn I was not alone.

I was one of many women, economically independent or not, living a life weighed down by internal, nameless struggles, which I believed no one else had.

And this is how it all began.

I decided to conduct my analysis in a theoretical framework, which would allow me to reflect on, compare and formulate a hypothesis to clear up this mystery of independence without autonomy.1

I chose consciousness-raising groups2 as my work methodology, making some changes relevant to the subject and to the fact that the groups comprised only women.

I developed several hypotheses and drafted papers that were published in Argentina and abroad on the problem I initially called “women and money”.

Finally, as I had suspected I would do from the outset, I conducted some consciousness-raising groups made up only of men in order to add some of the vicissitudes men must also encounter to this complex puzzle of dealing with money in our culture. And besides, as “everyone knows” (and if they don’t this is their chance to find out) what affects one half of humanity necessarily affects the other half.3

Finally, I embarked on the troubling and exciting task of writing and repeatedly correcting the papers and notes I had accumulated over several years with the aim of making them available to everyone in book form.

Referential framework

Our forays into life and science are not innocent. Behind each question, there lies an anticipated, though unknown, answer, in each glance a perceptive selection, in each appraisal an amount of prejudice.

There is a wealth of experiences, thoughts and beliefs that encapsulate our personal history, the period of history in which we live and the sociocultural, political, economic and religious conditioning to which we subscribe, either consciously or unconsciously.

Therefore, we must be aware that “objectivity” is relative and that the conclusions we reach are far from being “the only possible explanation”. In the best-case scenario, it will be one more that would proffer, from a new perspective, other items of evidence in order to grasp our complex world.

This is how I wish my contributions on the problem of money to be taken. They are nothing less than a tenacious and persevering exploration of an irksome question, often regarded as a taboo.

Being aware of their complexity, I have endeavoured to present my ideas as honestly as possible, including reflections that may seem to contradict or diverge from the formulated hypotheses.

Although money is omnipresent in daily life and unavoidable in social interaction – in our culture – many of its aspects are silenced and omitted. And this silencing is neither ingenuous nor harmless. On the contrary, it responds to entrenched beliefs and interests that I believe warrant explanation.

I will therefore attempt to highlight some of these interests and beliefs by providing referential frameworks that outlined and conditioned my research, perceptions, reflections and conclusions regarding “money”.

My approach seeks to put forward certain psychological and socio-cultural variables.

They are brought together in the analysis and interpretation of the facts and knowledge gleaned from my psychoanalytical background, and from theories and practices related to the task forces and what is known as women’s studies.4

I wish to underline that the central axis of this problem, for both women and men, is the questioning of patriarchal ideology, which is strongly related to Western Judeo-Christian5 culture.6 This ideology, in turn, contains convergence points with capitalism.

As patriarchy has been widely studied, I will only briefly outline its precepts in order to familiarize the reader with it. Thus I draw attention to the extensive research by Hamilton, Fudges, Oakley, Mitchell, Zaretsky, Groult, Astelarra and Borneman, among others (VI).

Patriarchal ideology conforms to the definition put forward by Schilder: “ideologies are systems of ideas and connotations that men hold in order to better guide their actions. To a greater or lesser extent, they are profoundly conscious or unconscious thoughts, held by those who uphold them as the result of pure reasoning, but which, however, often differ little from the religious beliefs with which they share a high degree of internal evidence despite a lack of empirical evidence” (VII).

The prevailing ideas of patriarchal ideology revolve around the basic premise of men’s superiority over women, a belief that leads to the establishment of the differences between sexes as one of hierarchy in which males are at the top of the ladder. From this vantage point, they exercise control and perpetuate an order, which contributes to the consolidation of women’s oppression. This hierachization justifies and endorses men’s domination over women.

The fundamental assumption of male superiority draws on biologist, naturalist and essentialist theories. It explains the hierarchical differences between the sexes as the result of exclusively biological factors that are, therefore, immutable. It relates sex with gender, omitting cultural factors that come into play in the learning and development of sexual gender. At the same time, it maintains that femininity and masculinity respond to an essence and that social roles are the expression of this essence.

This ideology is present in monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity, not only in in the figure of its maximum exponent, God the Father but also, and fundamentally, in the claims of the prophets and apostles who emphasized women’s inferiority as the result of a divine plan.

This ideology promotes a sexual division through work whereby men are assigned to production and the public realm while women are for reproduction and the private and domestic realm. Among other things, this closely associates women’s activities with maternity and domesticity, thus contributing to the identification of the woman with Mother. The characteristics attributed to motherhood are regarded as “essentially” feminine.

Patriarchy tends to establish a strict control over female sexuality, among other aspects, through familiar institutions that demand, for example, fidelity of the woman but not of the man. As J. Mitchel (VIII) observes, the transition from polygamy to monogamy did not signify equality of sexual freedom.

In short, patriarchal ideology, sustained by biologism, emphasizes the essentiality of the differences between the sexes. It validates a heirarchialized relationship that expresses women’s oppression in all areas of social functioning: sexual, economic, intellectual, political, religious, psychological and emotional oppression, among others.

The contents

This book is aimed at professionals in social sciences and men and women interested in the subject matter.

It covers topics related to women and includes a chapter addressing the dilemma concerning men’s relationship with money. Other chapters, such as those referring to psychotherapeutic treatments, are dealt with in detail for readers interested in a psychological approach.

The topics concerning women centre on the situation of economic dependence and its varied expressions. This dependence is set within a broader and more complex problem, namely that of economic marginalization and the significance money acquires for women. Cultural changes that have given women access to education and money have lessened neither this marginalization nor the attitudes of subordination by men.

This book develops the hypothesis of an internal, unconscious conflict between the desire to attain the ideal woman – responding to the maternal image and all the characteristics that patriarchy attributes to it – and the woman’s need to interact effectively and autonomously in today’s world, where they enjoy greater access to the public realm and to money.

I go on to describe the gruelling and silent struggle that women unconsciously endure and from which they emerge with differing outcomes.

This hypothesis is complemented by an analysis of certain phantasms,7 chiefly the phantasm of prostitution, which attempts to explain many of the difficulties that women encounter in their daily dealings with money.

The section given over to men outlines their ensnarement in the “money-making” trap. Associated with sexual prowess, money becomes almost an indicator of masculinity. It analyzes a particular model of sexual power based on quantity – which is linked to consumerist demands of capitalism8 – and how the expression “time is money” is representative of a trap for men that promotes the omnipotent illusion of inexhaustibility. It is an illusion that seeks to counter the anxiety of castration, understood in its broadest sense as finitude and death.

This first book on the subject attempts to explain and convey the following ideas:

1 Money is a taboo subject in our culture. It is omnipresent but is omitted in reflections. Beyond the economic context, it is shrouded by complex interpersonal contracts. Strikingly, though money interests everyone, it has no room for debate without the usual pressures.

2 Money is sexually differentiated in our culture. In widely diverging ways, for men money denotes potency and virility, verging on an indicator of male sexual identity.

3 Patriarchal ideology endorses this sexual differentiation, thus perpetuating women’s economic subordination.

4 Sexual differentiation is not innocuous to men either: money is intimately associated with “virility” while its absence questions a man’s sexual identity.

5 It is possible to contribute to the transformation of these conditioning factors through consciousness raising. For women, awareness of economic marginalization and the lack of autonomy. For men, awareness of the association of money and virility. In this respect, consciousness-raising groups are exceptionally beneficial to this end.

Some important clarifications

When I embarked on my research into this question I restricted my field of action, meaning that I had to leave out an infinite number of others.

Curiously, when I set out my reflections on money, people almost invariably asked me about the aspects that I had omitted.

Anyone with common sense, unless they are omnipotent, should accept that “everything” is a lot and generally exceeds what is “possible”.

In fact, I did not omit certain aspects that I deemed to be irrelevant.

I hasten to add that the reflections raised herein are not intended to be universal. They have their point of departure in the middle class,9 because the focus of this book is centred on financial empowerment within a patriarchal society. And with this goal in mind, the middle class is particularly suited to this end for two main reasons:

First, because economic independence is a necessary condition for autonomy. In this respect, the poorer and wealthier classes include variables that make this research extremely difficult or impossible.

It is a great deal more difficult to research autonomy in the poorer classes, whose economic hardships allow them no economic independence. Besides their economic privations, if we start from the premise that economic independence is a necessary condition for autonomy, we would have to address the former instead of the latter.

As regards the wealthy class, the surplus of economic resources may conceal false autonomies, which is difficult (though not impossible) to debate given the possibilities that these resources give them.

I should add that patriarchal ideology is much more deeply ingrained and more manifest in both the poor and rich classes, making these two classes by far the more challenging to research.10

Moreover, to my mind, the exposition of the hidden patriarchal mechanism in the supposed parity between the sexes in the middle class – not least after the woman’s entry into the workforce became especially significant – is immensely attractive and helpful.

The purpose of this book is to play a part in breaking the taboo surrounding this omnipotent, ancient, contemporary, and yet omitted issue, and to foster further inquiry that may respond to the countless questions to which it gives rise.

Lastly, I wish to point out that reflecting on this theme is not innocuous. It is as if we had hastily brushed the dust under the rug because we didn’t know what to do with it. We must inevitably face what we have hidden.

We might even venture, as some movies warn us, that this is not a subject for the faint-hearted.

To discuss money is to enter many realms: couples, children, the family of origin (parents and siblings), friends, lovers, creeds, ethical and aesthetic principles, plans, assessing the past…

It is a deeply moving and exceptionally enlightening subject. We could sum it up by saying that it is one that brings to the surface and holds up to the light all the tacit and implicit agreements that invariably underlie our relationships.

This is why I say that money is a matchmaker.

This book is for sharing, especially with people of a questioning nature, who are encouraged by the enticing and unsettling quest for that which has been omitted, who dare to query stereotypes and believe it is possible to build new alternatives over old problems.

Bibliographic References

1 Pichon Rivière, E. (1971). Del psicoanálisis a la psicología social. Buenos Aires: Galerna.

2 Bion, W.R. (1966). Aprendiendo de la experiencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

3 Dellarossa, A. (1979). Grupos de reflexión. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

4 Bonder, G. (1980). Los Estudios de la Mujer: historia, caracterización y perspectivas. Buenos Aires: Publicación interna del Centro de Estudios de la Mujer..

5 Romero, J.L. (1984). La cultura occidental. Buenos Aires: Legasa.

6 Hamilton, R. (1978). The Liberation of Women: A Study of Patriarchy and Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin.Figes, E. (1970). Patriarchal attitudes: women in society. London: Faber.Oakley, A. (1977). La mujer discriminada: biología y sociedad. Madrid: Debate.Mitchell, Juliet (1973). Woman’s estate. New York: Vintage Books.Zaretsky, E. (1976). Capitalism, the Family & Personal Life. New York: Harper & Row.Groult, B. (1978). Así sea ella. Barcelona: Argos Vergara.Astelarra. J. (1980). Patriarcado y Estado capitalista. Madrid: Zona Abierta, No 25.Borneman, E. (1979). Le patriarcat. París: P.U.F.

7 Pichon Rivière, E. (1971). Del psicoanálisis a la psicología social, Tomo II, pág. 268. Buenos Aires: Galerna.

8 Mitchell, Juliet, ibíd.

9 Sullerot, E. (1979). El hecho femenino. En Los roles de las mujeres en Europa a finales de los años setenta. Barcelona: Argos Vergara.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.