Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Solidarity without “Sisterhood”? Feminism and the Ethics of Coalition Building

Lyshaug, Brenda·2006·Politics & Gender

Abstract

Many feminist theorists have embraced coalition building as the central model for feminist political mobilization. They have done so because they believe that coalitional solidarity resolves a long-standing impasse within feminism between the political claims of diversity among women and the political need for unity. In this essay, I argue that the turn to coalition politics within feminist theory is problematic: While coalitional solidarity honors the claims of diversity among women, it ignores the importance of acknowledging commonality. The tactical ties that it encompasses fail to enact the kind of mutual recognition on which feminism, as a movement for social justice, depends. I show that in order to address both the concern with diversity and the need for unity in a satisfying way, theorists of solidarity must supplement their appeal to coalition building with an account of the ethical and affective preconditions of inclusive political ties. Specifically, I argue that the cultivation of “enlarged sympathy” among feminist political actors is crucial to the establishment of political bonds that accommodate and affirm important differences among women.The author would like to thank the following individuals for helpful comments and discussions: Farid Abdel-Nour, Cheryl Hall, Kimberly Lau, Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, and the editors and anonymous reviewers at Politics & Gender. An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper in San Francisco at the American Politic…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1743923x06060041

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Haraway, 1985, Socialist Review, 80, 65

Cited by

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Lyshaug, B.
Venue
Politics & Gender
Published
2006-03
Volume
2
Issue
01
ISSN
  • 1743-923X
  • 1743-9248
Cited by
13
References
14
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.