MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4365800596 · doi:10.2979/victorianstudies.64.3.37

Critical Alliances: Economics and Feminism in English Women’s Writing, 1880-1914, by S. Brooke Cameron

2022· article· en· W4365800596 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFeminismGender studiesSociologyWorkforceLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Critical Alliances: Economics and Feminism in English Women's Writing, 1880–1914 by S. Brooke Cameron Michelle Tusan (bio) Critical Alliances: Economics and Feminism in English Women's Writing, 1880–1914, by S. Brooke Cameron; pp. vii + 297. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2020, $74.00. Critical Alliances: Economics and Feminism in English Women's Writing, 1880–1914 revisits one of the most relevant issues of the Victorian feminist movement: the relationship between gender and labor. Focusing on late-Victorian women writers who engage this problematic in their work, S. Brooke Cameron successfully makes the case for the importance of collaborative literary efforts in fostering the eventual entry of women into the workforce. The dialogue between novelists Olive Schreiner, Amy Levy, and George Egerton—who rewrite the domestic plot around the possibility of women's education and economic independence—and Michael Field and Virginia Woolf creates new possibilities, Cameron argues, for imagining women as producers and consumers. Reading these writings together adds up to a redefinition of gender roles in relation to the workplace, which has important implications for early twentieth-century feminist critiques of economic inequality. Each of the women writers discussed by Cameron attempt to rewrite understandings of gender and labor by redefining "the relationship between women and the modern workforce" (5). Chapter 1, "Educating New Women for Feminist Futures," resists the move to treat the New Woman as a type. Instead, it focuses on Schreiner's feminist pushback against gendered education. This sets the stage for subsequent resistances by other feminist writers against prescribed gender roles in the realm of remunerative employment. Here the critical alliances of the title find expression as Schreiner represents an important foremother of those late-Victorian feminists who respond to earlier efforts to engage the issue of middle-class women's work. Of course, these efforts date back much further, as Cameron acknowledges. Actual alliances among feminists regarding the question of women and employment predate the New Woman novel. This is especially true in the case of the employment question, where cooperative alliances between the women who formed organizations like the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women raised key questions about labor and gender. The dialogue about women and work in [End Page 524] publications like the English Woman's Journal (1858–64) offers an important prequel to the later efforts of New Woman novelists to rewrite the script on women's employment. Levy "follows in the footsteps of Schreiner" (67) by rewriting the domestic plot and imagining a place for "women's paid work in support of the home" (68). Chapter 2, "Sisterly Kinship and the Modern Sexual Contract," reads Levy's The Romance of a Shop (1888) in order to understand female-centered kinship systems as empowering women. It shows a new model of womanhood forged by a literal sisterhood that supports economic independence as well as personal pleasure. Chapter 3, "Cosmopolitan Communities of Female Professionals," makes the case for Egerton's work on women's collaborative independence in the space of the city. By the late nineteenth century, urban landscapes could be imagined as gendered spaces where women steadily claimed access through occupying new professions and living in women-only boarding houses. Employment opportunity is what allowed this new access. Rather than see a labor market that suddenly opened up to women because it needed new workers, Cameron convincingly argues that it was the claiming of urban space in the literary sphere that contributed to the ability to imagine middle-class women as independent wage earners (outside of the role of governess) in this moment. In this way, collaboration among a new professional class of women in the city made it possible for more women to occupy these spaces and to claim them as their own. Chapter 4 explores women's claim to authority in the realm of aesthetics using Field's Sight and Song (1892). "Women's Artistic Connoisseurship and the Pleasures of a Lesbian Aesthetic" argues that "Field's effort to stake out for women a role within the modern gendered marketplace as respected connoisseurs" relied on collaboration between readers and writers, which challenges the gendered gaze while affirming "women's artistic authority" (167...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,806
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,240
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle