Re-articulating feminisms: a theoretical critique of feminist struggles and discourse in historical and contemporary China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, feminism has gradually become a buzzword in the global hyper-commercialized popular culture. Young women and girls are encouraged to please and empower themselves through consumption and/or ‘leaning in.’ On the other hand, feminist activism and movements against gender inequality and injustice continue to flourish at the local, national, and transnational levels. Yet, as systematic oppression and violence persist and intertwine, neither the depoliticized gendered popular culture nor the single-issue feminist advocacy and resistance can overturn the unequal power structures. This article explores feminist struggles and discourse in historical and contemporary China as a case to argue that feminist scholars and activists urgently need to revalorize the radical and political potential of feminisms as emancipatory ideas and actions. In response to the popular western-centric perception of feminism, I trace back to women’s movements in revolutionary and socialist China in the first half of the twentieth century. Following the critique of the enduring masculinist power and the rising prevalence of post-feminism in post-socialist and reforming China, I analyze the current popular discourse and public debates of feminism, feminist and queer activism, the grassroots NGOs for rural migrant women, and state-sponsored gender development programs. Built upon the analyses, the article calls for a re-articulation of feminisms through three strands: Engaging the great mass, making the broader range of feminist thoughts and praxis accessible to the general public, and recounting the historical legacy of feminist movements in specific contexts. Forming allies with various underprivileged and marginalized groups are still imperative for feminist struggles in present conjunctures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".