:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:只破不立,無以為繼--談毀家廢婚派的幾點問題
書刊名:應用倫理評論
作者:何思瑩
作者(外文):Ho, Szu-ying
出版日期:2015
卷期:58
頁次:頁69-99
主題關鍵詞:酷兒家庭同志婚姻選擇家庭福利國家Queer familyGay marriageChosen familyWelfare state
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:22
毀家廢婚派強調了貧窮酷兒在經濟、情感及文化上的弱勢使他們沒有資格成家,並認為家庭作為累積私有財產的單位,將導致資源分配不均的惡化。我們認為,資源不均與階級不正義的巨大問題都非常應該被深入分析、理解,並進而透過制度改善。但是,僅僅是「取消婚姻」並無法立刻導致「各種資源重新平等分配」。我們認為,應該在制度上不斷修正,使婚姻家庭成為更為平等的制度與單位,同時推動更具有性別平等意識的福利國家制度,使每個家戶成員皆可具有參與有酬勞動市場以及負擔照護活動的機會與基礎。因此,我們主張應以法律保障同志家庭的種種權利與義務,也不應忽略酷兒主體成家以後將有可能賦予家庭嶄新的意義與想像。
Anti-family left-leaning queer in Taiwan contend that impoverished queers are not qualified for family due to their lack of economic, emotional, and cultural capital. The class injustice and unequal distributed resources should be analyzed and further corrected by the institution, but the “revocation of marriage” will not directly lead to wealth equally distributed. We should reconstitute family and marriage as a more equal and fair institution. Also, we should provide the same opportunities to let every individual family member can equally and freely choose to participate in paid work and caring work by welfare state policy arrangements. Consequently, we contend that the queer family rights should be protected by queer marriage legalization. At the same time, we should not ignore queer’s agency to embody family new meaning and images.
期刊論文
1.Fraser, Nancy(1990)。Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy。Social Text,25/26,56-80。  new window
2.Lewis, J.(1997)。Gender and Welfare Regimes : Futher Thoughts。Social Politics,4(2),160-177。  new window
3.Hartmann, Heidi I.(1979)。The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union。Capital & Class,3(2),1-33。  new window
4.Hartmann, H. I.(1981)。The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework。Signs,6(3),366-394。  new window
5.Solomon, S. E.、Rothblum, E. D.、Balsam, K. F.(2005)。Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings。Sex Roles,52(9/10),561-575。  new window
6.Orloff, Ann Shola(1993)。Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states。American Sociological Review,58(3),303-328。  new window
7.李元貞(2000)。臺灣婦運及其政治意涵。婦女新知通訊,221,12-13。  延伸查詢new window
8.何思瑩(20141200)。「非法」情境下的酷兒生殖--臺灣女同志的人工生殖科技實作。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,35,53-122。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Balsam, Kimberly F.、Beauchaine, Theodore P.、Rothblum, Esther D.、Solomon, Sondra E.(2008)。Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples。Department of Psychology,44(1),102-116。  new window
10.Solomon, Sondra E.、Rothblum, Esther D.、Balsam, Kimberly F.(2004)。Pioneers in Partnership : Lesbian and Gay Male Couples in Civil Unions Compared with Those not in Civil Unions and Married Heterosexual Siblings。Journal of Family Psychology,18(2),275。  new window
圖書
1.Dalla Costa, Mariarosa、James, Selma(1975)。The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community。Bristol:Falling Wall Press。  new window
2.Engels, F.(1972)。The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan。New York:International Publishers。  new window
3.Farquhar, D.(1996)。The other machine: Discourse and reproductive technologies。London:Routledge。  new window
4.Weston, Kath(1991)。Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship。New York:Columbia University Press。  new window
5.Hochschild, A.、Machung, A.(1989)。The Second Shift:Working Parents and the Revolution at Home。New York, N. Y.:Viking Penguin。  new window
6.Esping-Andersen, Gøsta(1990)。The Three World of Welfare Capitalism。Oxford:Polity Press。  new window
其他
1.Angel(2007)。老天有眼〜法律無情,http://blog.yam.com/la_ma_news/article/9843182, 2015/02/06。  new window
2.王顥中(20130629)。平等的幻象,www.coolloud.org.tw/node/74787。  延伸查詢new window
3.洪凌(20130831)。與幻象對話:論反社會酷兒與臺灣同婚訴求,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/75463。  延伸查詢new window
4.高旭寛(2013)。【想像不家庭】專題系列三幸福與保障,不必只能在伴侶關係內,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/ node/76211, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
5.情僧(2013)。【想像不家庭】專題系列五給我一個談愛做愛都不穏的未来,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/76367, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
6.郭彥伯(2013)。【想像不家庭】專題系列七•「毀家廢婚」作為一 種實踐、立場與運動資源的重新佈署,http:// www.coolloud.org.tw/node/76577, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
7.劉文(2013)。婚權無法解決的同志困境--為何我反對婚權平等運動,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/74833, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
8.賴麗芳(2013)。【想像不家庭】專題系列六農村+貧窮+酷兒= 我不配,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/76488, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
9.Anderson, J.,Coolidge, M.,Heche, A.(2000)。If These Walls Could Talk 2,United States:HBO。  new window
圖書論文
1.Marx, K.(1977)。Critique of the Gotha Programme。Karl Marx: Selected Writings。New York:Oxford University Press。  new window
2.Marx, K.、Engels, F.(1977)。The Communist Manifesto。Karl Marx: Selected Writings。New York:Oxford University Press。  new window
3.Young, I.(1981)。Beyond the unhappy marriage: A critique of the dual systems theory。Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism。Montreal:Black Rose Books Ltd。  new window
4.Rubin, Gayle(1975)。The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex。Toward an Anthropology of Women。Monthly Review。  new window
5.Sainsbury, Diane(1999)。Gender and social-democratic welfare states。Gender and Welfare State Regimes。Oxford University Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
QR Code
QRCODE