Jumia Books Anatomy Of Female Power

Contrary to what many theorists (modern, postmodern, structuralist and poststructuralist, feminist and postfeminist) argue, Chinweizu claims that female power exists and operates mainly in marriage1 , but not on a large institutional scale, because there is no need: “female power does not need those elaborate structures of formal authority which have evolved to control the large aggregates of persons required by the specialist activities of the male domain” (Chinweizu, 1990, p.111). Thus, Chinweizu’s (1990) theory proves to be anti-feminist and bold, by trying to move away from the traditional conception of “uncontrollable” female to male submission. However, it is important to read this theory in another way, because despite the author constantly emphasizing that the position of “the power behind the throne” is a conscious position by women, this may just be the only form of “power” that is consented to them. Although the author’s discourse sometimes ambitions to step towards women’s liberation (evidenced in the awareness of their own condition), his words often emphasize conformity and do not provide for women’s ability to go further in their resistance to models of male power. Under some feminist theories, this can prove to be one of the macho ways of giving a false sense of freedom and power to women. Chinweizu just seems to continue Lacanian symbolism (Lacan, 1981) that consolidates social practices that perpetuate cultural heteronormativity through the Oedipal family structure (phallocentric). This view departs entirely from the poststructuralist view, which rethinks the whole social power structure based on a queerism of the psyche, of sexual difference, and of gender.