Ferguson, Ann. Blood at the Root. “Sex/affective production.” London: Pandora, 1989. 77-99.

one-sentence summary: Ferguson sets forth a theory of sex/affective production in order to show how male dominance is supported and produced through homosocial and heterosexual energies and activities.

Keywords: sex/affective production, sex/affective energy, social energy, male dominance, patriarchy, affective labour

77: describes ways cultures organize desires, which can be called systems (here: sex/affective production), that in turn dominate particular groups, especially women.
78: speaks to Marxist ideas — economic priorities do not determine completely how systems form.
78/79: speaks to Freudian ideas — bodily energy theory doesn’t allow for how social energy connections are just as strong and motivating of behavior because they don’t have as their only object bodily pleasure/orgasm. one objective of social energy systems is in motivating human labour.
80: describes homosocial and heterosexual relations as forms upholding male dominant relations. This section helps me realize how threatening gay marriage is to patriarchy.
81: “feminist demands for reciprocity threaten both aspects of masculine gender identity” Both aspects include masculine ideas of success and homo-social bonding.
women may hesitate to give up gendered work because of social/gendered networks. This idea helps me realize the loss I’ve suffered because I haven’t been able to replace the strong homo-social relationship I had with women who I motorcycled with before I moved here.
82: I don’t really get what Ferguson is saying here.
83: directly compares human material needs for connection with economic systems and concludes that sex/affective production is similar to economic systems, but also part of them. This balancing/comparing makes an important distinction that she explains later when she talks more about affective labour and paid and unpaid work.
84: contrasting social-feminist and radical feminist ideas about male dominance. social-feminist recognizes historical aspect more than radical feminist, while radical feminist perspective locates male dominance cross-culturally.
86: ideas of sexual difference between men and women, homosocial work groups, and gendered divisionsof labor all uphold male dominance while sexual reciprocity and female homosocial groups challenge male dominance.
87: contextualizes male homosexual relationships and homo/hetero patriarchies.
88: describes different patriarchal systems in “nineteenth century husband patriarchy” and “twentieth century public patriarchy” The first doesn’t recognize women as sexual beings and the latter confuses ideas of masculine and feminine identity.
89: “sex/affective production systems perpetuate social domination by creating and maintaining a set of sex/affective desires, and a set of norms to regulate them, which maintains a self/other dichotomy and hierarchy in which there are dominant and subordinate roles”
90: setting up how the negative aspect of dualistic categories challenges patriarchy. She gives the example that mother and lesbian are not exclusive categories. However, I found it problematic that she just dropped in the statement, “most women want motherhood,” without explaining it more. Is this true? Why is this true? Is this true to the extent that women are not raised to think about other options as being ok?
91-93: Discusses sex/affective symbolic codes. Makes distinction between transcultural, universalist approach being that of radical feminism and setting up of polarities between good and evil, with that of historical constructivist approach as realizing that categories are not so distinct.
94: describes sex/affective labour
97: quotes David Alexander — women’s gendered labour includes physical, personality, nurturance, and sexual categories
98: I need to read this again because I don’t get her argument with Alexander.

Top 5: Deleuze & Guattari, Gayle Rubin, Freud, Foucault, Daly