Feminist sociology is centered around the woman in three ways. Firstly, the main subject of the survey is the situation or situations related to the experience of women in society. Secondly, she treats women as the central subject of the research process, that is, she strives to see the world through the woman's different view, the woman's vantage point in the world. Third, feminist theory is critical and active, seeking to create a better world for women, and hence for the whole of mankind. Feminist theories differ from other sociological theories in many ways. First, they are the work of an international community that includes not only sociologists but scientists from other disciplines such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, law, literature, philosophy, political science, psychology, and theology. This includes political activists of the women's movement, writers and other creative personalities from both Europe and the United States and from the Third World. Many sociologists are suspicious of feminist theories, finding them to be too radical and related to political activism.
Archer, M. .(1985).Structuration versus morphogenesis. In S. N. Eisenstadt and H.J. Helle (Eds.) Macro-Sociological Theory. London: Sage.58-88.
Bernard, J.(1981).The Female world. New York: Free Press.
Bernard J. (1982).The Future of marriage. (2nd Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bernikow, L. (1980). Among women. New York: Harper. 1980.
Best, R. (1989). We’ve all got scars: what boys and girls learn in elementary school. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
Bohannan, P. and Glazer, M. (Eds). (1988). High points in anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Conkey, M. W., and Sarah, H. W. (1991). Original narratives: the political economy of gender in archaeology. In M. di Leonardo (Ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: feminist anthropology in the postmodern era. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 102-139.
Di Leonardo, M. (1991).Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: feminist anthropology in the postmodern era (Introduction). Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1- 48.
Engels, F. (1972). The origin of the family, private property, and the state. New York: International PublishersGarfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethododlogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gilbert, S. M., and Gubar, S. (1979). The madwoman in the attic: the woman writer and the nineteenth-century literary imagination. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a diffirent voice: psyhological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hite, Sh. (1976. The hite report: a nationwide study of female sexuality. New York: Dell.
Hurst, C.E. (1995). Social inequality: forms, causes, and consequences. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaufman, D. R., and Richardson, B. I. (1982). Achievment and women: chalenging the assumptions. New York: Free Press.
Kasper, A. (1956). Conciosness re-evaluated: interpretive theory and feminist scholarship Sociological Inquiry, (56) , 1, 30-49.
Kessler and McKena, W. (1978). Gender: an ethnomethodological approach. Chicago: Umiversity of Chicago Press.
Laws, J. L., Schwartz, P. (1979). Sexual scripts: the social construction of female sexuality: Hinsdale: Dryden.
Leibowitz, L. (1975). Perspectives on the evolution of sex differences. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 21-35). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games. American Sociological Review, (43), 471- 483.
Masters, W., and Johnson, V. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown McGee, R. J. and Warms, R. L. (1996). Anthropological theory: An introductory history. London: Mayfield Publishing Company
Masters, W., Jonson V. (1966). Human sexual responce. Boston: Little Brown.
Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperment in three primitive societies. New York: William Morrow.
Mead, M. (1949). Male and female: a study of the sexes in a changing world. New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks.
Minh-ha, T. T. (1989).Woman, native, other. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Morgen, S. (1989). Gender and anthropology: Introductory essay. In S. Morgen (Ed.), Gender and anthropology.Critical reviews for research and teaching (pp. 1-20). Washington DC: American Anthropological Association.
Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: women, patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rossi, A. (1974). The feminist papers: from adams to de beauvoir. New York: Bantam.
Rossi, A. (1974).The feminist papers: from adams to de beauvoir. New York: Bantam.
Rubin G. (1975). The traffic in women: notes on the political economy of sex”. In R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an antropology of women. New York: Monthly Rview Press.
Ruddick, S. (1980). Material thinking. Feminist Studies, (6)2, 342-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748516700307
Smith, D. (1974).Women’s perspectives as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry (44),1,7-13.
Smith, D. (1981). A Sociology of women.” In J. A. Sherman and Ev. T.Beck (Eds.), The prism of sex: rssays in the sociology of knowledge. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.
Snitow, A. (1976). Mass market romance: pornography for women is different. Radical History Reviеw (20),141-163.
Snitow, A., Stansell, Ch., and Thompson, Sh. (1983). Powers of desire: the politics of sexuality. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Stockard, J., and Johnson, M. (1980). Sex roles: sex inequality and sex role development. Engelwood CliffsN.J. Prentice Hall.
Tiger, L., and Fox, R. (1971). The imperial animal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Walum-Richardson, L. (1981). The dynamics of sex and gender. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Copyright (c) 2018 Academic seminar "Media and Education", Department of Sociology, South-West University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.