tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post8176744141372715329..comments2023-10-30T14:34:16.722-07:00Comments on Men Need Feminism: Theory Thursday: Lenses and MalleabilityJeff Pollethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13789663140920958914noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-32321304796764922162007-11-19T18:22:00.000-08:002007-11-19T18:22:00.000-08:00I got my BA in English with a minor in History act...I got my BA in English with a minor in History actually. Now I am working towards two Masters degrees, one in English and the other in Library Science. I was going to go on for my Ph. D. in English, but I recently decided I had enough for now. <BR/><BR/>As an acquiatance of mine who is dual majoring undergrad in philosophy and English stated, "I think most English classes are really just philosophy classes in disguise."<BR/><BR/>I've taken philosophy classes before and I'm fairly well-versed with the basic ideas (and let me emphasize "basic") behind most of the major philosophers (I need to find time to read the Philosophical Canon, which probably won't happen until after Grad School). I think in general I just have strong <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy" REL="nofollow">cultural literacy.</A> <BR/><BR/>I also have the tendency to spend a lot of time thinking about issues. I actually embarassingly enough can spend anywhere from two - three hours a day pacing back and forth having a debate with myself about an issue. I also occassionally get the oppurtunity to do it with actual people. So you might say I live a very philosophical life and am always scrutinizing everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-4848036402511559982007-11-19T09:57:00.000-08:002007-11-19T09:57:00.000-08:00Eric--Do you have a background in philosophy? I as...Eric--<BR/>Do you have a background in philosophy? I ask because you talk like a philosopher...<BR/><BR/>I am more of an existentialist, and I think that social construction theory holds a lot of promise, though it is often misunderstood (for instance, I think I'm a Realist many senses of the word, as some social constructionists aren't). But I don't think that you have to be a social constructionist of any sort to think that experience comes before conceptual frameworks. They go hand in hand, from the beginning of a brain until the end of one, as far as I can tell. I don't buy experience outside of conceptual frameworks (e.g. the 'clean slate'), though you may mean something different by 'ideology' than 'conceptual framework'. But I don't have to be a social constructionist to say this: I just have to believe that experience is always filtered through an experiencer. <BR/><BR/><I>The problem is that once you have a lens/ideology and say, "feminism has the right answers to explain my experiences!" Well, you've now choosen, and that's where you start cutting yourself off from seeing other possibilities.</I> I don't disagree with this, which is why I resist saying "feminism has <I>all</I> of the right descriptions of <I>all</I> of my experiences...and the feminists I tend to agree with and take ideas from don't, either. You may be able to find feminists who do, but I don't tend to agree with them--or I may disagree with the interpretation of them as that way.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, this stuff gets complex pretty quickly for 1:30 in the morning, and we've opened up many cans of worms on this thread. <BR/><BR/>I want to say once again that I appreciate your comments, Eric. This is a helpful conversation, at least for me.Jeff Pollethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789663140920958914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-63976836960998943842007-11-16T22:27:00.000-08:002007-11-16T22:27:00.000-08:00I don't think I was implying that the lens metapho...I don't think I was implying that the lens metaphor or specific ideologies come before experience. If that was unclear, then let me say it more explicitly: experiences always comes first before the lens or ideology is in place, and by this I mean a full-fledged ideology. To a certain degree other factors such us cultural values instilled by your family for example will affect how you interpret experiences before you ever develop a full ideological lens. I'll elaborate further below.<BR/><BR/>I think when one chooses (and I use that word loosely) their ideology/lens it is at the point when that person is trying to make sense of their experience/data. So there is something of choice; after all, why'd you choose this ideology instead of that one or why not some other?<BR/><BR/>Take two so-called Feminist issues like Domestic Violence and Rape for example and every ideology/belief system across the board is going to give you a method to interpret that data and find what ultimately underlies those things (Feminism, Marxism, Race Theory, Christianity, Fascism, Libertarianism, Sociology, Mythology, etc.). Oversimplifying to be sure (i.e. it would have to be a race related for Race Theory to meaningfully explain domestic violence or rape).<BR/><BR/>The problem is that once you have a lens/ideology and say, "feminism has the right answers to explain my experiences!" Well, you've now choosen, and that's where you start cutting yourself off from seeing other possibilities. Molly's example shows her choosing between the Leftist academic Holy Trinity of Race, Gender, and Race; I would hardly call that real malleability of world-view or a diverse world-view. It is ultimately switching between a more general Progressive world-view. These isn't malleable in that complete rethinking or shattering of world-views that I meant by the term when I used it.<BR/><BR/>Christina Hoff Sommers again captures beautifully some of my concerns on these points: "They think that they have healthy debate because they are in a department that has some intellectual disagreements between a Marxist-Leninist feminist versus a socialist versus a lesbian versus an eco-feminist, goddess worshipping whatever. They think that counts, that it is healthy debate."<BR/><BR/>Now I don't get me wrong I am adamant that sometimes it can be very useful to have a "gender" lens, or to put it another way sometimes it <I>is</I> sexism going on, sometimes it <I>is</I> misogyny, but sometimes it's also something else entirely and the people that adhere too strictly to those other lenses often can't make sense of something that fails to fit their world-views and what they expect or it descends into dogmatism and it incorporates and explains away anything it can't make sense of.<BR/><BR/>As Jeff suggests in a rather Foucaultian fashion (but perhaps existentialist fashion for him) you're never outside the world, you're always experiencing it from within, you can't step outside ever, there's never a point where you aren't building off something else you learned from within society, theirs no view you can utter that is entirely yours. I think this is what he means when he says there is always a world-view proceeding any development of lens.<BR/><BR/>I'll first start by saying I don't entirely agree with this extreme anti-essentialist "pretty much everything is socially constructed about us" view. It has significant problems, which I won't get into now. I'll secondly add I'm not entirely sure how much Jeff buys into or to what extent/degree might be better to say that view, so I could be overexaggerating how much he does and I am just interpreting from the info I have. <BR/><BR/>I think there was more I wanted to say, but I am tired and it's hitting 1:30 AM over here and I honestly can't remember right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-84601319943143928232007-11-16T11:50:00.000-08:002007-11-16T11:50:00.000-08:00I agree that the 'lenses' metaphor seems to imply ...I agree that the 'lenses' metaphor seems to <I>imply</I> flexibility, Molly.<BR/><BR/>Part of the point that Eric was making, however, still holds as a limitation of the metaphor: People treat the choosing of various lenses as if it happens somehow 'outside' of our world view, prior to experience. You may choose to look at the world through the lenses of, say, feminism, but you choose that lens (in part) because you're already looking through the lens of (for instance) gender.Jeff Pollethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789663140920958914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-67098921265066835842007-11-16T11:35:00.001-08:002007-11-16T11:35:00.001-08:00His comments are weird. I think that what is grea...His comments are weird. I think that what is great about the 'Lens' metaphor is precisely that: they're impermanent. The image it reminds me most of is old-timey ophthalmology equipment where they'd flip physical lenses to make you see better. My point is: they're temporary but can have some permanence.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I find compartmentalizing other lenses useful, because when reading a single article I can look at only the gender, then only class, then only race issues and see what I may have missed on first glance. You can also utilize this method to think about all three and where they intersect and connect together and to look at hybrid identities and multiple indices of disempowerment.<BR/><BR/>That said, I also don't think of feminism as a lens. Gender is a lens for sure, but there are so many different flavors of feminism within feminism that you can't really call it a singular lens. Similar to arguments folks have made about the term transgender (one is not *a* transgender, but one could be a transgender lesbian), I think that one could use a feminist Marxist lens, or a Feminist Foucauldean lens, or a Feminist race theory lens...But just by itself, the descriptor, while it has meaning—that meaning is a bit to expansive to really pinpoint anything.Mollygrrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698868250829818934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28989955.post-50234799826630851892007-11-16T11:35:00.000-08:002007-11-16T11:35:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mollygrrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698868250829818934noreply@blogger.com