The third-wave of feminism interested me the most because it sought (and still seeks) to let women define feminism for themselves. I was accidentally introduced to it from the "riot grrrl" movement of the early nineties, and though lyrics are the least effective way for me to understand an idea, I did some research on my own to learn about the newest wave of feminism.
Male bias colors most aspects of everyday life -- historical interpretations especially. Majority of ancient scholars have been male and most of our knowledge has been derived from their works. As a male, I can only imagine the frustrations females may or may not feel from improper representation throughout history. I agree to the idea of feminist versions if it creates ground for unbiased interpretations; however, I would not agree with anyone looking to promote the feminist version as the "correct" version.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post seems a little disconnected - I'm not sure how the third wave relates to your discussion about methodology. As far as promoting a feminist version as the "correct" version - it seems as if you're reading the discussion of method through an "add women and stir" perspective where a feminist would say "Women were left out of Story X. We've added them in, so now the historical account is correct and factual." That's not really what Harding is talking about - she's talking more about epistemological issues, or perspectives that say that women's knowledge matters, and that centering research from the perspective of people who have been marginalized (whether women or people of color or marginalized sexual identities, etc.) is equally valuable and perhaps even more robust. The history of science, for example, is taught to us as the ever moving progression forward, driven by the works of a lot of genius, privileged white men, who view nature as something to be exploited and objectivity as something to be revered. Feminist scientists, on the other hand, often view the purposes and the practice of science differently. They might say that science isn't about exploitation of the natural world - it's about understanding. They might say that science isn't completely objective - that the humans who practice science have their own biases and predispositions that shape their research in particular ways. Feminist research then isn't necessarily the "correct" version so much as it questions the ability for anything to ever really be "correct" because such a position often leaves out the perspectives and knowledge claims of marginalized people.
ReplyDelete