I'm not at all sure it is appropriate to academia. It's what *I* do but that's my choice, carefully thought out. And I don't maintain it across the board - I'm afraid my bias shows through when I speak about particularly shoddy research on the witchcraft trials, for instance.
And I'm not at all sure feminism IS about ending discrimination - in some forms it is (such as the one I avow) but I could easily find forms in which is is about changing discrimination rather than getting rid of it. Nor are all feminist theorists calling for acceptance - that's such a wide open statement - acceptance for what? The second wave is *founded* pretty much on non-acceptance (of violence toward women (and (or not) those who perpetrate it)).
I'm not picking holes for the sake of picking holes, honest - but it's such a convoluted field that *any* statement is going to be full of gaping holes - iow your view of what feminism is, is quite possibly not what someone else's is. My view of what it is for me would certainly not be the same as your lecturer's, for instance, as I'm not coming at it from a Marxist POV.
I'm not sure one can present a rounded view of feminism or feminist literary critique (of which I have a very limited knowledge), particularly since you're only talking about a couple of lectures and seminars.
I know I come across as defending the lecturer - but note I've not defended what she's said at all. What I am saying is that she deserves a fair crack at defending herself, or explaining what she's said to you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:14 pm (UTC)And I'm not at all sure feminism IS about ending discrimination - in some forms it is (such as the one I avow) but I could easily find forms in which is is about changing discrimination rather than getting rid of it. Nor are all feminist theorists calling for acceptance - that's such a wide open statement - acceptance for what? The second wave is *founded* pretty much on non-acceptance (of violence toward women (and (or not) those who perpetrate it)).
I'm not picking holes for the sake of picking holes, honest - but it's such a convoluted field that *any* statement is going to be full of gaping holes - iow your view of what feminism is, is quite possibly not what someone else's is. My view of what it is for me would certainly not be the same as your lecturer's, for instance, as I'm not coming at it from a Marxist POV.
I'm not sure one can present a rounded view of feminism or feminist literary critique (of which I have a very limited knowledge), particularly since you're only talking about a couple of lectures and seminars.
I know I come across as defending the lecturer - but note I've not defended what she's said at all. What I am saying is that she deserves a fair crack at defending herself, or explaining what she's said to you.