http://www.harpyness.com/2011/11/01/feminism-for-real-part-twenty/ As narrated by the most charming and vicious women on the internet Fri, 17 May 2013 21:22:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.harpyness.com/2011/11/01/feminism-for-real-part-twenty/comment-page-1/#comment-76406 annajcook Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:15:46 +0000 http://www.harpyness.com/?p=21517#comment-76406 @Mackey, that’s a really interesting comparison! My brain is kinda dead in the water today … but when I’m a bit more coherent I’ll have to think if I can come up with other similar examples. I certainly see similarities in how “feminists” and “lesbians” are seen as monolithic sub-groups, and a single feminist’s idea stands in for ALL feminists ideas, whereas a single historian or philosopher wouldn’t necessarily be expected to stand proxy for their entire group …

]]> http://www.harpyness.com/2011/11/01/feminism-for-real-part-twenty/comment-page-1/#comment-76404 Mackey Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:47:49 +0000 http://www.harpyness.com/?p=21517#comment-76404 Anna-your analysis, for me, raises the issues of homogeneity versus heterogeneity acceptance in academia. For example in philosophy we debate the canon of privileged dead white guys and the differences they had in analysing particular knowledge questions. The hetergeneity is assumed and it’s ok for these dead white philosophers to disagree without it turning into questions of legitimacy and place of analysis.
Yet in one course we explored issues around Indigenous peoples knowledges and the reaction from some to decry the differences in approaches, understandings, analyses, and conclusions boggled my mind. It was like in ‘mainstream’ courses hetergeneity was acceptable yet in other non-mainstream courses heterogeneity is challenged.

]]>