Sep
7
“Feminism in Comp.:” Rxns
September 7, 2010 | Uncategorized | 21,274 Comments
I read Joy Ritchie and Kathleen Boardman’s article first and, after reading the other two, decided to use it for the assignment because it seemed so timely (i.e., it wasn’t from 1985); I appreciated the fairly contemporary retrospective and analysis.
Ritchie and Boardman examine the influence of feminism in (and on) the field of composition. For them, it is “not easy to delineate how feminism has functioned over the past three decades to shape and critique our understandings of the gendered nature of writing, teaching, and institutions” (585). This academic messiness leads them to revisit feminist texts from the 1970s onward in an attempt to analyze why feminism was “delayed” in appearing in professional publications and the consequences of such a delay; they equally examine the effects, positive and negative, of feminist strategies (inclusive, metonymic, and disruptive) on women’s narratives in composition.
Initially, I found Ritchie and Boardman’s objectives broad and a bit overwhelming–I had trouble discerning what, precisely, they wanted to examine and discuss. The essay clearly goes through their arguments, however, leading to the very comprehensible conclusion that “feminism has been most challenging and disruptive and also provided a sense of alliance and inclusion when it has maintained a dialogical relationship between theory and experience” (602). I’m inclined to agree with this, especially in light of their example of Jan Zlotnik Schmidt’s introduction to Women/Writing/Teaching. A dialogical relationship between theory and experience permits feminism to exist as simultaneously passive and active, self-critical and socially critical. It also puts feminism in a position to remember its past–those early texts by women, known and not largely known–while anticipating its future.
Further research could be conducted by exploring the relationship between feminism and technological composition: Computer science and information technology tend to be male-dominated fields–have women seized the computer or the Internet as vehicles for their own narratives? Ritchie and Boardman’s article is from 1999, so it might be worth pursuing, too, the feminist writing that appears in textbooks, curricula, and field publications today, a decade later.
Aug
31
Week Two Responses
August 31, 2010 | Uncategorized | 4,170 Comments
I apologize for the belated post–while I’m familiar with blogging, I’m not familiar with it on Blackboard. That aside…
Noddings’ discussion on caring thoroughly fascinates me–she writes articulately and intelligently, and, even though I don’t agree with all her points, I’m happy to let her lead me to those points for consideration. One of the most thought-provoking lines comes towards the end: “If moral education, in a double sense, is guided only by the study of moral principles and judgments, not only are women made to feel inferior to men in the moral realm but also education itself may suffer from impoverished and one-sided moral guidance” (28). I don’t think it’s possible or advisable that education be guided solely by morality; but neither do I think it should be guided entirely by pragmatics. I suppose the question, then–for me, at least–is one of balance: is there a way to include moral reason and practical logic in teaching and education?
Harding’s reading also held me rapt. I especially liked her point on page six: “[Traditional social science] has asked only the questions about social life that appear problematic from within the social experiences that are characteristic for men (white, Western, bourgeois men, that is). … Ask only those questions about nature and social life which (white, Western, bourgeois) men want answered.” The implications of this are somewhat staggering, especially with regards to education–what does it suggest about our university system, which was found by none other than those white, Western, bourgeois men? That said, I have to admit that I quite enjoy the university, so what does that reveal about me? Have I sold out? Or is it possible that an institution’s roots can grow in another direction?