Reply to comment

For last Thursday's class, we began by returning to some previous readings and themes. We first re-examined Cixous' notion of "generous feminism" and looked at the sculptures one alumni had made representing her interpretation of this concept. We then learned of Ann's problem with this notion, who made a very important point about what it means to be generous in this context-do normally introverted women experience a greater hardship in being more "generous" than normally extroverd women? We were left wondering if we can construct a feminism that embraces diversity with equal (or no) costs to women?

We then returned to Johnson's reading and the previous (and ongoing) class debate on the issue of the personal vs. the political. An important question Flora raised was "What is our shared goal for the class?" Professor Dalke responded with her own question: "Do we have to have a shared goal?"

We broke up into smaller groups to discuss the two readings which each half of the class had done and then held a discussion in which we spoke as the author of the text we had read. Harder said than done. We seemed to have a better grasp on what Anzaldua was saying about the idea of a "feminist home." For her, this home embraces ambuguity and allows a diversity of perspectives, allows a greater freedom. She also speaks of the undefinable boundaries within the self. Ultimately, she is saying that there is a home for the feminists (re: the border between the States and Mexico)

We seemed a bit more confused about the Martin & Mohanty reading but what we took away ultimately was that what is needed is an "irreconcible tension." The authors were referencing Edward Said who said that in order to be truly "intellectual" one needs distance from one's subject-you need to feel that homelessness, to lack attachment. We ended class learning that Martin & Mohanty complicate Said's claim because while we do need this "intellectual distance" we also need things like politics, space, and freedom to do the work of feminism.