Reply to comment

When I think of the stereotypes of gender and the stereotypes of science, I am pretty much immediately drawn to look at science as a masculinely-identified discipline. When we define, or see women as a more inferior subject in the world, physically week, less scientifically driven, it directly affects this idea that if we are socialized in shaping our bodies, our experiences in doing so, will impact how we mature on an intellectual level.

Even though it seemed evident that the two feminist articles pertain much more to the world of social sciences, i felt that it wouldn't be all that difficult, quite frankly looking at the gendered nature of schools of thought and comparing them to each other!

When I read both articles, one thing that really struck me was the emphasis on language and its link with the development of gendered ideas, however I feel that the authors could absolutely do with more hard evidence to substantiate exactly what they were saying. With Grosz, she sort of outlines her article for us, and then the reader gets lost in the dense language of her article, which is even more ironic, when she is talking about language herself!

Here's my biggest problem: I guess, because I have been reading feminist theory for a few years now, I get really tied up trying to decide whether the material I am reading is 1st wave, 2nd wave, 3rd wave! I identify strongly as a third wave feminist, and sometimes reading things that seem blatantly 2nd wave, make me feel very overwhelmed and frustrated.

-alex