SGarza.QuestionFromCharlieFeministPedagogyJarratt History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed lines 13-18 from:
Well it seems that you both favor Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing then!(122). Great, me too.
to:
Well it seems that you both favor Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing then!(122). Great, me too.

----
''Response from Matt''

As I went into this reading, I wondered if feminism is mislabeled? A common misconception about feminism is it exists to establish and maintain a no-boys-allowed club, but Jarratt repeatedly points out the involvement of men within feminism and how the field can be beneficial for men. The field of feminism solely considered with the role of women, but, as Caleb pointed out, the role of any underrepresented group. I cringe at the writers who seek to create separate camps between feminine and masculine writing or any other subgroup. The unfortunate, if unintentional, consequence is the view these subgroups are trying to assert their position as the dominant voice in the discussion instead of, what I choose to believe, seeking an equal seat at the table.
Changed lines 10-12 from:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '''Response from the skeptic'''
to:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'''Response from the skeptic'''
Changed lines 10-11 from:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well it seems that you both favor Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing then!(122). Great, me too.
to:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '''Response from the skeptic'''
Well it seems that you both favor Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing then!(122). Great, me too.
Changed lines 10-15 from:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group.


----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well it seems that you both favor Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing then!(122). Great, me too.
Added lines 7-12:


'''Response from Caleb:'''
Charlie, very controversial post (haha), but definitely a great conversation starter. I agree with Melissa though, I don't think that Thompkins and Frey were trying to slight women by saying they cannot think logically, but rather attempting to combat the patriarchal dominance in both society and culture. Though I disagreed with your take on that issue, I do gravitate to your idea that scholars should be working to bring together the field in an effort to dump the old traditional rhetoric of white male dominated society for a new rhetoric that calls for equality across gender, race, and ethnicity. By breaking down compostion to the level of gender, race, and class, the importance is learning how the use of language is different, not only using the style attributed to your respective group.
Changed line 9 from:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed lines 5-14 from:
Charlie I understand where you are coming from with the idea that women can think logically and have the ability to write using logos and ethos without relying on pathos to establish their voice. However, I believe feminist theory avoids using intimidation to demonstrate their point. In the past white males used writing as a way to dominate race, class and gender forming a power structure that excluded those who were different. I believe feminists like, Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey are trying to divide themselves from the imperialist behavior that exists within writing, and in our society. Feminist theory is about equality; they fight for equality by using pathos to show how individuals are dehumanized, striped of identity, and treated as the . It is the duty of women who claim to be feminist to walk on a different path than the patriarchal society that rings the bell of all knowing. Feminist believe that each person is entitled to use their voice; a voice that has been silenced for many years. I think that Thompkins and Frey intended for their statement to be interpreted as women avoiding logic. As indicated by Frey and Thompkins, tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). The traditional pattern of logic excludes social roles and lived experiences which is what feminist theory is founded on. I hope this helps!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'''Response to Melissa''' HA!
Melissa, You claimed that:
''Feminist theory is about equality; they fight for equality by using pathos to show how individuals are dehumanized, striped of identity, and treated as the . It is the duty of women who claim to be feminist to walk on a different path than the patriarchal society that rings the bell of all knowing. Feminist believe that each person is entitled to use their voice; a voice that has been silenced for many years. I think that Thompkins and Frey intended for their statement to be interpreted as women avoiding logic.''

You have wonderful insight, BUT, missing my point!!

I agree that the ideology of feminist theory is about equality, so why we all be able to write and think in a logical and critical fashion? Why is it that females should write one way and males another? Are you claiming that? that cause further division between males and females? What about argumentative writing? that what doing here? both expressing our views about a particular point, so, is it violent as expressed by Thompkins and Frey? All saying is that women have the ability to think logically and that I agree with those two theorists that women have to think in an all encompassing dynamic way to include emotions and feelings in everything they do! Look at Hillary Clinton, does she express emotions in her speeches or does she use logic? Do you truly believe that is a manifestation that evolved from men and belongs to men? I was actually giving women credit that was denied to them by Thompkins and Frey, not claiming that they must adapt.;+)~
to:

I understand where you are coming from with the idea that women can think logically and have the ability to write using logos and ethos without relying on pathos to establish their voice. However, I believe feminist theory avoids using intimidation to demonstrate their point. In the past white males used writing as a way to dominate race, class and gender forming a power structure that excluded those who were different. My interpretation of feminists like, Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey is that they are trying to divide themselves from the imperialistic behavior that exists within writing, and in our society. Feminist theory is about equality; they fight for equality by using pathos to show how individuals are dehumanized, striped of identity, and treated as the . It is the duty of women who claim to be feminist to walk on a different path than the patriarchal society that rings the bell of all knowing. Feminist believe that each person is entitled to use their voice; a voice that has been silenced for many years. I think that Thompkins and Frey intended for their statement to be interpreted as women avoiding logic. Women do use logic within rhetoric. As indicated by Frey and Thompkins, tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). The traditional pattern of logic excludes social roles and lived experiences which is what feminist theory is founded on. I think that Thompkins and Frey were saying that women use logic or that they , I think that their point was to avoid using traditional logic that excluded minorities.
----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed line 14 from:
I agree that the ideology of feminist theory is about equality, so why we all be able to write and think in a logical and critical fashion? Why is it that females should write one way and males another? Are you claiming that? that cause further division between males and females? What about argumentative writing? that what doing here? both expressing our views about a particular point, so, is it violent as expressed by Thompkins and Frey? All saying is that women have the ability to think logically and that I agree with those two theorists that women have to think in an all encompassing dynamic way to include emotions and feelings in everything they do! Look at Hillary Clinton, does she express emotions in her speeches or does she use logic? Do you truly believe that is a manifestation that evolved from men and belongs to men? I was actually giving women credit that was denied to them by Thompkins and Frey, not claiming that they must adapt.
to:
I agree that the ideology of feminist theory is about equality, so why we all be able to write and think in a logical and critical fashion? Why is it that females should write one way and males another? Are you claiming that? that cause further division between males and females? What about argumentative writing? that what doing here? both expressing our views about a particular point, so, is it violent as expressed by Thompkins and Frey? All saying is that women have the ability to think logically and that I agree with those two theorists that women have to think in an all encompassing dynamic way to include emotions and feelings in everything they do! Look at Hillary Clinton, does she express emotions in her speeches or does she use logic? Do you truly believe that is a manifestation that evolved from men and belongs to men? I was actually giving women credit that was denied to them by Thompkins and Frey, not claiming that they must adapt.;+)~
Changed lines 8-9 from:
Response to Melissa
to:
'''Response to Melissa''' HA!
Added lines 6-15:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Melissa

Melissa, You claimed that:
''Feminist theory is about equality; they fight for equality by using pathos to show how individuals are dehumanized, striped of identity, and treated as the . It is the duty of women who claim to be feminist to walk on a different path than the patriarchal society that rings the bell of all knowing. Feminist believe that each person is entitled to use their voice; a voice that has been silenced for many years. I think that Thompkins and Frey intended for their statement to be interpreted as women avoiding logic.''

You have wonderful insight, BUT, missing my point!!

I agree that the ideology of feminist theory is about equality, so why we all be able to write and think in a logical and critical fashion? Why is it that females should write one way and males another? Are you claiming that? that cause further division between males and females? What about argumentative writing? that what doing here? both expressing our views about a particular point, so, is it violent as expressed by Thompkins and Frey? All saying is that women have the ability to think logically and that I agree with those two theorists that women have to think in an all encompassing dynamic way to include emotions and feelings in everything they do! Look at Hillary Clinton, does she express emotions in her speeches or does she use logic? Do you truly believe that is a manifestation that evolved from men and belongs to men? I was actually giving women credit that was denied to them by Thompkins and Frey, not claiming that they must adapt.
Changed lines 1-5 from:
Should there be a difference of interpretation between sexes in writing? If so then there will always be a power struggle between the dominant and oppressed. It seems that Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey want to keep that divide alive and well by stating [writing] is a particularly masculine genre and as such either is agnostic, even violent, and thus be used by feminists, or, because it is based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). If I was a woman be offended by that comment. it seem as if saying women have no concept of linear reasoning? I always thought that feminism was about equality between the sexes, not a separation of intellectualism that would cause a duality of reasoning. What is the purpose of literary criticism? Is it to others down [] to survive in the academy?(122). Well if perpetuating masculine traits by arguing our scholarly claims than maybe we should stop our and just hold hands around a camp fire and sing happy songs! Is the idea of academic writing really to put each other down or is it designed for academics to contribute to an intelligent discussion? I understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but I understand how a professional scholar can tell people not to take part in academic arguments when she is arguing her own point. that contradictive in itself? all for rights, but wacked comments like the one previously mentioned that leads weenie roasters down the wrong path with false ideas of what equality is really about. Is it about exclusion and a complete revamping of academics or is it about creating equality between the sexes, synthesizing ideas, and developing harmony within disciplines? Some arguments should be saved for leftist relic newspapers while others should be expanded on, like Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing (122). I hope this stimulates some of you.
to:
Should there be a difference of interpretation between sexes in writing? If so then there will always be a power struggle between the dominant and oppressed. It seems that Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey want to keep that divide alive and well by stating [writing] is a particularly masculine genre and as such either is agnostic, even violent, and thus be used by feminists, or, because it is based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). If I was a woman be offended by that comment. it seem as if saying women have no concept of linear reasoning? I always thought that feminism was about equality between the sexes, not a separation of intellectualism that would cause a duality of reasoning. What is the purpose of literary criticism? Is it to others down [] to survive in the academy?(122). Well if perpetuating masculine traits by arguing our scholarly claims than maybe we should stop our and just hold hands around a camp fire and sing happy songs! Is the idea of academic writing really to put each other down or is it designed for academics to contribute to an intelligent discussion? I understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but I understand how a professional scholar can tell people not to take part in academic arguments when she is arguing her own point. that contradictive in itself? all for rights, but wacked comments like the one previously mentioned that leads weenie roasters down the wrong path with false ideas of what equality is really about. Is it about exclusion and a complete revamping of academics or is it about creating equality between the sexes, synthesizing ideas, and developing harmony within disciplines? Some arguments should be saved for leftist relic newspapers while others should be expanded on, like Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing (122). I hope this stimulates some of you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'''From Melissa R.'''
Charlie I understand where you are coming from with the idea that women can think logically and have the ability to write using logos and ethos without relying on pathos to establish their voice. However, I believe feminist theory avoids using intimidation to demonstrate their point. In the past white males used writing as a way to dominate race, class and gender forming a power structure that excluded those who were different. I believe feminists like, Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey are trying to divide themselves from the imperialist behavior that exists within writing, and in our society. Feminist theory is about equality; they fight for equality by using pathos to show how individuals are dehumanized, striped of identity, and treated as the . It is the duty of women who claim to be feminist to walk on a different path than the patriarchal society that rings the bell of all knowing. Feminist believe that each person is entitled to use their voice; a voice that has been silenced for many years. I think that Thompkins and Frey intended for their statement to be interpreted as women avoiding logic. As indicated by Frey and Thompkins, tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). The traditional pattern of logic excludes social roles and lived experiences which is what feminist theory is founded on. I hope this helps!
Changed line 1 from:
Should there be a difference of interpretation between sexes in writing? If so then there will always be a power struggle between the dominant and oppressed. It seems that Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey want to keep that divide alive and well by stating [writing] is a particularly masculine genre and as such either is agnostic, even violent, and thus be used by feminists, or, because it is based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). If I was a woman be offended by that comment. it seem as if saying women have no concept of linear reasoning? I always thought that feminism was about equality between the sexes, not a separation of intellectualism that would cause a duality of reasoning. What is the purpose of literary criticism? Is it to others down [] to survive in the academy.(122)? Well if perpetuating masculine traits by arguing our scholarly claims than maybe we should stop our and just hold hands around a camp fire! Is the idea of academic writing really to put each other down or to contribute to the discussion? I understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but I understand how a professional scholar can tell people not to take part in academic arguments when she is arguing her own point. that contradictive in itself? all for rights, but wacked comments like the one previously mentioned that leads weenie roasters down the wrong path with false ideas of what equality is really about. Is it about exclusion and a complete revamping of academics or is it about creating equality between the sexes, synthesizing ideas, and developing harmony within disciplines? Some arguments should be saved for leftist relic newspapers while others should be expanded on, like Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing (122). I hope this stimulates some of you.
to:
Should there be a difference of interpretation between sexes in writing? If so then there will always be a power struggle between the dominant and oppressed. It seems that Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey want to keep that divide alive and well by stating [writing] is a particularly masculine genre and as such either is agnostic, even violent, and thus be used by feminists, or, because it is based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). If I was a woman be offended by that comment. it seem as if saying women have no concept of linear reasoning? I always thought that feminism was about equality between the sexes, not a separation of intellectualism that would cause a duality of reasoning. What is the purpose of literary criticism? Is it to others down [] to survive in the academy?(122). Well if perpetuating masculine traits by arguing our scholarly claims than maybe we should stop our and just hold hands around a camp fire and sing happy songs! Is the idea of academic writing really to put each other down or is it designed for academics to contribute to an intelligent discussion? I understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but I understand how a professional scholar can tell people not to take part in academic arguments when she is arguing her own point. that contradictive in itself? all for rights, but wacked comments like the one previously mentioned that leads weenie roasters down the wrong path with false ideas of what equality is really about. Is it about exclusion and a complete revamping of academics or is it about creating equality between the sexes, synthesizing ideas, and developing harmony within disciplines? Some arguments should be saved for leftist relic newspapers while others should be expanded on, like Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing (122). I hope this stimulates some of you.
Added line 1:
Should there be a difference of interpretation between sexes in writing? If so then there will always be a power struggle between the dominant and oppressed. It seems that Jane Thompkins and Olivia Frey want to keep that divide alive and well by stating [writing] is a particularly masculine genre and as such either is agnostic, even violent, and thus be used by feminists, or, because it is based in a masculine tradition of logic and linear reasoning, does not allow for the expression of experiences and ways of making sense of the (122). If I was a woman be offended by that comment. it seem as if saying women have no concept of linear reasoning? I always thought that feminism was about equality between the sexes, not a separation of intellectualism that would cause a duality of reasoning. What is the purpose of literary criticism? Is it to others down [] to survive in the academy.(122)? Well if perpetuating masculine traits by arguing our scholarly claims than maybe we should stop our and just hold hands around a camp fire! Is the idea of academic writing really to put each other down or to contribute to the discussion? I understand the inequalities that exist between the sexes, but I understand how a professional scholar can tell people not to take part in academic arguments when she is arguing her own point. that contradictive in itself? all for rights, but wacked comments like the one previously mentioned that leads weenie roasters down the wrong path with false ideas of what equality is really about. Is it about exclusion and a complete revamping of academics or is it about creating equality between the sexes, synthesizing ideas, and developing harmony within disciplines? Some arguments should be saved for leftist relic newspapers while others should be expanded on, like Lillian Bridwell- Bowles diverse styles into writing (122). I hope this stimulates some of you.