Thursday, June 5, 2008
Reinforcing a social construction?
I'm uneasy with Grimm's use of the social construction of femininity in explaining how writing centers are juxtaposed with the paternity of the academic institution (beginning on 82). It's not so much that I don't think it fits as it is that she doesn't question the social construction of what is means to be feminine in her use of it. Doesn't this fly in the face of what she is purporting? Later in the same chapter she unpacks and questions the use of community as a metaphor for the WC. A note at the end of the chapter that highlights others who've examined the feminization of the WC just isn't enough consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That is an interesting question. It appears to me that this passage takes for granted the unreliability of the social construction of femininity. Grimm assertion that “Writing centers are marked by the same traditional notions of what women provide” undermines the stability of such notions by locating them within tradition—and read in this way this undermining of femininity prepares the reader to be suspicious of the traditional notions that mark writing centers. That she goes on to undermine “a value-free, culturally neutral notion of literacy” rather than “a value, culturally neutral notion of femininity” simply reflects the focus of the book.
What I get annoyed with in general is the idea that a nurturing aspect of anything signifies weakness on the part of the nurturers. Nurturing is what strengthens and allows the vulnerable and weak to survive and thrive.
Post a Comment