Talk:Feminist Book Club for Men

From Noisebridge
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/
 
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/
  
If that is unwelcome discourse. I think the epistemological underpinnings "Feminist Book Club for Men," have already set my critical eyes on a what I think will become a larger attempt to avoid those to listen form essentializing. Then, you'd bring butler into the equation and it could get messy.
+
If that is unwelcome discourse. I think the epistemological underpinnings "Feminist Book Club for Men," have already set my critical eyes on a what I think will become a larger attempt to avoid--default essentialism. Then, you'd have bring butler into the equation and it could get messy.
  
 
Or we could springboard the hacking of our bodies, environment, tools and fire and redirect the question about not misogyny, but a question of who is allowed to speak, why? What is appropriate to do with one's body and mind and why? Why is it that we functionally police each other  just for the very fact we are.
 
Or we could springboard the hacking of our bodies, environment, tools and fire and redirect the question about not misogyny, but a question of who is allowed to speak, why? What is appropriate to do with one's body and mind and why? Why is it that we functionally police each other  just for the very fact we are.

Revision as of 09:25, 5 December 2013

After the introduction, I'd like to have a discussion about this.

Beyond the general discourse, to say feminism is for everyone, this provides a radical intersectionality and functionally describes the organism of the space.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/

If that is unwelcome discourse. I think the epistemological underpinnings "Feminist Book Club for Men," have already set my critical eyes on a what I think will become a larger attempt to avoid--default essentialism. Then, you'd have bring butler into the equation and it could get messy.

Or we could springboard the hacking of our bodies, environment, tools and fire and redirect the question about not misogyny, but a question of who is allowed to speak, why? What is appropriate to do with one's body and mind and why? Why is it that we functionally police each other just for the very fact we are.

Questions of ontology or being. A border question vacuous to any genology of our body parts.


I'd like to have this kind of discussion.


But, I know there is a significant gender disparity in the tech industry. However, the root cause is pedagogical. The functional creation of how we become to learn from an early age. It's only those few with great courage that escape it.

But again, it's a structural pedagogical issue.

Here is where the disparity happens: Feminist Reading on Paulo Freire: Freire’s Pedagogy as Feminist Pedagogy http://www.academia.edu/1546981/Feminist_Reading_on_Paulo_Freire_Freires_Pedagogy_as_Feminist_Pedagogy



Please exclude my grammar.

Personal tools