Recently in 6: Feminist Science (Oct 11/13/15) Category

I am part of the cosmetic industries group but one of our articles is so very relavent this week. The piece I am referring to is a chapter in Stacy Malkan's Not Just a Pretty Face called "Beauty Myth Busters." You can read this chapter by going to the Cosmetic Industries link at the course site. In this chapter, Malkan brings up the fact that Asian women are lightening their complexions with SK II products. These products contain very toxic chemicals and make the skin peel and thin dramatically. But Asian women are putting themselves through this just to have temporarily lighter colored faces. The chemicals in these products are actually banned. They are chromium and neodymium which cause exzema and allergic dermatitis. There was a large controversy about the safety of these products and they were taken off the shelves. But after Proctor & Gamble, who produce the products, defended the products in saying that low doses should not hurt consumers, the products were for sale again.

It is crazy to me that the Snow Brown story we read could be so remarkably close to reality. These Asian women are applying generous amounts of toxic chemicals to their faces in order to fit into the Western picture of beauty. They feel that they will be more beautiful, perfect, and desirable with lighter, more caucasian, looking skin. How sad that they feel this way, just as Snow Brown did. How does this type of global brain washing happen? How can the fashion and cosmetic industries of Western society have so much power over the world?

While dissecting (please note my careful word choice) Haraway's piece this past week on my own and in lecture, a simple thought occurred to me: is the author's writing style effective? Does it do Donna J. Haraway or her cause any good to utilize such verbosity in "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective"? Case in point:

"Of course, a special interest group is, by Reaganoid definition, any collective historical subject which dares to resist the stripped-down atomism of Star Wars, hyper-market, postermodern, media-stimulated citizenship."

This sentence, among many others, struck me as odd--it should already be apparent to anyone selecting a piece by Haraway that she is fighting an up-hill battle in many respects; if that is indeed the case, why wouldn't she want her argument to be as clear as possible? One could argue that phrases like "atomism of Star Wars" only serve to take the reader farther away from the main message the author is attempting to convey.

On the other hand, there is much to discern from just a single sentence in Haraway's piece--as mentioned, the phrase "Reaganoid definition" is a throwback to the era of our 40th president when the collective term "special interest group" had a rather negative connotation fixed to it.

Alas, I present my case and leave it up to fellow writers to decide the verdict: Is "Situated Knowledges" deliciously dense or hopelessly confusing, and how does Haraway's writing style impact the effectiveness of her argument?

^I lol'ed.

I found this Radiolab podcast and thought in someways it pertains to the story about Snow Brown and the Seven Detergents. Her race was one of the things she needed to erase. Furthermore, everything that was "wrong" about her are things that are like race--things that are not apparent or there until it is seen/noticed. There are other podcasts dealing with race by Radiolab too. One asks if race even exists/matters. This podcast I have as the link, "Can You See Race?" explores the importance of race in some cultures and how in other cultures it is less of a problem. The study in the beginning seems to me that our American culture is starting to move farther and farther away from race and being able to recognize race. I think this is a good thing. However, the story about Ali is very gripping and it is frightening to learn that such violence still exists. It makes me wonder where such violence and clashes come from pertaining to race. Why is race such an issue for some people? Why is gender? Is it all rooting from the fear of the "other"/(physical differences amongst people)? Or is there perhaps some deeper underlying reason that some people don't like people of other cultures?

i found this article about women scientists having a family. It compares a lab setting to being its own business and when a employee is gone for even a day it would suffer drastically. It is because of this that they are discriminating agains hiring women with children. the thought process behind this is that women with children are going to need to take more time of based on family related events. the flaw in this argument however is that men with children were still offered tenure type jobs over women with the same family situations. This kind of reminded me of the story of snow brown because in the story they were trying to make snow brown just like the typical white man scientist and when she finally became like them she still wasn't considered good enough. In this article even though man and women have the same family situations the men are still given priority.

This week in class, we touched upon the ideas of standpoint theory and how one's social location/context leads to one's knowledges and experiences. In Sandra Harding's article, she mentions how all viewpoints should come from a dialectic, logical, and controversial point of view. Yet, even with all of this, we, as a society, are never able to defeat the standards society has set for us for hundreds of years. It's mind boggling.

Then, I stumbled across an article that looks at this issue of a fair dialectic, but through a different lens of comparison. This article speculates about how and why different two vastly popular hip hop/R&B artists' origins make their media standing so completely different. Alicia Keys and Fantasia Barrino were both in relationships with married men, yet only Fantasia was blasted for it, while Alicia Keys sailed under the radar and did not really receive any sort of criticism. The article can be read here.

After reading this, it's clear to see that while the same morals stand in today's society (such as how adultery is viewed), how we view each situation is different. We are able to see that situated knowledge has already begun to take effect in some places of the world (such as the media), yet we are still unable to define the reasons behind why each dialectic is different, even if the situation is the same. So I wonder, how far do you all believe society has come in moving away from the "subject -> study -> object = objective truth" equation and towards a "subject -> dialogue -> subjects = strong objectivity" equation? How far have we come, and how much more can we do to try and approach each subject with the same vision as others?

I am a caucasion female that grew up in a very white suburban neighborhood in Wisconsin. I am an avid movie watcher and I saw this movie trailer of a movie called, "For Colored Girls" that I normally wouldn't see, but after our last week of class, it intrigued me. I have not seen it, it does not come out until November (movie review?), but I plan on it. In Haraway's "Situated Knowleges" article, she discusses what she thinks the phrase situated knowledges means. Basically she describes that Vision is prioritized as the ultimate sense because what you see constitutes how you feel and react to it. She says we need to see flaws in our own arguments and be more aware. I'm more aware that normally, I would have no interest in this movie. But I'm sure the women in this movie feel very similar to the Sneha in Banu Subramaniam's story, "Snow Brown and the Seven Detergents." I often feel like if I don't see what "colored girls" deal with. I'd have a hard time feeling what feel because I really don't SEE it around me. I hope that this movie helps others feel what these women feel. Does anyone know of any other movies that maybe relate to "situated Knowledges"? I love movies!

After reading "Snow Brown and the Seven Detergents" I immediately related it to an episode I saw of Jessica Simpson's old show "Price of beauty" that only aired for one season last. The very first episode took place in Thailand and Simpson met up with a woman that listened to the pressures of society and is suffering because of it. This is the link.

You have to fast forward to eight minutes in order to get to the part I am talking about. The quality of the picture is terrible but the most important part is the story.
I think this story fits perfectly with "Snow Brown and the Seven Detergents." The situations may be different but the reality for women is the same. No matter which field women are in there is always pressure for them to change something in order for them to get ahead.

I was also able to relate this to my ethics paper and presentation which is about the cosmetic industries. I read this article that gives an in depth look at the demand for plastic surgery. Many reasons for plastic surgery are for women to get ahead in their area of work. What I want to know is why there is such ridiculous ideals that women need to fit in order to be considered beautiful? Why do we need to look a certain way if we want to be successful? Do men face the same pressures as women do in their area of work?

After the New York Times, The Onion's website is my second-most frequented news site. And while I don't expect to get the most accurate news per se, I find there is always something to learn from their articles. I found this gem today while perusing the site, and it made me think of Banu Subramanium, Sandra Harding, and of course, Donna Haraway and her "Situated Knowledges." The article details how a group of only a couple dozen historians and archaeologists essentially made-up Ancient Greece, and all that came out of it, in an attempt to explain things like where democracy came from, the beginnings of astronomy, etc.... While history isn't exactly "hard" science, it is certainly about facts, and I think the article can be pretty easily imagined as having been written about biology or physics. Imagine an article about a group of scientists who basically made-up how a sperm and egg came together to create an embryo. The historians in the article who "fabricated Ancient Greece" were creating a history to line up with society today. They were, in an extreme case, telling history in a way that fit the way that we see the world today. Just as, in a past week's reading, we read about how the egg and the sperm's roles in reproduction were told to society in a way that fit traditional and stereotypical gender roles. But what this Onion article does, just as feminist science does, is reminds us to question where things come from. While an entire ancient civilization being made-up by less than thirty individuals is pretty far-fetched, what is not far-fetched is that often what is considered "common knowledge" comes from a pretty homogenous group of people, with a pretty homogenous view of the world, and perhaps pretty homogenous goals in life. While Ancient Greece was certainly not fabricated, the article reminds us (whether intentionally or not) to ask where we get our information about Ancient Greece? about human fertilization? about parasitism and competition among species? We've been discussing situated knowledge much with the "hard" sciences as our back drop, our site for dissection and questioning, and even I tried to replace history in this Onion article with biology, but I do wonder now, and this is the question I'm posing to readers, is it fair to use Haraway's theory of situated knowledges when looking at history and archaeology? Psychology and sociology? Perhaps even the really "unscientific" disciplines like literature? Perhaps it's helpful, but not altogether exactly translatable?

In "Situated Knowledges", Donna Harraway describes her desire to unite and practice concurrently "an account of radical historical contingency for all knowledge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own 'semiotic technologies for making meanings, and a no-nonsense commitment to faithful accounts of a 'real' world" (187). This "paradoxical and dangerous" ambition leads her to call for a shift in metaphors. She challenges one to no longer adhere to the dichotomy between traditional science and social constructionism, but to instead to create a picture of the whole " 'real' world" by connecting 'situated knowledges'. Thus one is no longer claiming that his or her perspective is objective coming from nowhere or better because of his or her subjugated standpoint. Everyone brings vital portals to the picture and in working together and being open to seeing through different lenses one is closer to seeing the whole picture.

This metaphor of vision has a trace in flash mob dances. Specifically, the T-mobile commercial demonstrates a unison, which crosses ethnic, gender, age, sex, class, etc. distinctions. Not only are the dancers diverse, but their entrance into the dance is different and even the music changes genres.

Another representation of vision can be seen in Mike Posner's video "Cooler than Me". He goes around a party, literately trying on different lens and perspectives. Each perspective shows a different aspect of the "reality" that is taking place. Interestingly, he has to take off his glasses to be able to see through other's perspectives. Thus one has to be willing to put aside parts of their subjectivity to see differently.

Neither are perfect, both limit their subjects to either dancers or glasses wearers. In the flash mob, no one is technically presenting a different view, all are dancing the same dance. In Posner's video, no one is working together to make a better picture. In fact he is met with hostility for using their lens.

Which "vision" portrayal is more accurate of Haraway's metaphor?

In "Situated Knowledges", Donna Harraway describes her desire to unite and practice concurrently "an account of radical historical contingency for all knowledge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own 'semiotic technologies for making meanings, and a no-nonsense commitment to faithful accounts of a 'real' world" (187). This "paradoxical and dangerous" ambition leads her to call for a shift in metaphors. She challenges one to no longer adhere to the dichotomy between traditional science and social constructionism, but to instead to create a picture of the whole " 'real' world" by connecting 'situated knowledges'. Thus one is no longer claiming that his or her perspective is objective coming from nowhere or better because of his or her subjugated standpoint. Everyone brings vital portals to the picture and in working together and being open to seeing through different lenses one is closer to seeing the whole picture.

This metaphor of vision has a trace in flash mob dances. Specifically, the T-mobile commercial demonstrates a unison, which crosses ethnic, gender, age, sex, class, etc. distinctions. Not only are the dancers diverse, but their entrance into the dance is different and even the music changes genres.

Another representation of vision can be seen in Mike Posner's video "Cooler than Me". He goes around a party, literately trying on different lens and perspectives. Each perspective shows a different aspect of the "reality" that is taking place. Interestingly, he has to take off his glasses to be able to see through other's perspectives. Thus one has to be willing to put aside parts of their subjectivity to see differently.

Neither are perfect, both limit their subjects to either dancers or glasses wearers. In the flash mob, no one is techiniqally presenting a different view, all are dancing the same dance. In Posner's video, no one is working together to make a better picture. In fact he is met with hostility for using their lens.

Which "vision" portrayal is more accurate of Haraway's metaphor?