I would agree. Look at Judith Butler, her studies of gender have shown how
it is a social construction. This however wouldn't discount that there is a
socially constructed gaze. A feminist may claim that it is intrinsic and
due to certain traits, that analysis would more than likely be refuted with
a Foudauldian lens, but the fact that there is gaze, would not.
I think?
andrew culp
----- Original Message -----
From: <Karpeeka@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Drug Gaze
> In a message dated 7/2/03 7:25:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> > I have noticed that
> > feminists have extended that idea to male gaze. Chris Weedon (1987, p.
23)
> > is a Feminist who suggests that paternalistic society has supressed
feminine
> >
> > aspects of humanity through something that could be described as a
> > Foucauldian gaze.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, I know very little about feminism, but doesn't
this
> sort of imply that there are innate 'female' and 'male' human natures, and
> that society is allowing one to suppress the other? I mean, wouldn't
Foucault say
> that masculine and feminine aspects have been constructed by society? I
have
> a feeling that there is some connection with the 'repressive hypothesis.'
What
> exactly do feminists say is being supressed/repressed, and where exactly
is
> this supposed to come from? It doesn't sound very Foucauldian to me, but
again,
> please educate me w/r/t feminism.
>
> jph
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
it is a social construction. This however wouldn't discount that there is a
socially constructed gaze. A feminist may claim that it is intrinsic and
due to certain traits, that analysis would more than likely be refuted with
a Foudauldian lens, but the fact that there is gaze, would not.
I think?
andrew culp
----- Original Message -----
From: <Karpeeka@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Drug Gaze
> In a message dated 7/2/03 7:25:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> > I have noticed that
> > feminists have extended that idea to male gaze. Chris Weedon (1987, p.
23)
> > is a Feminist who suggests that paternalistic society has supressed
feminine
> >
> > aspects of humanity through something that could be described as a
> > Foucauldian gaze.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, I know very little about feminism, but doesn't
this
> sort of imply that there are innate 'female' and 'male' human natures, and
> that society is allowing one to suppress the other? I mean, wouldn't
Foucault say
> that masculine and feminine aspects have been constructed by society? I
have
> a feeling that there is some connection with the 'repressive hypothesis.'
What
> exactly do feminists say is being supressed/repressed, and where exactly
is
> this supposed to come from? It doesn't sound very Foucauldian to me, but
again,
> please educate me w/r/t feminism.
>
> jph
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>