I think the answer to this issue is as simple and as complex as
the acknowledgment that CONSTRUCTS BOTH *DESCRIPTIVE* AND
*PREDICTIVE*.
This in relation to the Feminism (route to liberation or excuse for just
another serve of the same) debate is that literal interpretations of such
notions encourage us to reduce our understanding of feminism to guide lines
for prescriptive practice and preemptive role definition.
We need to look upon the experience of being male and female in this
culture from a position of transcendence. We need to think as if such
notions did not exist. How wonderful a place this world might be if we
were as we would like to be. Look upon the world credulously.
The problem for me seems to be that others (culture) supports preemptive
definitions of gender and that such definitions determine access to
resources (ie: concretise implications of personal constructs). So the
way forward is a multi-leveled approach which loosens personal,
socio-political notions of what it means (inclusive of all their
implications) to be a man or a woman. Recognise these labels as
themselves personal and social fictions. As ways of making sense of the
world which have a LIMITED RANGE OF CONVENIENCE.
Well just a few ideas.
malcolm (c. cross)
ssorc c mloclam malcolm c cross
ygolohcysp fo tnemtraped department of psychology
ytisrevinu ytic city university
erauqs notpmahtron northampton square
ku bho v1ce nodnol london ec1v ohb uk
1414 026 1710 :enohpelet telephone: 0171 620 4141
0958 774 1710 :elimiscaf facsimile: 0171 477 8590
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%