Post by swalker on Mar 24, 2016 18:56:11 GMT
Susanna Paasonen (2011) maps out a historical-conceptual framework of cyber-feminism in an effort to better understand its uses for feminisms in the 21st century. Beginning with Haraway and expanding out into three broad interpretations of cyber-feminism, Paasonen explores cyber-feminism from a grounded perspective of those who are using the framework for activism or scholarly resources. She argues that one of the benefits of cyber-feminism is its resistance to a fixed or rigid definition. Do you agree? As a rhetorical scholar, I am accustomed to understanding multiplicitous meanings and definitions for terms and concepts, but it seems that if anything which interacts with or explores technology and women can be considered cyber-feminism that it would suffer from the same defining difficulties associated with standpoint epistemologies - Namely, that they become difficult to use effectively. Can so versatile a concept continue to evade cooption by a dominant paradigm, and if so, how does that evasion lead to progress on the behalf of activists searching to use it?