Assignment 1: Two Summary Notecards
Allen, L. (2010). Queer(y)ing the Straight Researcher: The Relationship(?) between researcher Identity and Anti-Normative: Feminism & Psychology, 20 (2), 147-165
The aim of this article (Allen, 2010) is to determine the relationship between the identity of researcher and his knowledge. The focus is on the researchers, who are identified as straight. The researcher has given attention to epistemological concern. The aim is to determine the relationship between heterosexual identity and heteronormativity. It is heteronormativity, which affects the heteronormative knowledge.
Allen (2010) has considered different theories proposed by famous theorists. When the identity is considered as contingent, it becomes more difficult to establish the relationship with knowledge. Allen (2010) has argued that sexual identity does not play any role in the production and determination of anti-normative knowledge. Due to ...view middle of the document...
The discussion also addresses the relation of knowledge to identity, and its relevance to social scientists. The problem of ‘straight’ theorists in scholarship is structured based on their right in the field and their contribution. Author has also included the insight of Schechter and Thomas text.
Weisstein, N. (1993). Psychology constructs the female; or, The fantasy life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Feminism & Psychology, 3(2), 195-210.
Psychologists tried to define women’s behaviors by considering their inner traits, such as physical characters, personality, clinical and psychiatrists, which led to failure. Weisstein (1993) suggests instead of focusing on human’s inner traits, psychologists should have been looking for the influence of social context.
Clinicians and psychiatrists state their theories based on their clinical experience, they do not have empirical evidences, their theories have not been tested and confirmed. Psychiatrists are more interesting in the treatment procedures, rather then their consequence. Therefore, theories that clinicians provided failed to explain women’s behavior. Social context is better at explaining women’s behavior,. Researchers concluded that human are strongly influenced by their environment. They do what the society expects them to do. The society can define women, and tell them what to do and how to act, which if we understand the social context, we are able to understand the behavior of women. Even through male and female differ in their sex chromosomes, researchers are not sure if sex genes are related with behavior. Moreover, many non-human primates have variety sex-role behavior. Hermaphrodites have unclear genitalia, but they define themselves based on their gender identity, which it has nothing to do with their sex characteristics.
In conclude, women’s social condition shapes their behavior, and the society expectation decides the social condition. However, researchers refused to look at those evidences, such as social context perspective, which this limit the discovery on understanding women’s behavior.