A brief evaluation of the Feminist epistemological and methodological perspectives.

Reasons to disagree with the Feminist epistemological and methodological perspectives! According to Liz Stanley and Sue Wise: the first feminism research was defined as a focus on women, a research carried out by women who were feminist, for other women. The way I think about it, on the one hand this was a pioneer feature which aimed to lead the way to new methods of studies, but on the other hand it automatically excluded all the male human beings from its platform (since it was carried out from women for women). Secondly there was a division in male quantitative methods and female qualitative ones, which I consider as a big generalisation with no evidences to proof so. Additionally as Caroline Ramazanoglu highlights feminist research can also use a range of quantitative and other techniques and the fact that they use qualitative techniques doesnt mean that others cannot use them. Last but not least the feminist research was considered to have political purposes and was committed to change womens lives. Once again I find that the feminist way of research by addressing to women only was excluding a large male public and at the same time risked to be isolated. Additionally by promising to change womens lives the feminist research put at the stake a whole new theory which it was struggling to establish because if something went wrong and supposedly speaking feminist research failed to keep its promise then it would be exposed to all the female public which expected something from it and it would lose its credibility. For the reason that as Ramazanoglu notes, feminist knowledge of womens lives cannot be assumed or generalized without qualification and empirical investigation. So we can clearly see that the feminist social science didnt have any theory to hold on to, or any applied method, by contrast to relying on over-generalised categories such as women, gender and structure. (Women, gender and structure) are words open to more than one interpretation especially in our era. So we have a science emerging which by choice excludes all male human beings from the beginning and in parallel it depends its writing (which I consider as the medium to approach the public) on ambiguities.

This whole new thing: the feminist epistemological and methodological perspectives, I understand that they have a purpose, to fight against womens oppression, demand more rights for women, and give them a voice in order to be heard. If thats so, then why not to try and make an alliance with the male stream and try profit out of this alliance. But this would take a long time to happen since some radical feminists such as Gloria Allred and Mary Daly argue that human society would be better off with dramatically fewer men. Of course there are also dissidents, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia, who identify themselves as feminists but who accuse the movement of anti-male prejudice. The lack of mutual respect between people who support different feminisms results to the rejection of feminist theories by feminists themselves (feminist postmodernism epistemology rejects all grand narratives including feminist grand theory explanations of womens condition and oppression). More over we must not forget that there are exclusively male organizations sympathetic to the feminist view, who believe that the dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women and limiting for men. This indicates that there is the possibility of coexistence and is the absolutism of feminist research that closes every door of cooperation. Besides, criticism of feminism as a whole ideology, criticism of specific types of feminism and criticism of specific feminist ideas have come from non-feminists, social conservatives, and social progressives but also from feminists themselves. People who support masculinism argue that because of both traditional gender roles and sexism infused into society by feminists, males are and have been oppressed. The most important fact that needs to be analyzed in my opinion is the term epistemology which means the theory of knowledge. And that makes me wonder which knowledge the feminist research supports and represents if they are dichotomized between inductivism and deductivism. On the one hand inductivism specifies a model of research in which theory is derived from research experience

and is often referred to as a grounded theory and on the other hand, deductivism treats experience as a test of previously specified theoretical hypotheses; and so within it theory procedes both experience and research and this latter two are in a sense predicated upon theory. Two totally opposite models which at the same time are the only models that feminist research applies. So when Marilyn Frye points out that feminist methodology is separatism, by this, she means that separatism is a woman-identified feature. And this is how a new question arises: how is it possible for a movement that appeared, disappeared and reappeared in various forms of waves to produce and establish an epistemology or a methodology, especially if the movement its self is self-destructive? Clegg points out that feminists within sociology have variously denied the existence of feminist methodology and that those who promoted it, hijacked feminism within the discipline. Moreover according to Caroline Ramazanoglu since feminism possess more than one moral or political position, claims for a distinctive feminist methodology have always been debated and contested by feminists. I dont deny the existence of a feminist methodology, in other words the existence of a broad theoretically informed framework. But I refuse to believe in the existence of a feminist epistemology. Why should we consider feminist research, methodology or epistemology if this even exists, special or unique?