ABSTRACT
PS: Why not, do you know? Is there a theoretical reason? AJ: Yes, I’d have trouble saying what we mean by all three terms:
“men,” “in,” “feminism.” It would be that basic. For me, right now, I’m not post-feminist in any measure, but I do feel the urgent thing is to think through what we know from feminism and make that part of a larger interrogation-though it is important to avoid the male leftist thing of saying: now let’s move along to the bigger issues. It’s just about not always focussing on questions
like “French feminist theory” or “men and…,” or “woman and….” It’s more about changing the object of study. For example, I’m working now on machines, and people often don’t see the connections, but it has…it’s all interconnected. I would never have thought to put feminism and men or women or anything else at the center. But that’s also one of my limitationsI’m not always capable of thinking through those nitty-gritty things. I tend to do it on a personal, intersubjective level, pretheoretically, whatever that means.
