Suchergebnisse

Can there be such a thing as feminist pornography? Many still say no. Echoing decades of anti-pornography feminist literature, Gail Dines told the Daily Beast in 2012 that "anyone willing to feed off women's bodies and use them as raw materials to make a profit has no right to call themselves feminists." But many feminists, including those who make porn, disagree. Despite decades of efforts to suppress it, porn is reaching larger audiences than ever. Making porn more politically progressive for those who consume it and making sets safer for performers are critical issues for feminist intervention—and feminist pornographers have chosen to take on both.

À quoi peut ressembler une histoire de la sexualité lorsqu'on n'a pas de certitude sur les identités sexuelles en jeu ni de preuves que des actes sexuels aient effectivement eu lieu ? Et comment une analyse des ragots, des rumeurs, voire des mensonges, à propos de la sexualité, peut-elle servir à l'écriture de l'histoire politique ? Telles sont les questions méthodologiques et épistémologiques qu'aborde cet article, véritable manifeste pour une histoire queer de la vie politique américaine. À partir des rumeurs colportées sur la vie privée de John Edgar Hoover, il interpelle les historien.nes politiques sur les usages et non-usages des ragots en politique et sur ce qu'ils nous apprennent des représentations de la sexualité à un moment donné de l'histoire américaine. Dans un second temps, à partir des travaux classiques sur l'histoire du FBI, l'article s'efforce de définir ce que pourrait être une histoire qui s'affranchit des catégories de genre, et adopte sur son objet une approche queer . Cet article publié dans la section « méthodologie » du Journal of History of Sexuality en 2006 a été récompensé par le prix Audre Lord du meilleur article par le Committee on Lesbian and Gay History , l'un des comités de l' American Historical Association .

"For years, we were promised the Internet would make our politics more open and inclusive. And its influence has certainly been decisive: the 2016 election was debated, won, and lost on social media and the Internet. But with Facebook and Twitter embroiled in controversy over privacy issues, ongoing revelations about foreign interference through hacking and social media trolls, and coverage of controversial viral videos monopolizing the attention of the press, it's increasingly unclear whether the Internet is a benign public arena, let alone one for the public good. In Political Junkies, historian Claire Potter explains how we got here by situating today's online politics in a much longer history of new media technologies repurposed for political purposes, including independent newsletters, talk radio, direct mail, and cable television. Beginning in the 1950s, pioneers across the political spectrum, from I.F. Stone to Phyllis Schlafly, used these tools to create increasingly influential political media that were entrepreneurial, alarming, and sharply partisan. Simultaneously, traditional media outlets embraced the same technologies and expanded their ideas about what counted as political news. Cheap and free digital tools introduced in the 1990s simply further sped transformations already under way: email became an inexpensive form of direct mail, blogging updated the political newsletter for a wider audience, and YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter ads displaced vintage campaign commercials. The results were evident in the insurgent presidential campaigns of John McCain and Howard Dean, the hashtag activism of the early 2010s, and of course, the rise of Donald Trump. The Internet and social media made the populist insurgency of 2016 possible, but so too did a far longer transformation in our political media. In today's online world, political engagement has never been greater, but trust in political institutions and processes has never been more fragile. To understand why, Potter argues, we must avoid the shock of the present and look to history. For anyone lost in the online wilderness or the thread of some political argument, Political Junkies is essential reading for understanding how the Internet became the defining feature of 21st century politics"--

Rather than making the next generation of history Ph.D.'s redundant or contingent laborers, digital technologies and the Internet have the potential to revive full time teaching. Although Digital Humanities is growing rapidly as a field, few history departments have tapped into the power of its pedagogy to teach critical thinking and research skills. Focused on making, rather than banking, knowledge, DH emphasizes flexibility and originality. Furthermore, by giving historians the technical and design skills to work outside the academy, it not only produces a new source of employment but would force universities to compete for historians just as they do for lawyers, economists and scientists.

What does the history of sex look like without evidence of sexual identities or proof that sex acts occurred? And how might an analysis of gossip, rumors, and perhaps even lies about sex help us to write political history? These are the methodological and epistemological issues addressed by Claire Potter in this text, a real manifesto for a queer approach of American Political History. Based on the analysis of rumors spread about John Edgar Hoover's private life, Claire Potter challenges historians on the use and the non-use of gossip for academic search and on what they could teach us about the representations of sexuality in American history. In the second part, she questions the classic FBI's history, on what could be an history that overcomes the gender categories and adopts a queer approach on the subject. This article was published in the methodology section of the Journal of History of Sexuality in 2006. It was awarded the Audre Lord Best Paper Award by the Committee on Lesbian and Gay History, one of the committees of the American Historical Association. Adapted from the source document.

More than a tool for global networking and intellectual exchange, digital technology has transformed the most basic terms of feminist scholarship: reading, writing, archival research, and publication itself. This article addresses how the Internet and the emerging field of digital humanities has fulfilled some of the larger aspirations of feminist scholarship as they were articulated at the dawn of the twenty-first century. When we move online, however, scholars engaged with history and new media identify new questions that require feminist attention. Among them are the digital divide between universities and their publics; transnational linguistic barriers; the uncertain future of journals within an altered reading and publishing environment; and the gendered history of digital technology itself.