User talk:Jjdani15/sandbox

Implications of Political Commitment One of the major problems that can arise is anthropologists often fail to provide what many feminist scholars are looking for in their work; the evidence of links and similarities through which to develop a politics of solidarity and connection. From the feminist perspective, the political implications of moral relativism are potentially reactionary, as they preclude the definition of either oppression or liberation. Another aspect in this field is the reproduction politics. It is an area of contemporary convergence between feminism and anthropology, the body, and the concept of embodiment. The reason for the shift in focus is the relationship between gender and sex. Bodies often contain both female and male substances. Men and women are distinguished by their genital classes, the gender of these men and women depends on their bodily state in relation to the gendered substance, and is more related to age and reproductive history. Anthropologist and Feminist Scholars have started to integrate the complex notion of the subject at the center of social theories. The reason it is so complex is that we are talking about a notion of subjectivity which means we are moving away from what can be appropriately called the objective truth. This new idea of complex subjectivity is relational and these relations can provide the possibilities for similarities and differences to emerge. What we are calling for here is a blurring of lines between who is included and who is excluded from particular gender territories. </ref

Feedback on draft
Jordan: This looks great. As you revise, make sure that your second citation's formatting is correct. For some reason it is not showing up like the citations should. Also, instead of writing "we" in the second part, give the author(s) names instead. That will make it more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrzycki (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jordan: I think this draft is good. You explain everything and its interesting. In the second article you add we which I agree instead try adding the name of the authors or when it says it is so complex is that we, instead of we you can add the names of the author or can say it is talking about... other than that the draft is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvgarz16 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)