Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & latinas

[Pete E]

Jim talked about liberal media hit pieces.We have seen some real hack jobs and sensationalism.
But after talking to Felicity Grabiel on her book about gringos seeking latinas for over a year I really expect a fair and balenced report out of her.
She has a PHD in American studies and is working on this project for the University of California at Santa Cruz.That really raised my concerns about political correctness and feminism but we talked about that and I think she is much more balenced.Even to the point of trying to understand the nuch maligned Colombian male.
Felicity will be in Cali June 22 to June 30.She will attened the TLC party,she has been to one in mexico already.She does speak spanish.
She followed my whole story,then followed up with alot more Questions.She asked if I thought my ex would talk to her.I said good luck,she is a very private person.But Rocio loved her and Felicity is even staying with Rocio's family when she comes here.
Jesse who is staying with me had a 3 hour interviiew with her when he was in California.Everybody really likes this woman.I expect the best out of her.
I will give her a list of people I think she shouild talk to while in Cali.She will have liminted time.I think this whole Latina deal is very interesting and love talking about it,as you guys know.
Felicity's E Mail is scha0560@umn.edu

Pete

[Hamlet]

... in response to Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & l..., posted by Pete E on Jun 17, 2005

If this woman will do the grueling work needed to compile the current dearth of statistics in this area and use those statistics properly as a foundation for her research, it is fair to say she will be doing the world a favor by making us all more educated.***

If, however, she will be meeting Pete, his ex, and others to compile anecdotal evidence, she can write a book condemning this social phenomenon or praising it and find plenty of evidence to support either position.  If the focus of her background is as others have reported it here, it is unlikely she will posit the latter.

***Provided she keeps in mind Mark Twain's quote: "There are three kinds of lies.  Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Hamlet

[Pete E]

... in response to Statistics, statistics, statistics, posted by Hamlet on Jun 19, 2005

And research might not even be the right word.I think she is looking at why people are doing this,motivation,and that could never come out of statistics.Anecedotal evidence as you call it might be exactly what she is looking for.
She is writing a book.That goes  beyond acedemic report I think.A book would seem to infer something that might have appeal outside of acedemic circles.Which if she does a good job on it I hope it does.This is a facinating story I think.Too bad its just been hit pieces so far.Hopefully she doesn't have to direct it at fellow acedemic types but can write it in  a way to have appeal to the general public.

Pete

[Felinessa]

... in response to I doubt it has much to do with statistic..., posted by Pete E on Jun 19, 2005

No, no, it still is research, only it's field research.  Interviews definitely count as research.  I guess one of the things you might want to suggest to her, in case she hasn't considered it, is to make it accessible.  She'd probably sell more copies, but she'd still have to employ a clear and sound methodology.

I'd say be super-careful about how you choose your words, and stay away from loaded, political terms.  Tell your wife to also keep in mind that every word she says is being analyzed, so she can't get too comfortable.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't be genuine, but don't loosely use words which for the researchers might have more political meanings than they do for you.

Good luck ) I'm curious to know how this all goes.

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: I doubt it has much to do with stati..., posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

Probably good advice,but I kind of let it all hang out,which you would have seen if you were around alot.You could go to the archives October 2003 for the whole story.I don't intend to hold back anything or be carefull.I didn't advise my ex before she talked to Felicity but they really hit it off.Rocio is by nature much more guarded about the very personal,although she is very personable.I hope she told it all.
And I hope this book is not very acedemic seeming at all but of interest to alot more people.Social science is not science at all in my opinion,but educated opinions,perhaps with supporting imformation.
One could call the study of  anything scientific if it is systematic.I limit the word science to hard science,where you can apply the scientific method and get the exact same MEASURABLE result EVERY time.I used to go to a church called religious science.Ie was very interesting,I think they were on to something,but science it wass not.You sure as hell didn't get the same measurable result every time.
But I am off on a tangent.We will see how it turns out.

Pete

[Felinessa]

... in response to Statistics, statistics, statistics, posted by Hamlet on Jun 19, 2005

Unfortunately, Hamlet, some stats cannot be provided by the INS or other official organizations.  If a marriage breaks, but divorce is not sought, the state won't know what happened.  Also, maybe she's looking at motivation - that's hard to quantify again.  But if she's looking to come out with a serious study, I agree that she needs to include some quantitative data.

[lapentier]

... in response to Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & l..., posted by Pete E on Jun 17, 2005

Even though her resume puts her somewhere beyond the fence in political left field, she does have a duty to remain accurate in what she is researching.  Qualitative research, based on anecdotal evidence is not the easiest type of project to pull off.  At least she appears to be attempting to obtain primary source material instead of relying on meta-analaysis coming from the modern feminist echo chamber.

Some questions for her might be:

    What is the objective of your research?
    What is the hypothesis you are attempting to test?
    Do you have any predictions on the outcome of your research?
    What aspects of these relationships do you find most interesting?
    What are your core feelings and attitudes toward these relationships?
    How are these different than the same sub-strata found in the U.S.?
    Given your previous employments, memberships, and writings, how do you intend to overcome the perception of bias?

I don't think any of us are worried about her researching and reporting on the methods and/or processes involved.  Rather we are concerned about the value judgments, conclusions, and recommendataions for public policy that she may make.  These are actually limited beyond the scope of science.

In this case, she is dealing with behavioral phenomena.  In order to arrive at a conclusion, she must use observable, measurable data.  Value judgments, likewise, are not based on measureable, repeatable observations.  Questions about "how" or "why" and value judgments are not measurable, and are therefore beyond the scope of scientific research.  Science as such can describe, but not explain.

If she wants to become the true "Margaret Mead" of this generation of researchers, she needs to describe this phenomenon and its proper place in the rapid globalization that is taking place.  If not, her shining star will fade when the current trend of political correctness ends--and, eventually it will end as do all political trends and mindsets.  

Margaret Mead's work in Samoa may have postumously earned her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and has greatly influenced public policy in this country.  However, with public acclaim also comes the microscope of academic scrutiny.  Her shining star is losing much of its luster.  Yes, all of the phenomena described in her book existed, at least in isolated pockets or subgroups, in Samoa.  Yet, many of her conclusions derived about the casual nature of intimate relations and commitment were fanciful or distorted.  She told the story of one side of Samoan society without describing the others.

As far as I can tell, no one has truly investigated this phenomenon without having an underlying motivational objective.  So, there is true potential in this topic.  On the other hand, she needs to evenhandedly describe as many facets of this as possible without making value judgments.  

Is she going to go beyond the sterotypes?  If not, her work will end up collecting dust on the back shelf of some university library.

Pete, given the samll number of people that ever actually read these things, I see minimal risk in your involvement.  The only condition I would make of her would be to have permission to screen the final work prior to publication to insure the accuracy of your portion in the work.

Of course, this advise is worth about what you paid for it...

Sincerely,

Mark

[Felinessa]

... in response to Academic Integrity & Qualitative Res..., posted by lapentier on Jun 19, 2005

These are excellent questions, Mark, but if she is a serious researcher, she will try to keep personal core beliefs in check.  

I don't think the comparison with Margaret Mead is all that relevant, considering that in the 19th and early 20th century, cultural anthropology was conducted without a serious interrogation of Culture, personal culture, cultural assumptions, etc. Cultural Studies itself is a very recent field which rests on new critical frameworks.  Mead didn't have this framework behind her, while Felicity does (and, hopefully, a better awareness of the "personal junk" she brings to the table).

That said, there is never any guarantee because we are all human and some things are too deeply rooted to escape even the keenest self-scrutiny.  But I do think that contemporary researchers are more aware of the traps than their predecessors.

[Michael B]

... in response to Felicity Grabiel,book on gringos & l..., posted by Pete E on Jun 17, 2005

Can't you see that woman has TWO last names, with a hyphen between them, even? Not to mention she has a PhD in 'Advanced Feminist Studies' and teaches 'Chicano Studies'. Look at the articles she's published and the lectures she's given. Looks to me like she couldn't make up her mind if she wants to be a professional victim because she's a woman or because she's hispanic, so she decided to do both.

[Felinessa]

... in response to Have you gone bezerk?, posted by Michael B on Jun 18, 2005

I just wanted to say that I find it tasteless when someone's hard work is dismissed out of simple prejudice. I wasn't impressed with the cheap shots and the sweeping generalizations.

Feminism is a legit framework in critical theory, and Chicano Studies is an equally legit sub-area of American Cultural Studies.  It has nothing to do with victimhood, but with allowing minority groups to analyze issues pertinent to them. Sure, one of the issues will be past oppression and present difficulties in receiving equal treatment.  However unpleasant and irritating this might be to some of you, it is a reality which others less privileged have to face on a daily basis.  If there had been no suppression, there would have been no reaction.  

It also bothers me when people take it personally that other groups strive for rights.  Sure, there are extreme elements out there: there are "femi-nazis," there are racist blacks, there are fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.  However, they are only the tip of the iceberg, albeit a very vocal tip.  To identify an entire movement with its most extreme elements is a poor strategy, which only showcases superficiality and bias.  Why does it bother so many people that Chicanos are having their culture recognized, or that feminism looks at the world from a gender-ized perspective?  Do you feel threatened?  

Also, the fact that a woman chooses to stay home and look after her children doesn't mean that she is pandering to patriarchal ideals.  She has simply made the choice that worked for her.  What is relieving is that, now, she has other options and she is not artificially restricted to one role.  Those women you talk about were extreme while in college because they were young, unformed, and excited to find new ways of thinking - no one is born a critical thinker, so it takes time to learn to assess and integrate these new ways.  When they graduated, they presumably knew themselves better and had filtered the propaganda from the truth.  There is nothing anti-feminist about being feminine, dressing well, and taking a well-paying job: this is precisely what our predecessors strove for.  Feminism is about being able to go to college if you wish, being able to apply for well-paying jobs, and being able to choose.  Birkenstocks, hairy legs, and hatred of men are just unsavoury aspects no balanced woman will take seriously.

Sorry if this turned out to be a bit long, but it upsets me to see someone put down because she is a woman.  If a male professor gave a lecture on Chicanos, would he have been accused of professional victimhood? I believe not.

PS: note that the problems I have voiced are with attitudes, and not with people.  I would greatly appreciate it if further responses avoided the "ad hominem" trap.  I don't want to read cheap potshots about my character, my supposed lesbian tendencies, and other equally mindless comments people make when they have nothing relevant to say.  Let's keep some dignity - just saying that because, in my forum experience, this happens quite often.

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Have you gone bezerk?, posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

Feminism is a legit framework in critical theory, and Chicano Studies is an equally legit sub-area of American Cultural Studies. It has nothing to do with victimhood""""

What color is the sky in your world?

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Have you gone bezerk?, posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

Feminism: Perpetually unquenchable.  

Chicanos: Balkanize, revise, blame, usurp.

What is taught on campus is somewhat sanitized.  But follow their forums, columns, speeches, essays...

What a movement.

Fortunately, not all Latinos are as one-dimensional and self-serving as the Chicanos.  And not all women are Gloria Steinem.

[Disclaimer:  Not a bigot, just a closet observer]

[Felinessa]

... in response to Re: Re: Have you gone bezerk?, posted by doombug on Jun 19, 2005

Usurp what?  Who has a God-given right to authority that could be usurped?

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Have you gone bezerk?, posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

Well, Aztlan is the most glaring example.  Though I'm only a 3rd generation Yank, I can't say I'm a fan of seeing portions of the U.S. dismantled so soon, as a sort of reparation for "stolen" land.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: Have you gone bezerk?, posted by Felinessa on Jun 19, 2005

I said nothing about her sexual orientation or activities, nothing about her appearance and nothing about her grooming habits. I don’t know what they are. Unless you specifically bring it up, I won’t say anything about yours either.  

I did however, read her resume. I’ll stand by my statement of ‘professional victim’ or at least ‘professional victims’ advocate’. And yes, there are men ‘professional victims’ also, some of them make a very lucrative living at it.