Master of business administration

1. Master of business administration Module : organization theory Rasha maswod lowreen Ibrahim

2. Women’s ways of knowingit is all about love ! • author : Carla locatelli • Volume : 12 • No : 2 • Year : 2007 • Pages : 339 – 350 • Published by : SAGE Publication

3. structure • key words . • aim of the study . • methodology and design . • the cheek ambivalent of the article’s title . • women’s placing . • essential questions . • the reasons which have marginalized the love. • the reasons which have marginalized the women’s knowing? • how can the knowledge is developed and transmitted ? • The new vision of love • findings

4. Key words • Co(n)texts : the texts that are contributed to explain meaning of something in context , Like term ‘love’ in our article . • (gynocentric)cultural memory : the thoughts , traditions and opinions of society toward women . • politics of desire : the ways that feminists have used to construct more fairness and equality between men and women . • (dis)identification : women’s trying in order to be existent in society ,through thinking , behavior and reaction

5. Aim of the study • the goal is to make the knowledge equally recognizable , just as the men knowledge secured by cultural memory is recognized and honoured . • to define what knowledge is , and how it can be formed , represented and transmitted in gynocentric terms . • love of knowledge is at the core of women’s ways of knowing .

6. Methodology and design • this study has depended on historical methodology in which the author offered many sections from texts for another authors who wrote in the same domain among them : • Lea Melandri (1991:329) ,Cixous (1991) . • Barbara Johnson ( 1987b : 70-169) , Virginia Woolf (1993 )

7. The cheek ambivalent of article’s title which has implied : • On one hand it is provocative because : • It has referred to the major cultural stereotype ascribed to women’s natural loving attitude , which justifying women’s exploitation in the most divers social situation . • the domain of women’s knowing is emotional , emphatic, timic . So it is illogical and non-objective . • On other hand it isn’t provocative at all because : • It aims at indicating an attitude that feminists have related to a politics of desire , in which they have recognized their effort to construct a more balanced ,more society .

8. Women’s placing • the difficulty, for women , is unlearning self-repression and ambiguation conciliation, reaching affirmation . • women come to deceive themselves into being ‘really’ safe ,but they are vulnerable , defenseless , open to institutionalized abuse . • Women used to being ignored as women (they are taught to read as men, to think as men, to prove themselves equal to men ) . • Women still receive the stability of the negative : they are non-men .so they have to negotiate a visibility which language denies to them . • Women grow up, learning and dealing with double front of identification themselves in relation to both the 'outside' (to a hegemonically stable and determined world of patriarchy) and to an 'inside' (to themselves as women ),they have to knew enough to bear insecurity and uncertainty .

9. Questions Essential • why is the passion of loving and of knowing blotted out and marginalized so frequently ? • how can we face the potential destructiveness of love , and how can we develop this knowledge , and eventually transmit it ? • what knowledge , and what do we define as knowledge ? • are self-resistance and uncertainty negotiable values determined on the mere basis of gender ?should they be ? • can the educational system take responsibility for this loss ? Can schools and universities intervene in resisting obvious acceptance and irresponsible desolation ?

10. the reasons which have marginalized the love • the complexities of ‘love’ have de facto determined current timidity , and /or a cultural cynicism , which prevent people from talking about ‘love’ in empowering ways . • The notion of informational fuzziness , and emotional blurring in concept formation of love has been used to reinforce subjective disappearance in society . • though feminists ,both men and women , can easily ascribe this passivity in responding to love to pervasive , as well as often invisible , ruling-form of institutional violence , all over the world .

11. the reasons which have marginalizedwomen’s knowing • the cultural reaction against women’s texts because of non-written of women’s texts into co-textual tradition . • women has encountered the difficulties, when accessing literature because women’s language was non-recognized . • women have aspired at producing texts that will be recognized as authoritative , like men’s texts .

12. How can the knowledge is developed and transmitted • by focusing on the ways of reading , like starting with negotiation of interpretants , at the core sign formation . • by building a visible and equally praised tradition which is recognized as authoritative . • women have to work on a form of political and/ or cognitive bonding , which would empower them as women .

13. new vision for the love • Only a great love can push you into making decisions which bring into play your whole life, and a great love is needed in order to understand' . • Today we should admit that love is on 'national' and 'trans-national' agenda, as in imagining the future of political party, of a parliament's agenda, of nation's international relations . • Love should be interpreted as an action, rather than a feeling , in order to talk about a practice of love in which love is not reduced to ;care; nor to cosmetic , sentimental option .

14. Findings • a successful gynocentric memory can be achieved if transmission of knowledge regards and involves women as women , subjects thought of , and valorized from , an as women position . • in spite of the fact that there are relatively many names of and feminists circulating today , it is still hard to configure a women’s canon , because there is no culturally accepted site which they are inscribed .

15. Findings • the university’s mission makes knowledge visibly open . • knowledge should be clearly transformable through dialogue and negotiation , not through deterministic ‘progress ‘ . • the global perspective allows us to thing of the subjects involved in knowing and learning as human beings in charge of future . • there are always difference , so we need to negotiate the valorization or the obliteration of such difference ,so which differences do we want to keep ? Which ones do we want to reduce or eradicate ? • the real question becomes : do we want difference to make difference specifically , or not ? And if we do , for whom do we want to make a difference , or do we want a difference made ?