It is hard for me to point out what is unclear or what does not add up. For me, the text was a little overwhelming. I was curious about how Alcoff defines “priviliged” and “oppressed,” since most people (I am speaking for others) are both. Alcoff addresses this in her footnotes, though. I found one statement that seems to be an oversimplification:

“For example, in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her; when a man speaks he is usually taken seriously (unless his speech patterns mark him as socially inferior by dominant standards).”

I guess Alcoff’s context and “location” matters here. I do not, consciously at least, think less of something a woman says. Maybe the fact that I do not think I am prejudiced towards women makes more vulnerable to accidentally being sexist. Wimmin…

I do not know what “post-structuralist” means, but I am sure Wikipedia can fix that.

Alcoff discusses how the social position of the speaker and the person being spoken too change the meaning of what is said, and can reflect social hierarchies. The definition of “service” as sexual intercourse suggest a dominant role of the person doing the “service.” Depending on who is saying the word, and to whom, the suggested social relationship could change. Alcoff’s points also raise questions regarding Illich’s speech “To Hell with Good Intentions.” For one, is Illich speaking for the underprivileged of Mexico? And if so, is he justified?

While learning at the Boys and Girl’s Club, I need to make sure that I do not speak for the children I am working with unless I need to. Also, I need to make sure that if I do speak for any of the children, I am not reinforcing class or societal hierarchies. By criticizing my words with my social location in mind, I might possibly prevent unjustifiably speaking for others.