|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the debate was on Monday night, but the date was 01/28/02. Here's an article on the debate.
I love her statement, "If you took 13 of these courses, you'd have to be deprogramed." I suppose 13 classes are required for the major.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is a legitimate academic discipline and who should decide that?
She seeems to want to be judge, jur and jailer on this isuue. This seems like a call for censorship of views she doesn't like or agree with. While I agree with many of Sommers points about current feminisism "not being inclusive of the views of others", she is doing exactly the same thing!
"She [Sommers] ..... refused to agree with any suggestion that she change the discipline from within."
Instead she wants it banned or censored. I do not like her hypocritical non-inclusive point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changed from within? They should be scrapped altogether. How such a hate movement is allowed to flourish in institutions that are entrusted with shaping our young men and women is beyond me. Put it this way, any programs where Dworkin is taken as an authority on truth are more than a little funny.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So there is nothing "legitimate" that could be studied under the heading "Women's Studies" and you and Sommers are the final arbitors of what is and is not a legitimate discipline of study?
If she is the final arbitor (and she agreed that she has spent her life studying subjects pertaining to gender (or sex), then SHE should be developing what SHE considers legitimate lines of inquiry. Sitting around calling for censorship of others thoughts and ideas is hardly scholarly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sitting around calling for censorship of others thoughts and ideas is hardly scholarly."
Exactly, and that's the problem with women's studies.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right, Anthony, and what I understand they are teaching comes much closer to religion than science or even education. If the term "Women's Studies" stood for objectively analyzing the conditon of women in the nation/world, and if there was an equivalent course objectively analyzing the condition of men in the nation/world, then I'd buy it. But as long as they are producing feminist automatons whose goal is the subjugation or destruction of men and all things masculine, then, again I say, these programs should be destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sitting around calling for censorship of others thoughts and ideas is hardly scholarly."
CHS has also pointed out many times the extremely nazi-esque style of censorship the instructors of these classes use. ESPECIALLY if the student was male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not bad now the question is what are the inherent weakness in marxist theory (and by extension feminist theory.)
My complaint about feminist studies is not that they want to address women's issues or rights, I am all for that. My issue is they they are so bias about it. They demand acknowledgement for women's contribution to society but totally ignore any woman whose contribution was negative. They only want to talk about how they have been oppressed but refuse to talk about the oppression that women have perpetrated. The simple fact that they refuse to deal with any negative portral of women is decidedly nonacademic. In addition any attempt by anyone to question any theoretical portion or statistic of the class is quickly rebuffed and stepped on. (Although I did bring up several points in small group discussions that were fairly well received.) The only redeeming thing I have seen so far is the vast majority of women taking these courses also see the rhetoric for the male bashing that it is. The only problem is there is no classes (or very very few) offering to inform them about the problems men have that women are a part of.
(A little story that happen in a sociological class I had entitled "Work and family". Surpisingly the instructor was not as bias as I thought they would be but here is one instance that did occur where bias was evident. We were discussing how people's perception of others can prevent them from getting a job. I mentioned that women are seen as primary caretakers and often will put the family ahead of work. As far as a business is conserned this is a negative aspect of women. They need to rely on you and know you will be there when called upon. So, I argued, that they are passed over on practical reasons that has nothing to do with gender specifcally. She said, "that's not fair." So (and heres the fun part) I offered a similar circumstance where she (a mother of a young child) had to drop her child off at a daycare, and the only person present was a male. Would she drop the child off? Her comment? "Oh That's different!" The majority of the class (90+ people) groaned outloud.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer to the weaknesses of marxist theory is:
(the main one at least) is the simplistic picture it paints of society. Society is much more complex than the a simple pyramidal structure. There are a vast number of important interconnections and relationships that are ignored. Feminist theory does the samething. It assumes that men are the top of the power structure in every situation in society. It then analyzes every situation based on this assumption and sees every interation as a result of male domination. Any female dominated spheres are ignored or assumed to be ultimately controlled by men.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @02:31AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps someone knows of a gender studies curriculum which treats men fairly right now. If so, let them step forward, because I know of none in existance."
Psychology professor Martin Fiebert (a friend of Warren Farrell) teaches some great men's studies courses, and from a masculist perspective, at Cal State Long Beach. He belongs to the American Men's Studies Association, which is trying to create more such programs. With the mess we've created through imbalanced gender studies courses, boy are they needed.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @08:23AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
The question I think needn't be that *nothing legitimate* can't be presented under the catagory "women's studies". Perhaps the underlying suggetion here is "is women studies" the best rubrik to discuss gender issues. The way that women's studies has been used as a platform for the disemination of a particular ideology (a hateful one imo)certainly calls for reform. And to question the curricular frame "women's studies" can be legitamately made, from a particular point of view with out rendering the person making the proposition "judge and jury" or some kind of monomaniac or even non-inclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with Ms. Sommers criticisms. (However even she has probably not been in and read the course work of every Women's Study program out there). And most other critics I've read seem to base their criticism on one class +/-10 years ago. What I have a problem with is her calling for the classes to be shut down. Obviously people are signing up for the classes and want to explore this area. This amounts to censorship. And she flat out refused that WS studies could be reformed from the inside. So basically she is saying to women, I don't want you to study anything I don't approve of. This goes beyond criticism.
At least, someon up thread mentioned, Mr. Farrell is pursuing setting up course work in Men's Studies. At least he is not (as far as I know) calling for Women's Studies to be shut down.
I gave this some more thought last night and tried to determine what I would think if there were courses throughout the land studying and biased toward white supremacy. What would I think? Would I want those studies shut down, even though lots of people signed up for them? Even if I felt they were harmful overall?
Now I'm not saying the WS studies is anything near that extreme. I don't believe all the hyperventilating rhetoric about Women's Studies. But in the above example, I can see how people of color would object violently to such courses being taught throughout the land in public colleges.
I can't stand the thought of censorship, squashing of ideas, yet in this hypothetical case which I dreamed up, I'd be very tempted to take a stand similar to Ms. Sommers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @01:30PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I don't have a problem with a PRIVATE college ( one that receives no public monies) teaching white hate or black hate. Indeed, a few already do, though its not talked of much. People have the right to their beliefs.
What galls me is that with the exception of SOME historical studies, women's studies has functioned more of a political indoctrination seminar for a hate movement. And done this with taxpayers dollars.
If you took out what was unrelated to "studying" women in an unbiased manner, you would have very little of women's studies' current content left.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @02:09PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Teaching hateful rhetoric and calling it education is malfeasance. To reform (or shut down) a corrupt practice is not censorship. To expect corruption to reform itself from within is nonsense. I think the harm that ideological feminists have done under the pretense of education, and with the imprimateur of authority that universities enjoy warrants an elimination of this corrupt institution--even if the idea of it could produce something good, even if it has produced some good; mostly it has been corrupt. A reform doesn't throw out the idea, by the way--it calls for a thourgh revamp. Telling a liar that they can't teach in a university is not censorship, it is ethical. This is because universities are authoritive institutions, and therefore have an effect on society. If these radical feminists wanted to stand on a street corner hand out literature and stand on soapboxes and someone wanted to shut them down, then I'd agree with you, Lorianne. Btw, radical feminists love to censor people and use their position in colleges to incubate the rhetoric use to do so (starting with speech code in the colleges).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one here supports shutting down these courses has come up with the most basic strategey.. who gets to decide when a course is no valid or should be shut down. This is the danger to higher education. If you allow one group to shut down things they don't agree with, the next thing you know you have a group shutting down the Biolgogy Department because it doesn't agree with his/her religions.
How would we handle this? Let Ms. Sommers be the "academic" czar for the country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 31, @12:01PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather they be reformed then shut down. Still, the extent that these curricula need reformed is so vast, its almost like you'd be making an entirely new field.
As for who should shut down any programs? There are two logical possiblities that spring to mind.
A. The University President.
B. A panel of the senior professors of the various disciplines.
However, in real life the most important thing a program can do for a University is bring in money. And that is why many dubious programs continue to survive.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem as I see it is feminist studies as they are currently taught are nonacademic. Just because something is being studied or taught does not mean that it is being done so in an academic way. While the basic concept of what academic is varies from person to person and country to country I think that the majority of people in European countries have some points of common ground. Here are a few that I think are very important aspects of academia.
First, that colleges should be an open forum for the discussion of ideas. These ideas do not have to be politically correct or publicly popular but all points of view should be heard.
Second, that freedom of speech is an absolute necessity within the academic environment to support this discussion. Any sanction of this freedom would lead to the basic eroding of academia.
These two seem to be the main features of what I would define as the core principles of an academic field. The right to discuss, the right to disagree.
Women studies as they are currently taught and structured do NOT allow for either of these points. Almost always anyone who disagrees with a core theoretical postulate is silenced. Any class that has a differing opinion is often sanctioned and forced to comply to gender feminist politics. I have made many serious attempts at finding courses in men's studies and gender studies that do not focus on women. The list is almost nonexistent. (There is one class taught once a year at the college I attend that is focused on men but it is from a decidedly feminist standpoint.)
The problem I see is that gender politics has become the status quo at campuses. Women studies have become an impenetrable bunker where they can disseminate any information they desire while simultaneously silencing any voice that does not agree with their rhetoric.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think her whole position is that the women's studies curricula nationwide are nothing more than social conditioning programs that include little if anything in the way of real science. I've read that most of the department chairs and professors are humanities professors posing as social scientists and psychologists, wheras there's not a bit of credible science or scientific method taught or applied. I can't say definitively because I've not enrolled or seriously looked at any of the programs. But if these suppositions are true, then I'd have to agree with her 100%: the programs ought to be destroyed.
On the other hand, I do not object to credibly organized gender studies programs which are based on science and psychology because I know that if this is dome, men will be treated fairly. Perhaps someone knows of a gender studies curriculum which treats men fairly right now. If so, let them step forward, because I know of none in existance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps if I have time I'll let you guys in on my experieince in a course I took when I was in the first year of my university studies. It was called "Concepts of male and female in the West." Suffice to say, it was a full year course where about 22 weeks were spent on the experiences of different types of women (lesbian, black, etc.) and only 2 on men. Can you guess who it was taught by, and can you guess what those two weeks that focused in on "the male experience" were about? That sad thing was that I bought into it at the time.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FrankH___ Are you serious?
"I do not object to credibly organized gender studies programs which are based on science and psychology because I know that if this is dome, men will be treated fairly. "
Since when have science and physchology treated the sexes fairly and objectively? We are still living under the thumb of biologicial determinism, championed by Darwin and adopted by many "scientists" and pshychologists and social commentators.... and used to buttress and justify the rigid gender role system. The theories of biological determinism displace theories of "free will" by assigning to the sexes pre-determined gender roles, that is no one can escape their biological destiny (which by the way, will be cheerfully outlined by the "scientists"). These theories have been used for at least the last 150 years to maintain status quo social engineering policies and practices.
Whether or not they are valid is beside the point. Academic study HAS been used tiem and time again to promote social policy. Today is no diffferent from the past. It continues.
Surely some counterpoint to these older theories are in order. Surely we cannot accept that 150 year old theories deserve no critical analysis? How would "science" progress if former theories were not tested? What if theories (many of which came to be accepted as universal "truths") were never again questioned or revisited once they were put forth?
Surely censorship is not the answer. Weren't "scientists" and theorist of the past hampered by calls for their dismissal, often by death? Didn't their theories, threaten the status quo of the religious framework of the time? Back then I believe it was called heresy.
It seems to me Sommers has some valid criticisms, but she is negating her cause by calling for censorship of ideas she doesn't like, or which she finds "dangerous" or heritical to established "truths" she believes in. In the same breath she criticises her opponents for not being open-minded and "inclusive".
Any valid criticism of Women's Studies Sommers might have cannot withstand the hypocrisy of her calls for censorship and outright illimination of opposing viewpoints. She might actually HAVE some valid criticism, but as far as I can see she just shot her credibility in the foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, science and psychology have been used for social engineering, but consider this: Carol Gilligan, the AAUW, and their cronies have done serious damage to the education of boys and they have done so without a shred of peer-reviewed research. There are a number of studies that have been done over the past few years, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress that demonstrate this damage in clear terms.
So, yeah, Lorianne, I am serious. If someone can show me a gender studies program whose theorems are based on some peer-reviewed, published science where the data and the measurement means are available for inspection and criticism, I'd buy that a whole lot faster than what's being passed off as "education" right now.
Besides, what's the alternative? We can 1) Leave the programs in place; or 2) censor them as Sommers suggests. I agree that this kind of censorship is not desirable, but then the status quo is not acceptable, especially if the colleges and universities refuse to allow balancing programs on men's studies. Can you really see this happening? Can you see ANYONE accepting the kinds of negative things being said in these programs about men ever being said about women? Would you, as a woman WANT them said? No? I didn't think so. Neither would I. So instead, I say get those programs out of the colleges and universities becasue they don't belong there. They are nothing more than dogma, opinion, maybe even religion. These are legitimate beliefs as long as it's understood that's all they are. And anyone who believes in them is entitled to offer them, but NOT as education. If gender studies programs are desirable, then put them together with information that has some credibility behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell you that I have some similar concerns about women studies in colleges that Ms. Sommers mentions. As a current college student and someone that studies gender issues from a male point of view I have some major concerns about women studies programs and their teachings.
I believe that everyone here knows there have been men that have committed some very serious atrocities against individuals and against society. The problem I had with the women studies course was that while the rhetoric was a "fair and balanced look" at women's lives I have yet to hear one class discuss women that have committed similar equal acts. Any evil that women do commit is instantly excused as a result of "the oppression suffered at the hands of a patriarchal society." Women are given a "built in" moral excuse for any wrong doing.
Also the only questions that are allowed in these classes are ones that will clarify the rhetoric but NEVER question it. (I made an attempt to question even a minor point and my answer was that I was only attempting to divert attention away from the "real" problem and my question was promptly ignored.) Another even more insidious problem is that in an attempt to portray classes as a fair and equal examination of women AND men women studies courses have substituted the word gender for the word woman. This is both misleading and a lie. They make no real attempt to examine men or the issue that concern them as a gender. In addition any issue that is seen a male problem is a result of men not being part of the feminist movement. (I have actually had people say this to me)
To prove this point:
Try to ask any student of a women's studies class to name 5 women who have made a positive contribution to society. Then ask them to name five that made a negative one. (This one really stumps people. The argument that if women had equal power then there would be more doesn't hold water since there are positive examples if women had no power historically how could this have been accomplished.)
Ask them what main theory was feminist theory derived from? (I expect many would know this one.)
Ask them to name three theories other than feminist theory that were used in class to examine gender issues.
If women's studies classes were academic it seems to me students would have be able to answer these basic questions.
PS. I should mention that I took this freshmen level class as a senior with a 3.89 GPA and received a B. (big surprise huh?)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 29, @07:58PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, Tony, ya just shoulda left your penis back in the dorm. Without that, ya just mighta gotten an A. (he said grinning with sarcasm...)
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask them what main theory was feminist theory derived from?
Easy. Socialist/Marxist theory. (And my major is SPANISH! LOL)
Hoff-Sommers is mostly right. Note I say MOSTLY. Women's or gender studies should be more thoroughly researched and more scientific, with less emphasis on brainwashing. In short, it should be more like psychology/sociology/biology of gender rather than, "oh, waaah, we're soooo victimized by patriarchy". I personally would take a 20-week course on human sexuality and reproductive structures...if it weren't biased.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Completely privatize the educational system. Anyone who wants to go to college must pay for it with their own money and/or seek private scholarships.
If you object to a curriculum or major at a particular school, you will not be forced to fund it with your taxes. You also will not be forced to attend the school. If you don't like what they're teaching at School A, you can attend School B down the street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not like her hypocritical non-inclusive point of view."
That's clear. But, more to the point, do you think Women's Studies in its current form is a legitimate academic discipline?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry___ I have no idea for two reasons. One is I've never taken a Women's Studies course (I doubt many critics have, or they have taken only one). Second, what IS a legitimate academic discipline? I can't say can you?
I can say what I WISH were never "studied" and never became prevalent in academic circles (as Ms. Sommers wishes about WS). For example, I wish Frued's theories about women were never studied, never given serious consideration in academic circles, never widely published, and never adopted as "fact" by pschologists for generations to come. I feel he set an objective understanding of women's sexuality back by by 100 years or more. Views of women's sexuality were actually more accurate BEFORE Freud put forth his hare-brained and decidedly biased theories on women's sexuality.
So would it be appropriate for me to say, if Frued were just becoming popular today, that I that I want his scientific inquiry STOPPED, and he and his followers kicked out of academia? Because obviously he is promoting things that I as a woman know not to be true, and I find dangerous. I can just tell in advance that if his ideas take hold, how damaging they will be to women. So I need to censor his ideas right? Get his funding cut off and send him to the academic backwaters where he will no longer threaten us with his gross inaccuracies about women, right?
This is just one example. I could examples of scienfific inquiry into whether or not whites are intellectually superior to whites. This was widely studied. Should this "research" have gone forward? If so, what is the justification? If not, what is the justification for censoring it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea for two reasons.
I'm hearing you say that you have no idea if Hoff-Sommers is right, you just find her recommendation objectionable on the grounds of academic freedom?
One is I've never taken a Women's Studies course (I doubt many critics have, or they have taken only one)
It's not hard to get a sense of them, through any combination of insider exposes by dissident feminists, the occasional disbelieving article by a man who's been through a course or, most impartially, examining the texts actually used in such programs. (Living in a college town does have its advantages.)
What little theory there is can be classified as warmed-over Marxism and a theory of gender as a social construct that seems primarily based on wishful thinking. If you want to welcome a strong contender against biological determinism, this ain't even close to being it.
Second, what IS a legitimate academic discipline? I can't say can you?
Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with Bloom in "Closing of the American Mind" but, though he made a big splash, he never had much actual influence on halting the deterioration of liberal arts curricula.
Even so, the examples I've seen of Women's Studies scholarship wouldn't pass any intelligent layman's "smell test" for academic quality.
So I need to censor his [Freud's]ideas right? Get his funding cut off and send him to the academic backwaters where he will no longer threaten us with his gross inaccuracies about women, right?
I think you're conflating censorship with removing public funding and support but, why not?
You would just have to convince the Powers That Be. As you've pointed out, academia serves social policy. Academic freedom has always been more honored in the breach.
The argument against Women's Studies is easier to make. You don't really have to discuss the social damage they might or might not be doing. You just have to point out that they're peddling crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn! Damn! Damn!
Sorry about all the italics. I will use Preview religiously in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 29, @11:02PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
The argument against Women's Studies is easier to make. You don't really have to discuss the social damage they might or might not be doing. You just have to point out that they're peddling crap.
I think the above says it all. Academia really only has two functions:
1. To impart useful knowledge and the techniques to acquire more such knowledge. This includes of course, the scientific fields, followed by the various Professions -- medicine, law, etc.
2. To examine the great questions of being and various ideas about them. This includes most of the social sciences ( though they do overlap to an extent with the first purpose as they do have some useful content), philosophy, and the other humanities.
If women's studies fit anywhere it would have to be in with the mass of the social sciences. But most social sciences *even if they are mixed up in politics* try to use the scientific method. Women's studies makes no such pretense. Thus they don't really fit in with the social sciences. So where do they belong? The humanities? In that case Women's studies courses are revealed to be nothing but a bunch of philosophical ideas about one gender and its relation to another, without any emprical backing whatsoever.
In my opinion, all women's studies courses serve the purpose of indoctrinating recruits into a statist political movement. I really wish they'd fund some Libertarian groups like they do the radical lefties otherwise known as gender fems.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry___ I have no idea for two reasons.
And yet you went right ahead and defended it in spite of the fact that CHS has experience with Women's Studies. You did that on ifeminists.com, too.
Methinks you're being contrary. Perhaps I shall nickname you "Mary, Mary" instead. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
Ok first Freud was one strange guy. BUT he also was an amazing intellect. From basically nothing he created the idea of psychology. He started the entire movement to study individuals on a personal level. Granted his ideas of human sexuality were a "tad" kookie and the vast majority of academia get a good laugh about his ideas now. He did come up with some very interesting concepts. Also note that one of the main critizisms of psychoanalytic theory is the impossibility of researching any of its claims. Personally I dislike his theory but it sure ticks people off enough to look for other theoretical lens and approaches. (Should I mention that I have a degree in psychology and my wife has a masters in counceling.)(NOTE: His ideas about male sexuality were not very kind either. I hate being considered some individual that is supposedly ruled by my penis.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 29, @10:00PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Moooving Ahead
Oh the Cow is dying,
Oh the Cow is dying,
The sacred Cow,
The sacred Cow,
breathing is labored.
all the chemo in the world
won't save this bovine bastion.
Time will kill this Cow.
We can see it teeter even now.
No more sour milk,
No more rancid burgers,
The Cow is dying.
Breath is labored.
The Cow is dying.
My oh my this Cow will die.
Rejoice the Cow is dying.
Long live love between the sexes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @07:30PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I for one do not see the point in this post, or what exactly it has contributed to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @10:33PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I for one think that post #33 was an excellent summation of the problem. Kudo's #33!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 31, @11:19AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
For a close examination of a major women's studies 101 textbook, see "Popular Women's Studies 101 Textbook: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" at www.glennjsacks.com/popular_womens_studies.htm
--MG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm. You must be one of the "victim" feminists she was refering to. DOH! Shoe fits nicely, eh? Go ahead, wear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women Studies, like any other academic discipline, should be subject to criticism and should have to justify its worth. My judgement, based on reading some of the literature and attending one course, is that Women's Studies is very weak intellectually and has a pervasive anti-male bias. I suggest replacing women's studies courses with courses in finger painting and performance art techniques.
What is a legitimate academic discipline and who should decide that?
Why bother with this question? Certainly it's legitimate to propose or make significant changes in college curriculum. All univerisities have procedures for deciding what courses and departments to offer.
A key objective of universities should be to encourage critical discussion. Thus it's sad to read at the end of the Yale Daily News column:
"I, for my part, do not appreciate my academic discipline, my education, and my gender being insulted just for the entertainment of watching me fight to defend them. And I certainly will not respond when it is being done by a well-educated, enlightened group of people who should know better."
This is a fine example of self-righteous refusal to take different views and criticism seriously ("insults", "just for entertainment", "they should know better"). That sort of smug mental inertness is unfortunately what many students learn in Women's Studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My wife is a Women's Studies graduate student and comes home every single day from class with some new outrage that makes her want to throw in the towell. Even the simplest level of critical thinking and objective questioning from her is met with scorn and an inability to furnish a decent answer.
Basically, she picked this field because she knew she could make straight A's based on something other than actual merit, padding her GPA so she could attend a larger, more prestigious University in another field. So far, it's working like a charm. She just got accepted into a top ten graduate program in public health on the strength of her Women's Studies transcript...which she herself will tell you has imparted absolutely nothing to her but unsubstantiated rhetoric.
As a feminist herself, she is continually frustrated by this trend, so much so that the other day she told me exactly what CHS says...WS should be an interdisciplinary study, not a major department. After all, she maintains, feminist theory is just a branch of philosophy, and most of their "research" is basically poorly executed epidemiology or sociology. However, by granting them their own department, colleges have insulated feminist ideologues from the rigors of expert peer review and critical examination of their work. THAT is why so much bad data and misinformation come from these departments.
Take it from the people who know it best, everybody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @09:15AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I mean this kind way, but you might want to ask your wife if her mind, body and soul is worth getting into a prestigious university. No joke!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, those three things are all mine. The W.S. gig is a simple means to an end. I understand and share your sentiment, though. I'm not sure I could make the same compromise (no patience for that nonesense).
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
