|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"women's studies" -- what does it mean? Study of women? Shouldn't that be studied as part of courses on human beings -- philosophy, sociology, psychology, and medicine would seem to have humans fairly well covered. In any case, the behaviour of women is rarely the focus of WS.
If it isn't study *of* women then it must be studies for women or by women. How can a field of study by defined simply by the exclusion of men? Excluding men indeed seems to be the main topic, but how is it academically relevant? scholarship? fair? Title-IX compliant?
WS is a nest of maggots that will one day be stomped on.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 04, @03:57PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Radical Feminist organization clearly state on their web sites that, on-campus, women's studies programs are an active, ongoing area where they recruit "interns" (interships) to be trained as activists to sponsor their rad fem agenda. Iterns assist the rad fem lobbying efforts on the legislation they cook up. Let's see now, my tax dollars go to pay for tax exempt special interests groups who actively lobby to take away my constitutional rights. Isn't there a conflict of interest in their somewhere. If a church did that today. They'd have the IRS on'em and shut their doors.
Somebody needs set loose the watchdogs on this bunch.
Additionaly, not only is the sexist tripe set forth in their books lacking in factualness and scholarship, the pathetic level of their grammer and syntax is need of a remedial English class.
These courses do absolutely nothing to prepare young people for life in the real world, unless it is to prepare them to be whiney failures who can't work with anyone but those of their own narrowminded, bigoted views. Therefore, many of their graduates have trouble finding and holding a steady job, especially in the "discipline" they are trained in. Anyone wanting to do a disservice to a student, send them to the women's studies department. Check out this web site to see your CA tax dollars in action, http://homepage.smc.edu/Katherine_amber/WOMST/Gend erBender.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 04, @04:06PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Link Correction: When you copy and paste the web address, the link into your web browser make sure that, Gender is one word with no spaces, then the link will work correctly.
Sorry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and guess where these graduates often end up. They go into teaching, particularly at the elementary school level, where the misandry they learned in Women's Studies causes them to favor girls over boys.
Steve aka Equalitarian62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
Somebody needs set loose the watchdogs on this bunch."
-- end of quote --
This subject of tax support of gender discrimination has been around for awhile. Are any efforts underway to expose it or bring action to stop it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I'm aware of at this moment. I suspect it would be a waste of time to ask the ACLU to take this on?
I am not presently aware of any efforts underway to expose it or bring action to stop it, but there may be others "writing in" more knowledgable or more able than I to shed light on that.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think ANY special-interest group should get public funding to spread hate ot others. That's just my opinion; such things are wrong. Every person has the right to think for themselves, end of story.
Learning to Adjust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @12:51PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
LadyRivka is right.
Besides, as someone has allready said, "Women's studies" is NOT about "Women's studies"! From ANY research I've done, WS should be called, "How to create bigotry and hatred 101"
Incidently, wasn't there a bg flap a few years ago, about public funding for Men-only programs and\or schools? I seem to remember the fembots going berserk over it.
Either way this is just another example of Marx-fem hypocricy.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I complained to then Governor George Bush (now President Bush) about the fact that Texas Women's University ( a Texas state college) required all of it's nursing students working towards a B.S. in Nursing to take and pass, as a requisite for graduation, a course in "women's studies". I requested that he take action to eliminate this course as a graduation requirement. He did not take any action, to my knowledge, to eliminate this requirement for graduation and did not inform me that he would so do. Nursing, already, has a reputation of anti-male prejudice and bias. The State of Texas is further promulgating this same bias and prejudice through requiring this gender feminist course for it's nursing students, both male and female. It further clearly proves that gender feminism and anti-male discrimination is the norm in nursing which discrimination and gender feminism is supported and further promulgated by the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2002
LYING IN A ROOM OF ONE’S OWN
IWF Publishes a Critical Study of Women’s Studies Textbooks
By Christine Stolba
Do you know what your daughters may be learning in their “Intro to Women’s Studies” courses? During the Women’s History month of March, IWF released a study by Senior Fellow Christine Stolba entitled Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students. Stolba’s eye-opening analysis concludes that “the ‘knowledge’ transmitted by Women’s Studies textbooks is often factually and interpretively at odds with reality.”
Stolba reviewed the syllabi used by Women’s Studies departments at 30 major universities and colleges and closely examined five popular textbooks used in Women’s Studies classrooms. Not surprisingly, she found that propaganda, not scholarship, best describes most “Intro to Women’s Studies” courses.
Stolba observes that though “Women’s Studies textbooks often remark on the positive, transformative experience of their students, what have these women actually learned?” The problem with these textbooks is that information is presented uncritically, with only part of the story being told—so young, impressionable college women emerge from their assigned reading with a jaded view of a world in which patriarchy reigns supreme and women don’t stand a chance at success unless they “transform knowledge.” The textbooks claim that women will conquer patriarchy and reclaim their empowered selves by learning their own “history of struggle and achievement.” But according to Stolba, Women’s Studies has actually only “encouraged this process of internalizing subordination and inferiority by promoting a message of women-as-victims.”
Moreover, its sins of omission and obvious biases of interpretation have taught young women “that dismissive—even contemptuous—and shoddy summaries of their opponents’ work is an appropriate intellectual response to ideas that challenge one’s own.” In the end, all Women’s Studies has done is “engage in much myth-making; unfortunately, myth-making is not scholarship. As its textbooks demonstrate, the field of Women’s Studies has turned ‘rooms of their own’ into narrow intellectual prisons presided over by matriarchs of mediocrity who mistake ideology for learning and scholarship.”
Naturally, such an “assault” on Women’s Studies has captured the attention of the media and has drawn ire from Women’s Studies departments nationwide.
George Will devoted an entire column to this study, and Rush Limbaugh read from it on his radio show. Christine Stolba appeared as a guest on FOX’s O’Reilly Factor, as well as on numerous radio stations across the nation—including the Laura Ingraham Show—and was the subject of lengthy pieces in publications such as the Washington Times, Reason, and National Review Online.
Stolba made an excellent point to Bill O’Reilly when interviewed on his show: “I would urge any student who has been assigned these textbooks to set them aside and read the collected works of Shakespeare—you will learn more about gender politics and human nature from Taming of the Shrew than from any ofthese books.”
Here is the link to Christine's report, its a bit of a read, but well researched and even a little catty (which I like). But Ray if you have a acrobe reader you will like it.
http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan:
Thanks, a great work. Christina's report is a classic.
Regards, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I think its the 'women's studies ' that is doing the majority of the damage and it is an issue that should be attack head on.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan:
The radical feminists certainly do present a target rich environment, and they are very vulnerable. They have been building there agenda on big lies for so long that they arogantly believe they are accoutnable to no one, that they are above any law.
Personally, I plan to rock back on my ole computer and use my words to plink away at the chinks in their armor, just because it makes me feel so dang good, and if one day their whole house of cards comes falling down around them won't that be a hoot?
The more plinkers the merrier.
Best Wishes, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a long time now, public education has been funding women's self-defense courses called "R.A.D" (rape aggressive defense, but there's nothing about it that requires it be against rape only), giving supportive live instruction which for free or less than $20.
These courses have proven effective in allowing a victim to have some confidence and safety in a short period of training, utilizing trainers and coaches in protective equipment and full-contact action in addition to various other survival training.
Comparative self-defense courses cost over $300 and are very hard to find, however the R.A.D. courses are available TO WOMEN ONLY (they are shameless and vehement about this point) and are offered as being avaibable nationwide at virtually all colleges, and are paid for by the college (i.e. male students are forced to pay for it but cannot benefit from it).
This clearly violates the equal-opportunity ruling of education laws (I believe Title 9), however no one has done anything about it to date.
The R.A.D. class organizers claim that "men can take other martial arts classes," or that men "don't need it" etc, however the fact men are more frequently the victims of violence than women, and that about 30% of sexual assault victims are male (not counting violent attacks on the male genitalia), such arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was on the "Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women" today, http://www.lacaaw.org/prevention/warrior.html This web site offers that training at $175.00 for a 12 hour class. Sounds like it is at least partially tax payer subsidized. The page says, "Batterers may lead normal lives in all respects except for their inability to control aggressive impulses. The batterer is not always brutal, particularly during the "honeymoon" phase. Often HE (emphasis mine) is so nice that no one can believe He (emphasis mine) would ever hit his wife." One class participant is quoted as saying, "...our padded MEN ALLOWED US (emphasis mine) to use them as punching bags." Nothing like having the government training women to beat the hell out of men so women can call the police and say, "he started it." What a racket. Where will it all end?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
