In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Or at least something like it. I am just as disdainful of the postmodern babble that comes out of a lot of Women's Studies programs as the next guy, but I think it is worth making some disciplinary distinctions. I actually do think it is perfectly legitimate to have an academic interest in women's roles in societies. I would only quibble with how the academy defines such a study.
It is perfectly legitimate, for example, for a historian to want to study the role of women in a particular place and time. I don't see how this should be any more or less legitimate than someone wanting to study the role of German or Irish immigrants. Although I myself am not particularly interested in the field of women's history, I have read some interesting material on, for example, the contributions of women to transatlantic trade networks in the 18th century.
Women's Studies is now an interdisciplinary field reaching into history, English, and other areas of study. Even this I don't find terribly objectionable. The real problem is not that this field exists at all, but what it actually stands for. Women's Studies is really just one more outlet, in addition to so many of the social sciences, for Social Constructivist and Relativist Theories of Everything.
In fairness, I have never been masochistic enough to subject myself to a Women's Studies class, but I have enough exposure to it through the news media and social science literature to have some general ideas about it. When I make snide and sarcastic generalizations about Women's Studies and other social sciences, I am complaining not about their existence, but what appears to be their role as little more than left wing social theory wrapped up in academic language. I would actually be able to take Women's Studies more seriously if their work were more closely modeled after that of historians in their field rather than that of social scientists, who will never abandon their penchant for making verbs out of nouns, and stating ideas in ways that people with brains can't understand.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
I recommend the following experiment. Take one class in each of the "studies" areas that your campus offers -- each considered a different discipline. You will quickly notice how many of the required books -- and authors -- for the courses overlap considerably.
There is nothing wrong with a multidisciplinary study of women's roles in society, how societies have treated women, or women's contributions to society. Indeed, that is a laudable area to study. What isn't laudable is offering courses in Marxism and calling them Women's Studies, Cultural Studies, American Studies, Chicano Studies...etc.
Just buy a copy of the Frankfurt School Reader, a couple of Walter Benjamin books, some Adorno, Freud, and Marx, and call them Marxist Critiques -- another perfectly legitimate are of study when done in the open. Then offer genuine courses in Women's Studies etc., that include a wider array of philosophic traditions and points of view. Don't force the subject to be taught through one lens. Philosophy doesn't require all students to become Platonists or Hegelians, and Studies courses shouldn't require all participants to become Frankfurt School advocates.
Then again, as I am speaking from privilege, ignore me.
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Good post - agree with your conclusions. Thoughts:
1. Given the intellectual climate in universities, which is as predictable as the weather in San Diego, there's almost no way a Women's Studies program won't turn into lefty groupthink. It's like setting up a Lettuce department at Rabbit University and expecting them to do anything but study how good it tastes.
2. There's the usual riposte from the drum-circle / Iron John types, too: what about Men's Studies? Well, we're told with oh-really sighs, there's already one, and it's called the History Department. (What with its phallocentric emphasis on things like wars.) But the same arguments you can make for Women's studies you can make for Men's.
3. In college, hoping to show my sensitive bona fides, I enrolled in a women's lit class. I was the only guy. Let's just say I spoiled it for EVERYONE.
As a class, women's studies is a great idea. As a program, it shunts you into a tribe and insulates you from the rest of the icky icky world.
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
I agree with your proposition that, properly done, Women's Studies could be valuable. In reality, it has turned into a left wing scam. Christina Hoff Sommers provided this hypothetical college catalog description of the typical Women's Studies program:
“We will help your daughter discover the extent to which she has been in complicity with the patriarchy. . . . She may become enraged and chronically offended. She will very likely reject the religious and moral codes you raised her with. . . . She may change her appearance, and even her sexual orientation. She may end up hating you (her father) and pitying you (her mother). After [her] reeducation . . ., you will certainly be out tens of thousands of dollars and very possibly be out one daughter as well."
Daphne Patai, no conservative, has been a longtime professor at UMass Amherst. Her criticism of the whole Women's Studies scam is a stake in the heart. From her book of essays, What Price Utopia?, she sums it up: "Feminist pedagogues by their own accounts indulge in a series of wide-ranging, self-destructive habits. They dismiss logic as so much phallocentric baggage. They celebrate emotion and intuition . . . ."
May be good in theory. Reality is different.
Jan '11
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Nearly 30 years ago I took a 10 week Women's Lit course at UCLA. We read Fanny Fern, The Yellow Wallpaper, Woman on the Edge of Time, The Color Purple, Herland, etc. While women historically haven't had the same opportunities as men, by week 7 I was bored: men are bad, bad, bad; women are victims, broken down by men. As a young woman I knew the portrait was a stereo-type and, for me, the class failed to be intellectually stimulating or enlightening. There was 1 young man in the class & I wish I'd asked him why he was there.
Mar '11
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
I agree with all above and would add that another problem of gender/ethnic/sexual orientation studies is the always feel they need to exaggerate and distort the role of those "studied" to the point that any semblance of truth is completely lost, but they feel better and that's what is really important.
Nov '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
If you have not been to John Leo's excellent Minding the Campus website you are missing a great portal on Higher Education. KC Johnson has a great post about the History Major requirements at Bowdoin College, one of the most expensive and exclusinve private colleges in the US. This is part of NAS, or the National Association of Scholars review of Liberal Arts at Bowdoin. (Fascinating story behind how this study was commissioned, National Review covers it as well) According to KC, a US History major is require to take no, that is right, zero, courses in European History. But you will be surprised what US History majors are required to take. Hint: Think of all other places but Europe. Here is the link:
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/10/notes_on_bowdoins_curriculum.html
Mar '11
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
I have made a lifelong study of women -- they remain a mystery, although I do know more than when I was at college -- I studied physics, and there were about 3 women in a class of 200 :-(
Nov '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
The big problem is that the left got there first, it's very much a case of you snooze you lose. I see this particularly in my own field (fine arts), where traditionally the contribution of female artists was generally ignored, and even the better ones relegated to minor status, by conservative art historians and critics. They also completely missed the ball when it comes to analyzing the evolving nature of family and society in shaping art, including subjects that conservatives generally won't touch with a ten foot pole.
If you want a more balanced representation in Women's Studies, and related fields, conservative academics have to do more than just throw spitballs from the sidelines. It's not enough to just complain "It's not fair"; they have to get out, do research, and publish competing views.
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Another Daphne Patai quote about the whole identity studies industry. She says that members of an "oppressed group" can evade "responsibility as long as a claim can be made to belong to one or more oppressed identity, however far back in the family history. Alleged oppressors, of course, get a parallel treatment, each group being held equally responsible for past sins and expected to engage in ceaseless self-abasement. Praise and blame, pride and shame. Categories, not individual selves, appear everywhere that we look."
It's just another version of the old scam: collectivism good, individual rights and responsibilities bad.
Patai (a former Women's Studies professor) is, of course, persona non grata in the identity politics world. She had the audacity to suggest the emperor has no clothes.
Edited on Oct 5, 2011 at 1:23pmJan '11
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Who is most likely to hire someone with a degree in Women's Studies, and what would the intended role be - public or private sector?
By-the-way, what's the percentage of males in that major?
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Thanks, TR, for introducing her to me. I'll be more on the lookout for her work.
tabula rasa: Another Daphne Patai quote about the whole identity studies industry. She says that members of an "oppressed group" can evade "responsibility as long as a claim can be made to belong to one or more oppressed identity, however far back in the family history. Alleged oppressors, of course, get a parallel treatment, each group being held equally responsible for past sins and expected to engage in ceaseless self-abasement. Praise and blame, pride and shame. Categories, not individual selves, appear everywhere that we look."
It's just another version of the old scam: collectivism good, individual rights and responsibilities bad.
Patai (a former Women's Studies professor) is, of course, persona non grata in the identity politics world. She had the audacity to suggest the emperor has no clothes. · Oct 5 at 1:22pm
Edited on Oct 05 at 01:23 pm
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
The best introduction to Patai is a recent group of essays (covering nearly two decades) published as What Price Utopia? Both the hardback and paperback are quite expensive, but I found a reasonably prices used copy on Abebooks (a great used book site).
Patai, who I think still thinks of herself as a liberal, is unique. She rejects the whole world of PC and oppression politics. I love her "no BS" approach.
Edited on Oct 5, 2011 at 3:00pmRe: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
This might actually be easier than it sounds. My thesis director currently teaches a seminar on one of those race/class/gender topics, and although I suspect she is on the left, she is a serious historian. Our respective politics don't come up at meetings, and I doubt that they would. My research isn't in this area, but I don't think she woul shut out opposing views for political reasons.
May '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
There's an exception to the "studies" rule and it's called Classical Studies. At William and Mary it encompassed three majors: Greek, Latin, and Classical Civilizations. I assume it still does. It was the closest you could get to getting a traditional education when I was there.
Eric: Don't take any chances regardless of what you suspect.
Jul '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
There was a time when much of the hysteria about male domination – and thus women’s plight – came from a combination of political activism both within and outside the academy. Within the groves of Academe which, unfortunately, attempted to lend credibility to the feminist positions, the extremists went so far as to proclaim all commonly accepted knowledge as a male creation and thus dangerous to women. Their polemics led them to see as their mission nothing less than the transformation of society into a ‘gyno-centered’ world on the grounds that a woman’s point of view was far superior to that of any man’s.
This is nothing short of hubris, but it is hubris on stilts to suggest as they did that logic and rationality are antithetical to a woman’s way of thinking and that therefore the tools of logic and science must be replaced with the far superior female instruments: focus on feelings and anecdotal evidence. This way of ‘thinking’ led mathematics professor Dr. Margarita Levin to dryly remark, “One still wants to know if feminists’ airplanes would stay airborne for feminist engineers.”
Aug '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Eric,
The Gipper himself (peace be upon him) had very similar thoughts about black studies during student protests at Cal State San Francisco in 1969.
Edited on Oct 5, 2011 at 6:39pmJul '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
As Nathaniel pointed out above, perhaps you should do some actual research for the subject you are studying before pontificating. If you want more page views and comments, you can talk about Erin Andrews. Or, you can investigate something and produce a quality piece of work genuinely worthy of conversation. Or not.
Jul '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
anon_academic: Eric,
The Gipper himself (peace be upon him) had very similar thoughts about black studies during student protests at Cal State San Francisco in 1969. · Oct 5 at 6:38pm
Edited on Oct 05 at 06:39 pm
The Gipper was not without flaws. See: abortion laws in California.
Jul '10
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
Ah, the writer who thought the good post began with the fragment : "...Or at least something it."
Do you read much?
Re: In Which I Defend Women's Studies
As far as I know, this is still more or less the case.