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.