In the last few weeks, I’ve gotten a resurgence in the "hate e-mails." You know, the expletive-filled rants that attack me, feminism, and the on-going work to raise anti-sexist consciousness among men. One fellow wrote me yesterday:
Apparently you prefer to browbeat those poor young bastards who end up forced to sit in your indoctrination sessions without the benefit of knowing that your "edification" is a pure crock of something which will soon be defecated from our society. Maybe you should switch to teaching spelling. That would be much less destructive than your current "discipline." By the way, in what field was your doctorate awarded? Or are you too embarrassed to say?
Because I write primarily about feminism, folks tend to assume that my Ph.D. is in women’s studies. As I’ve written before in a brief academic autobiography, my doctoral degree is in English Medieval History. My disssertation was on the most "masculine" and conservative subject imaginable: the role of the northeastern English episcopate (the archbishops of York and the bishops of Durham) in defending England from Scottish invasion during the reign of the three Edwards (1272-1377). With the exception of Queen Isabella (wife of Edward II), not a single woman is mentioned in the entire 300+ pages of a very dry monograph.
In my reply to the e-mail quoted above, I answered the fellow’s question. I told him, suspecting it would surprise him, that my degree was in a very traditional, male-dominated field. At least at UCLA in my day, the medievalists were famous as being the most conservative of all of the sub-divisions of the history department; the early modernists were all Marxists, the classicists were all (naturally) suspected of terrible debauchery, and the Americanists were, well, just that. (Let’s be honest: those of us who had to learn three or more languages to get our doctorates tend to be unfairly snobby towards those who need at most one foreign tongue, and that includes most of my colleagues who did degrees in American studies. It reminds me of the famous and no-doubt apocryphal story of the Oxbridge don who, upon learning that a visiting scholar did American history, said to him "How delightful. And tell me, what do you do with your afternoons?")
But here’s the point: I realize it’s deeply sexist of me to point out to everyone that my degree is, in fact, not in women’s studies. Over and over and over again, as I wrote a year and a half ago, anti-feminists question the intellectual and academic legitimacy of gender studies. There’s a widespread presumption (indescribably wrong-headed and false) that women’s studies degrees are not as difficult to earn as those in more traditional disciplines. And when I hasten to announce that no, my degree is actually in medieval ecclesiastical and military history, and I had to master all of this Latin and Anglo-Norman French, what I end up doing is reinforcing that spurious notion that women’s studies degrees don’t require as much scholarly exertion as my own. ((For the record, many of the folks I knew at UCLA who were grad students in women’s studies could run intellectual circles around me — though that may say more about my abilities than anything else!)
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with correcting people’s false assumptions. If pressed, I ought to tell the curious and the scornful that I hold a doctorate in a field far removed from the study of gender and sexuality in contemporary society. (My reasons for not getting the Ph.D. in women’s history are explained in the linked post). There’s nothing inherently wrong with setting the record straight! At the same time, I must do a better job, I realize of checking my motives. So often, I enjoy the reaction I get from men’s rights activists (MRAs) and other anti-feminists when I tell them that I hold a degree in a classically conservative field. Most of ‘em simply shut up, or change the subject. Since their goal was to make me defensive, I tend to enjoy showing the lads that they are mistaken.
But by saying "No, my degree is actually in medieval military and ecclesiastical history", I end up partially making the MRA case. By being so quick to "correct the record", perhaps I imply that I would be ashamed if my doctorate actually were in women’s studies. It might also appear, I worry, that my haste in setting things straight reflects a desire to gain legitimacy in the eyes of anti-feminist critics. I worry that my protestations about my academic background end up coming across like this: "See, I have a ‘real Ph.D.’! My feminism is important to me, but I want you to know I have a ’serious and scholarly’ background." It’s almost as if I’m seeking approval from those who are unlikely to give it.
Still, in all the years that I’ve had this conversation with anti-feminists, none of them have said "Oh, a Ph.D. in English medieval military history is no better." No, most MRAs (I say most, not all) tend to have a reverence for all things martial. Though some are suspicious of all humanities and social sciences degrees, our masculine culture tends to see military history as perhaps the most acceptable of sub-fields within the discipline. (I know lots of very conservative men who are positively addicted to the History Channel, especially when it shows its umpteenth war documentary of the week.)
So yes, I’m only telling the truth when I tell ‘em I wrote more about the battles of Falkirk and Bannockburn and Neville’s Cross than about feminism and the patriarchy — but I’m also perhaps trying to establish some kind of intellectual bona fides with my critics. It’s probably a losing effort in the long run, and it certainly ought not to be done in a way that offers even an implied criticism of feminism and gender studies. So while I won’t pretend to have a degree that I don’t have, I will be more careful not to flaunt the degree I do — particularly if when doing so, I give the impression that I consider the field in which my doctorate was earned to be more scholarly and legitimate than the one in which I now teach.
The issue is, I think, that a degree in a field such as yours is (What one of mine is in, too, but alas, not a Ph.D.) demonstrates a capacity for intellectual rigor, whereas Feminist Studies is seen as one which is made up, with a political agenda and axe to grind.
I’m sure you’ve also seen a similar thing between the hard and soft sciences, which is a bias I subscribe to for the most part.
Realize that you’re talking to people who are never, ever going to consider anything having to do with gender (other than anti-feminism) as in any way worthwhile. It’s a waste of breath to try and persuade them that a Ph.D in Women’s Studies is academic.
At the same time, it’s good not to get defensive or hasten to act as though you certainly didn’t get a Ph.D in an inferior subject. A bland “It’s in English Medieval Studies. Why?” accomplishes the goal of diverting their childish attack without buying into the notion that the attack has any value.
Speak of school, when are your office hours this summer? I’m going to drop by today for the writing lab.
I like mythago’s advice.
FWIW, I hear similar comments about people who get degrees in African-American studies. The assumption is that you are awarded the degree for having the right opinions, rather than for conducting the right scholarship. This assumption is of course wrong, but it’s still very real.
I suppose conservatives encounter a similar problem with doctorates in theology.
I’m a historian–I guess; I have an M.A. in humanities and have written or edited about a dozen reference books in history–and one of the things that holds me back is that I generally find military history unspeakably boring. And while I’ve studied five languages, the only one I can really work with in any useful way is English, though I can read Hebrew well enough to stumble through a siddur.
The Ph.D. I’m working on is in philosophy and religious studies. My B-plan was going to be applied ethics. But gender studies fascinates me, and I do sometimes find myself wishing that I had found some way of focusing on that field.
Cheers,
TH
I’m sorry to have to differ with you on this subject Gonzman. It appears as if you have never taken a class in gender studies. I invite you to take a class in the field so you can see that there is indeed a high level of intellectual effort necessary. I’m a grad student in history and I have to tell you honestly that I was trully amazed when I started taking gender studies classes because I was actually required to think; whereas in other fields, I merely had to remember facts.
May I say for the record that I feel terrible about the way I chewed you out about the Other Thing and am deeply sorry for it, and not just because of what you have had to deal with recently, but because my behavior was churlish. I do think that your feet need to be held to the fire on these matters because you are a male women’s studies professor and because you run a feminist blog, but there is a line between holding you accountable for your ideas and attacking your personal character and I played thirty rounds of hopscotch over it. For whatever it’s worth, I never removed or altered your entry in my top feminist blogs list.
Cheers,
TH
mercedes, agreed. I am a relative novice at gender studies and have already seen enough to realize that I could exhaust a lifetime studying it if I wanted to. There is the terminology, the framework; the philosophies; the history, the literature, the arts; the culture; and on and on. It’s an academic degree, not an activism degree, and anyone who is remotely familiar with the field knows that there is a great deal of work involved, and that the material that is studied is not just the product of the past 30 years, but rather of the past 30,000.
Cheers,
TH
Mermade, alas, I don’t have office hours in the summer — the only free time I get is right before my first class (at 8 AM) — all of my classes are back-to-back-to-back.
I’m sorry to have to differ with you on this subject Gonzman. It appears as if you have never taken a class in gender studies. I invite you to take a class in the field so you can see that there is indeed a high level of intellectual effort necessary. I’m a grad student in history and I have to tell you honestly that I was trully amazed when I started taking gender studies classes because I was actually required to think; whereas in other fields, I merely had to remember facts.
I wasn’t debating the issue, just presenting the viewpoint - that is how it is seen, precisely because it is very subjective but still chock full of orthodoxies. I have, however, taken no less than three courses under the Women’s Studies umbrella as has been required by “diversity initiatives” in places where I have worked, and to be quite frank, I found them not impressive.
Mythago’s right, Hugo; you’ll never please the sort that see no value to degrees in identity-studies of any sort. Why bother? Would you have argued with Lindbergh or Father Coughlin in the 1930s? I wouldn’t have wasted my time and I surmise you’re too smart for that as well. Still, informing folks about your credentials on a need-to-know basis is the honest thing to do. Trust your instincts on this one and don’t be defensive.Off the subject, do you really know Anglo-Norman? I’m very impressed, Padre!! Being a francophone is, to my mind, one of life’s best pleasures and I’d kill to learn Anglo-Norman. Cheers from the Breaker.
Gonzman:
Have you ever been in a lower division course you found impressive? They tend to be elementary, whatever the field.
I would imagine this is especially so in women’s studies where the professor bears the burden of dispelling basic MRA myths which the students have absorbed before real academic work can be engaged.
(anthropology seems to suffer similarly, since you first have to get the students to stop saying “ewwww, they eat bugs?” or conversely “I saw Memoirs of a Geisha once; I know everything about Asia now, right?”)
Anyway, you were too debating the viewpoint or you wouldn’t have written “I’m sure you’ve also seen a similar thing between the hard and soft sciences, which is a bias I subscribe to for the most part.”
Douglas, alas my Breaker buddy, my language skills in both Latin and Norman French have slipped quite a bit. I haven’t read a document of any length in either tongue in close to a decade.
Angl-Norman French is, I think EASIER than modern French. It’s a fairly simple structure, generally a limited vocabulary in government documents, and if all else fails, you can figure it out by reading it aloud. That was what I was taught to do, and it worked.
In the last few weeks, I’ve gotten a resurgence in the “hate e-mails.”
Sad, but not surprising. There are people who see someone who’s in a vulnerable position because of personal matters, and decide that that’s the time to go on the attack. Well, that speaks volumes about their character.
And Hugo, I would like to add my sincere condolences following your loss.
I can’t believe you actually personally respond to emails like that.
DJW, I don’t, always — but I find that in the stress of the last few awful weeks, I’m a bit less restrained…
The assumption is that you are awarded the degree for having the right opinions, rather than for conducting the right scholarship.
Because every other academic discipline is objective, without biases and has no orthodoxies to which students are expected to adhere. *snerk*
I would imagine this is especially so in women’s studies where the professor bears the burden of dispelling basic MRA myths which the students have absorbed before real academic work can be engaged.
What are these myths? Can you point to sources that state these myths?
While your questioner obviously rejects the validity of a degree in women’s studies because he rejects the validity of women’s studies itself, I don’t think it sexist to mention the fact that you came from a different background than others who teach the same subject matter that you do. People are suspicious of all sorts of corners of academia, and to someone from the outside, gender studies or literary theory or dance theory can seem to be a field for self-perpetuating mutual intellectual masturbation. (In other words: “I don’t know much about this so it must not be important!”) I actually have never taken a women’s studies class, and while I think it would have been fun, I went to school to become a scientist, after all. Showing that concern about gender issues arises organically outside what might seem a world of indoctrination is useful. Arriving at a strong feminist belief system without the aid of gender studies classes doesn’t make my feminism any more genuine, but it does put a hole in the theory that feminism only exists to keep gender studies professors employed.
Have you ever been in a lower division course you found impressive? They tend to be elementary, whatever the field.
In fact, I have.
I would imagine this is especially so in women’s studies where the professor bears the burden of dispelling basic MRA myths which the students have absorbed before real academic work can be engaged.
Or is busy trying to indoctrinate with myths of their own.
I recieved a “B” in one of the classes I had to take because the feminist professor said that men got knocked down a letter grade automatically as an object lesson. She was upheld by the university administration.
I can’t regard that as “serious” academics - just activism.
Gonzman, I’m so disappointed in your attitude toward this serious academic dicipline.
Well, Kacey, if it is serious then it needs to police itself, instead of being afraid that exiling the kooks to Kookville will undermine it. It apparently doesn’t have enough of the sourage of its own convictions to do so, doesn’t take itself seriously enough to do so - and yet other people are expected to do so? Exactly how many breaks is one supposed to give?
There’s all kinds of crap about “Well, we can’t be held responsible for…” and it’s crap. It’s hooey. If someone came and told me that “Females should be lobotomized at birth” and started preaching about it, I’d lead off on my blog with the statement that this guy is a fruitcake. I wouldn’t call him brother. And I’d be damned “Judgemental” about it. Darren Mack is a psycho. While I can certainly understand his frustration, and sympathize with despair, but turning into an assassin is uncategorically bad mojo, and gets his testicles revoked. If nothing else at all, real men don’t do things that way.
In the law enforcement world this type of thing is referred to as the “Blue Wall of Silence” where police officers will often close ranks and defend one of “their own” even if he is a bad seed. Nixon did the same thing with his doctrine of “Never criticize a fellow Republican.”
If I took a biology class and the professor started teaching some twaddle like “Spontaneous generation” heads would roll - fellow biologist or no. Well, same thing here. If you don’t take your bad apples - your gender seperatists, and such - and consign them to the whacko edge of your movement, AND DISASSOCIATE FROM THEM, but instead welcome them as “sister,” then you have nobody else to blame when people assume you approve of their rhetoric and agree with it.
A man is known by the company he keeps. Well, sauce for the gander and all…
You know, if I was to teach a math class and knock women down a letter grade because “Math is Hard” I’d have my hide tacked to the wall, and rightly so. I’d have math teachers far and wide screeching for my gonads on a platter for bringing discredit and disrepute on the discipline and profession. That damned class I had to take, I required a “C+” to keep my f***ing job, back in the days when I still believed in teaching as a noble profession, and before I saw it for the corporate political crock it was.
And you’re “disappointed?” Pardon me all to perdition if I don’t see a movement which speaks one thing out of one side of its mouth, platitudes like “equality for all” and gives silent assent, defense, and even praise to the concept of lowering my grade on the basis of what is between my legs as opposed to between my ears out of the other side, and conclude that what it does is far more significant that what it says.
Well, Gonz, I doubt that anyone here would think it’s okay to automatically knock all men down a letter grade based on their gender. I find it hard to believe that a university administration would allow such blatant and possibly illegal discrimination. But if that is indeed what happened, I would certainly condemn that.
It sounds like it’s the university that closed ranks behind the professor, not all women’s studies professors throughout the country. It seems a bit much to condemn an entire academic discipline because of the abuses of one professor.
But by saying “No, my degree is actually in medieval military and ecclesiastical history”, I end up partially making the MRA case.
Ah hell, just tell them that no, you didn’t major in women’s studies but that’s not a bad idea and thanks for the suggestion. This only works if you then go out and actually get a degree in Matriarchal Hegemony or something.
It sounds like it’s the university that closed ranks behind the professor, not all women’s studies professors throughout the country. It seems a bit much to condemn an entire academic discipline because of the abuses of one professor.
Semantics. Where was the uproar by the OTHER professors towards this “loose cannon” professor?
Gonz: That a professor routinely penalizes male students a full letter grade (in a class that affects job eligibility, no less, which makes it a matter for the EEOC), openly admits to this, is supported by the administration, and has received absolutely no media attention therefor or legal challenge thereto (at least, that I’ve been able to find) is an extraordinary claim.
I know we’re all supposed to play along and unquestioningly accept any assertion that gets thrown out here, but I’m just not buying this. Do you have anything at all to back this up? Name of the professor, name of the university, any kind of record, anything.
Right. I find it tough to believe too.
Yeah, and I’m sure ol’ whats-her-name who didn’t even want male students in her class - and was supported far and wide by a significant number of feminists, women’s studies professors, and such - was also an aberration. Didn’t really happen. Even though it was supported, she lost, so it doesn’t count.
Indiana University. Bloomington. Circa 1994 - maybe 1993. As for the name of the instructor, or the course, it beats me a dozen years later, they were both eminently forgettable. I did my time in class, kept my mouth shut after the first smackdown for questioning the orthodoxy, collected my passing grade to keep my job, and moved on. For a .003 averaged into my career GPA, it just wasn’t worth it to fight it more than a single appeal. Like the other two classes I had to take, I learned my lesson.
And as my lawyer at the time said, “Well, if you really believe she’s going to admit in court to actionable statements from a private he said/she said conversation, I’ll be happy to take your money.”
So she didn’t openly admit anything. She made her statements in a “private he said/she said” conversation.
My comment to Hugo in a private communication nicely sums up my feelings on the topic. To wit:
Hugo,
My biggest objection to credentials vis-a-vis women’s studies professors is that apparently one does not need to have any in order to teach WS. Rather, it seems that the most important ‘credential’ that one needs to succeed in WS is to adhere to the often-times unsupportable (from a fact-based standpoint) belief system of feminism.
For example, you have readily admitted that your Ph.D. - and the dissertation written as major requirement for it - is in an area completely unrelated to feminism, women’s health, gender, sexuality, family dynamics, etc., and yet you teach classes addressing all of those issues in the women’s studies department. In essence, it’s like saying that one could have a Ph.D. in botany and be a professor in the math department. In fact, according to the model you present one needs have no special training or education in the topic in order to be a professor of women’s studies. The notion is ludicrous for those of us who work in science and engineering, and IMO equally ludicrous to the population at large. That’s why I believe that WS is seen a joke by many, many people.
It’s really that simple.
As an addendum to this, I can understand that some departments and programs focus on a single ideology or point of point of view; one sees this in, e.g., Hebrew Studies, African American Studies, etc. What bothers me about women’s studies is that it isn’t really Women’s Studies, it’s Feminist Studies. If it were truly Women’s Studies it would mainstream the philosophies of prominent conservative women like Phyllis Schafly, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, et al. Using another analogy, it be like a “Religious Studies” department with only Christian professors and teaching from a purely Christian philosophical point of view. In such a case calling that department “Religious Studies” would be inaccurate, misleading and IMO false advertising. Thus, I think that at the very least women’s studies as it exists now should rightfully be called “feminist studies” or something similar.
Finally, Gonz, her name was Mary Daly and she was widely supported by the feminist community. And I’m not at all surprised that folks around here don’t believe your account of your experience. I’ve heard similar stories from men who’ve had to take WS courses for diversity requirements (a neat little trick to ensure work for WS profs!) but inevitably their accounts are denied and dismissed. This is de rigeur, at least from my experience. But then again, my experience probably doesn’t count either.
Mary Daly was famous for excluding men from one of her courses, but that was at Boston College, not IU, where Gonz went.
Many feminists were troubled by Mary Daly’s decision to treat male students differently. Hers is an extraordinary position, far out of the mainstream of the pedagogical techniques of those of us who teach gender and women’s studies.
Hi Hugo,
I understand that Mary Daly taught at a school other than the one Gonz attended, and will accept your word that ‘many’ feminists were troubled by her decision to shamelessly - no, proudly - discriminate against men in her classes. However, while I won’t try to speak for Gonz, I do think that his point was that Daly was 1) not the only feminist WS professor to discriminate against men (Gonz’s experience is by no means unusual based on the accounts I’ve heard from men enrolled in WS courses at my institution, a Tier 1 research university), and 2) that the criticism of her practices by other feminists was mild at best and mostly non-existant, at least until the doo doo hit the fan and she got fired for it (I never heard any criticism of her practices before she got in hot water). Contrast this with how feminists came out of the woodwork from institutions far and wide to rally behind Nancy Hopkins’ crusade to castigate Larry Summers for his honest mistake and one gets a clear picture that feminists at least appear to abide by a code of selective outrage, based mostly on whether or not the ‘perpetrator’ is feminist in good standing.
There are always exceptions to the rule, e.g., feminists who were “troubled” by Daly’s treatment of men. However, in general the silence from the feminist community when their colleagues act thusly speaks volumes and makes the MRA case far better than we could. And thus, it presents a clear and unambiguous statement about what women’s studies is all about, at least to us plebes who aren’t privy to the ‘inside scoop’ of the feminists in the WS crowd.
Hugo, you’re not getting how this works. If you can scrounge a Liz Kates or a thirty-year-old Robin Morgan quote from somewhere, you can claim “many feminists” agree with/believe/support [terrible thing]. If you try to do the same for MRAs, you’re cherry-picking.
and possibly illegal discrimination
This is the kind of thing that plaintiffs’ lawyers dream about, and I really wonder about the competence of Gonzman’s lawyer. If the administration upheld the prof’s decision, there is a paper trail. If the professor issued homework, graded tests, and reported grades, there was a paper trail. If she’s ever had male students, ditto.
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/01/well_heres_an_e.html#comments
The abscence of a “men’s studies” is proof enough that WS is pure sexism. It’s foundations are based on sexist beliefs (legacy of a perceived ‘guilt’ that today’s men are supposedly burdened with, and the idea that women are oppressed in western society when the law and media are whole-heartedly feminist).
That’s the elephant standing in front of us. It’s so big, it’s easy to not see it.
In fact, WS should simply disappear and be replaced with gender studies - an exploration of both genders and how they both suffer discrimination in certain areas, and also a celebration of both genders and how they often work well together.
I am so freaking sick of people saying “Why isn’t there any men’s studies” or “why isn’t there any “white history”. BECAUSE YOU DON’T NEED IT!
All I read about in school is a bunch of dead white guys. Let’s look at my syllabis: European history: women, grand total one (Queen Elizabeth). The rest: dead white guys (mostly military). Contemporary philosophy women, grand total zero. American philosophy, women, grand total ONE (Ruth Macklin). Biology, number of women, zero (plenty about Darwin, and other dead white guys). Aviation (all of my freaking classes) number of women, ONE (Amelia Earhart). European Literature, women, two (Margery Kemp and Julian of Norwich, and they were optional reading). Fine Arts, women, ZERO. American Political thought, women: ONE (Betty Friedan).
Looks like to me that white guys are pretty well covered when it comes to classes. You have plenty of role models to choose from, and you have plenty of examples of what you can achieve. Women don’t get these same examples when we go to class: if I was to go off of my classes, I would end up thinking women must not have contributed anything to the world, so what can I do? This isn’t true (at all) and it isn’t healthy. And yet, you guys bitch about about ONE section of the school that focuses on the achievements of people not like you, and you freak out and rail about being sexist. Forgive me if I’m not crying rivers for the supposed sexism in women’s studies.
The thing about credentialing in WS is that (from what I understand), WS is not a discipline in itself. It is a subject matter that is approached in an interdisciplinary fashion. Thus, WS professors may have doctorates in a variety of disciplines. They apply their knowledge of their discipline (historical study for example) to the study of women.
It is not at all like having a botany Ph.D teach history. It is like having a history Ph.D apply his knowledge of historical reasearch and study to the particular subject matter of women’s studies.
Full disclosure/disclaimer: I am not involved in Women’s Studies at all. I took only WS class in college (Feminist Theologies) so all my knowledge of the field is by osmosis. If I am wrong in my assessment, I hope those with more knowledge of WS will correct me!
oops. That should have read, “I only took ONE WS class in college.”
Gonz says:
“I recieved a “B” in one of the classes I had to take because the feminist professor said that men got knocked down a letter grade automatically as an object lesson. She was upheld by the university administration.
I can’t regard that as “serious” academics - just activism.”
Interesting. You don’t ever say who or what class was being taught. For all we know it was Macroeconomics. And how do you know the professor was a feminist? She could just not have liked male students. Or maybe she had a point, who knows. Certainly your claims are just that: claims, insubstantial at that. You lead us to believe she was a feminist because you say so, and you lead us to believe that this was a women’s studies course. Again, it could have been a course on microinvetebrates. Who really knows.
FTR, IU at Bloomington has a Gender Studies department.
As for all of you grown men whining about the non-academic nature and politically charged ideologies of feminism, what the hell do you think a course in US History is? Or, hell, English Lit? Certainly the Canterbury Tales is politically charged and greatly biased. Or Shakespeare. Shoot, I bet even Communications courses are fraught with political ramifications and boundries. And we better not think about Kant, or Nietzsche, or Freud, or Dante, Copernicus, Galileo, let alone Jesus Christ.
Perplexed writes:
“It’s foundations are based on sexist beliefs”
Or they are based on a less than 90 years right to women’s suffrage, the multi-century practice of denying girls and women formal educations, and reams of knowledge lost because it was not deemed worthy of male standards.
Q Grrl,
Every alleged wrong that you listed can be more accurately attributed to classism, not sexism. At least in the U.S., women from wealthy and/or influencial families had the vote, went to college, etc., the same as men. And similarly, men who were not from wealthy and/or influential families were not able to vote, go to college, etc. Women recieved suffrage in the U.S. in I believe 1919, about 50 years after men did. Before that, only men and women who owned land could vote. However, since you’re bringing up extremely old history, let’s look at the draft, a much more recent bit of history (indeed, men - and only men - still have to register with the Selective Service; women have never had to do so): Many thousands of men have died fighting wars after being drafted against their will and yet did not have the right to vote because they were younger than 21 years old. Women have never had any obligation to serve their country before being granted all of the rights and privileges of full citizenship the way men have.
The above is one of many, many examples of topics that should be examined in any legitimate “gender studies” curricula (or for that matter a Men’s Studies curricula that would follow the current model of “women’s studies,” i.e., feminist studies), however, I don’t believe such arguments are common at all in WS courses. Thus, what we really have in the U.S. is narrowly-tailored feminist studies, not women’s studies. Which IMO is why people are skeptical and see it as not being a legitimate academic discipline; it doesn’t appear to even come close to what most of us consider rigorous academics and the fact that there’s a considerable disconnect between the rhetoric and reality does nothing to foster trust of women’s studies departments.
Mr. Bad, 60s era feminists were frequently involved in opposing the draft.
Also, the draft and the right to vote at 18 have always been covered in all standard American history courses I have ever taken.
My students always find it fascinating that during Reconstruction, the US Congress (made up almost entirely of white men) was more willing to countenance the enfranchisement of black male former slaves than they were of their own wives and sisters. Says something about the degree to which a belief in female inferiority and separate spheres was even stronger than racial bias. That isn’t normally taught in US History courses — though it should be!
Mr. Bad:
“Every alleged wrong”
What part of what I said is controvertable? What part isn’t true?
If it was a class issue, then why did women, as a group, have to petition for the right? Certainly you aren’t that uneducated, are you?
But you know, if ever there was a class issue, let’s talk about the draft and which men have had to serve and which men have not. Funny too that you should whine about women and the draft while saying that women being barred from colleges is a class issue — wasn’t it just within the last two decades that women could enroll at VMI or the Citadel?
Irony much Mr. Bad? (the irony too being that I seriously doubt that you, yourself, mister big guy, have been drafted.)
If the administration upheld the prof’s decision, there is a paper trail. If the professor issued homework, graded tests, and reported grades, there was a paper trail. If she’s ever had male students, ditto.
“I don’t have a dog, my dog doesn’t bite, that’s not my dog.” I’m sure Happy will be familiar with the quote, and the context.
It’s interesting when one actually complains, and presents evidence that one earned grade “X” how the story changes, and gets shovelled under the rubric of “Feedback.” That’s right, not “Participation” but “feedback.” Even though I gae the proper and prescribed answers on tests, she felt my answers didn’t demonstrate “empathy” and “understanding.”
Which is probably true, but still subjective, and still a fancy way of saying “He wasn’t successfully indoctrinated so I lowered his grade.” - Worse, IMO, than honestly admitting “I don’t think men can ever really understand, so I dock them on the grade.”
The point, Gonz, is not whether it happened or not. The point is that you can’t say that your professor’s actions were condoned by feminists the world over if your professor’s actions were only part of a private conversation. I haven’t been arguing in the alternative at all here.
Hey Mr. Bad, I just did a little quick research to correct the lies and false implications that you made above.
“Women have never had any obligation to serve their country before being granted all of the rights and privileges of full citizenship the way men have.”
What’s false is the claim to a long history that men had allegedly had of being conscripted in order to gain their full rights and priveleges of citizenship. Quite interestingly, the US did not have a formal conscription tied to citizenship until 1917 when the US was a war; even more interestingly, it wasn’t until 1940 that the Selective Service was founded.
Women’s suffrage was granted in 1920.
So, Mr. Bad, which men are you pulling outta yer ass to make your point, I mean your false point? Obviously men got their full citizenship in the US for quite some time, simply by having a penis.
Booyah.
Q Grrl,
Whining? I didn’t raise these topics, you did.
Women were not barred from college. For centuries wealthy women have been able to go to college, as have wealthy men. VMI and The Citadel? Smith, Barnard, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, etc., etc. Compare here with here. No doubt that looks equal or favoring men to you. All your arguments on this matter are either false or misleading.
Universal women’s suffrage was passed in 1920, but women could vote in New Jersey since the Union was founded; Wyoming had women’s suffrage in the 1890s; there are other examples of individual states that allowed all women to vote prior to the 19th(?) Amendment. According to your selective ‘research,’ conscription started for men just about the time women recieved universal suffrage. Conscription, draft - semantics. The real irony is that women recieved full rights and privileges without obligation just about the time men were required to risk sacrificing their lives for those same rights and privileges. If men didn’t submit then they lost many rights and privileges that women automatically enjoy (e.g.,they went to jail, couldn’t vote, couldn’t hold govt. jobs, couldn’t get govt. loans or other benefits, etc.), and this was the case up unti Nixon ended the draft in the mid-1970s. There’s nothing false in saying the 1) men have been discriminated against re. conscription/draft far more recently than women were re. suffrage, and 2) that 18 - 20 year old men who were drafted and died in war prior to July 1, 1971 (about the time the draft ended) sacrificed their life for a country that did not allow them to vote for the male and female leaders who sent them to die. Further, women have never been required to serve at all. If you think I’m wrong, then please, tell me what obligations to their country women have had to submit to before being granted full rights and privileges.
You’re correct Q Grrl, I wasn’t drafted, but I did have to register. Let’s see your draft card.
And yes, some people were able to pass on the draft, but since I was around back when it was active I believe I have a better understanding of who got the passes and who didn’t. For the most part the primary determinant was political connectedness, not class. And yes, class can be used as a proxy for political connectedness, but not always. Some men from very wealthy families were drafted and some men from poor but politically-connected families were given deferrments.
The fact that women’s suffrage is dragged out by feminists and women’s studies professors (like you Hugo) and students as a legitimate issue for contemporary grievances, while at the same time the very - and much more recent - real injustice against men perpetrated by conscription/the draft and the accompanying requirement of service for only men (without the right of suffrage for 18 - 20 year olds) is yet another example of the lack of balance in wome…, er, feminist studies. Arguments like “Obviously men got their full citizenship in the US for quite some time, simply by having a penis. Booyah.” in light of the facts prove my point far better than I can.
Q Grrl said:
—-
What’s false is the claim to a long history that men had allegedly had of being conscripted in order to gain their full rights and priveleges of citizenship. Quite interestingly, the US did not have a formal conscription tied to citizenship until 1917 when the US was a war; even more interestingly, it wasn’t until 1940 that the Selective Service was founded.
Women’s suffrage was granted in 1920.
Interesting indeed.
In your post we see that the wrongful practice of denying women the vote was ended in 1920.
On the other hand we see wrongful laws being MADE against men as recently as 1940.
So, complaining about historical wrongs that were corrected almost 90 years ago is right and good.
Conversely, complaining about wrongs that continue to exist to this day is not o.k. because they are trumped by the other mentioned historical wrongs (which don’t exist anymore)
It just sounds like revenge. ‘They deserve it’ I guess.
—-
Obviously men got their full citizenship in the US for quite some time, simply by having a penis.
—-
If citizenship was tied to service as you state in your post then not all men would get it simply by having a penis. Only those who served. (and had a penis - although I don’t know if the amount of citizenship was tied to the amount of penis)
Do women now get their citizenship by simply having a vagina or are there other qualifications needed?
—-
Booyah.
—-
I like the cool stuff, too!
Okay, folks, thread drift is starting to emerge. Future comments need to be directed more narrowly to the subject of this post, not the whole sweeping panorama of American history.
Hugo wrote: “My students always find it fascinating that during Reconstruction, the US Congress (made up almost entirely of white men) was more willing to countenance the enfranchisement of black male former slaves than they were of their own wives and sisters. Says something about the degree to which a belief in female inferiority and separate spheres was even stronger than racial bias. That isn’t normally taught in US History courses — though it should be!”
Actually Hugo I don’t think that you can make a very strong case attributing the enfranchisement of black male former slaves to sexism or a belief in “female inferiority.” A more simple (and IMO more plausible) explanation is that those men got the vote becuase they earned it by fighting alongside their white brothers during the Civil War; perhaps they were even promised enfranchisement by the Lincoln administration in return for their service in the Union Army. In essence, they proved to enough of the ‘right people’ that they were indeed capable of responsible and honorable behavior and thus worthy of having the vote. Do you have any proof that your theory is true and that mine isn’t?
Bringing this back on-topic: Again, this example demonstrates a definite bias in the manner in which women’s studies adherents approach important topics. It seems to me that professors and students alike are quick to jump to conclusions that support their own beliefs, stereotypes and/or biases rather than take a measured, analytical approach to answering such questions, even - or perhaps especially - when the answers might threaten their ingrained beliefs. In this case a truly diverse coterie of faculty would approach your theory from much broader base than the ’sexism explains the 50-year lag in voting rights’ rubric and IMO would provide a much better answer, even if I personally didn’t like or agree with it.
Looks like to me that white guys are pretty well covered when it comes to classes.
So, Antigone, are you saying that WS is purely some kind of history lesson, with the focus on women? I think not. I think WS encompasses far more than merely historical facts - Hugo’s own experiences as a teacher which have been documented on this blog show that WS is married very closely to the feminist ideology. When I studied about ‘dead white men’ in history, my teacher didn’t bang on about men’s rights at the same time. It was purely about history. Therefore, your idea is flawed in saying that we men have already got a similar kind of academic course for ourselves. We do not.
That’s my point - WS is pure sexism because a complementary study of men is missing - and an ideology that champions men and their concerns. Personally I’d rather not see that - I’d rather see some ‘joined-up thinking’ here and for men and women to get together and accept both men and women have unique problems and unique experiences of discrimination.
Of course, feminists would oppose this.
The point, Gonz, is not whether it happened or not. The point is that you can’t say that your professor’s actions were condoned by feminists the world over if your professor’s actions were only part of a private conversation. I haven’t been arguing in the alternative at all here.
We had, not too many years ago, a feminist professor observe something to the effect that men can benefit from being falsely accused of rape. A feminist professor who barred men from her classes. In response to this, many feminists objected; however I’d be fascinated to find how many did so with a “…, BUT…” in there somewhere.
Seriously. How far you think I’d get if I started out with, “Well, of course nobody is for rape, BUT…” before someone said “NO BUTS! It’s wrong! Always! Period!?” Hm?
This is the same thing that gets me wound up. I might ask for a man to get a fair trial, but you show me a real rapist, and I’ll be itching to cut his gonads off. But let Mary Daly et al come out with blatant sexism - which feminism allegedly deplores - and you can’t find an unqualified condemnation of it from more than a scant minority of feminists to save your life. There’s always a “but.” There is always dithering. There is always some discussion sugesting there might be some rightness to sexism.
That’s not drawing a line against sexism - that’s just arguing over what kinds of sexism will be allowed.
And - if you really think that someone can argue for the exclusion of men from classes, or that being falsely accused of rape might be a positive experience, and get a significant measure of sage approbation from the feminist community, why it is such a stretch to find that lowering a grade as an object lesson or something wouldn’t get the same reception?
Addendum to the above:
Yes - some feminists objected uncategorically to Mary Daly, and things like that. About an equal number also heartily endorsed it.
Let’s give the full story.
There’s always a “but.” There is always dithering. There is always some discussion sugesting there might be some rightness to sexism.
My feelings too gonzman - being against sexism can sometimes mean condemning your “own” people of sexism. There’s no wiggle room. No “buts”.
To me, the most revealing thing about WS is the blatant proselytization, which is actually the raison d’etre for the entire endeavor. Believe it or not, respected WS professors have directly stated that the primary purpose of their classes is to produce young feminists. Refreshing honesty, at least. So what other major field of study common to nearly all western universities has as its stated primary purpose the production of adherents to a favored “ism”? This makes it abundantly clear that WS is an aberration in the history of higher education that has no place on any campus. Future generations will find it difficult to believe that western society in this age could have become so blindly driven by radical (and self-destructive) ideology that common sense and reason itself was no match for it, even in the institutions of higher learning, just as we shake our heads at the credulity of the ideologues who promoted the inquisition and witch trials in centuries past.
Stanton, comparing women’s studies to the Inquisition (where folks were burned at the stake for real) is beneath you — and more importantly, has no place on my blog. I will close this thread if it becomes the sole home of MRAs seeking another opportunity to opine about the evils of women’s studies.
Hugo - it was not my intention to compare them in any way, and I apologize if it across that way. I just meant to say that what can seem so right to many or most people in one age can seem silly to a later age, and used that as an example. Bad choice, and I seriously regret using it now, since the offense taken will probably obscure the entire point I was trying to make.
I would consider this on topic, in that it addresses the concern of your post, about the intellectual bona fides to be established (or not) via an advanced degree in WS vis-a-vis a degree in a different field. (And I did not say WS is evil, either. It’s simply out of place at colleges and universities.)
Stanton, your apology is appreciated; yes, the original remark obscured your point, but your contrition has unveiled it once again. Mind you, I disagree with it completely — but accept it as a legitimate argument.
Let’s see your draft card.
You know, back when I was in my early twenties, I did attempt o register for the draft. Somewhere, I have the letter from the poor newbie at the AG’s office who got stuck writing a letter to me, stating that the statute specifically said ‘males’ and I was free to try to get Congress to change its mind, but in the meantime too bad. I never did get a men’s-rights group to take me up on my offer to be a test case for that challenge.
Draft = rights is not a real argument; men who are too young, too old, or otherwise ineligible are citizens with full rights. It’s especially silly when you realize that supervillain-feminist NOW’s position on the draft is that it either shouldn’t exist or should include women, and that it wasn’t exactly an egalitarian Congress that barred women from service.
On women’s studies, I think a broader discipline of gender studies is a fine idea, especially as it would more obviously encompass issues of sex roles and sexual orientation that are tied to gender. Doubt it would ever get feminist-haters to take it as seriously as, oh, British history.
To me, the most revealing thing about WS is the blatant proselytization, which is actually the raison d’etre for the entire endeavor
Exactly. Not only is it trying to proselytize an ideology to its students, but the ideology itself holds an incredibly condascending and sexist view of men. This is the weakness of WS and why it is an object of ridicule to many.
You know, back when I was in my early twenties, I did attempt o register for the draft. Somewhere, I have the letter from the poor newbie at the AG’s office who got stuck writing a letter to me, stating that the statute specifically said ‘males’ and I was free to try to get Congress to change its mind, but in the meantime too bad. I never did get a men’s-rights group to take me up on my offer to be a test case for that challenge.
You could always join the army if you are truly interested in fighting for your country.
Right, Mythago. Maybe we should quit fretting about equal treatment and opportunities for paraplegics like my husband since they will never be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.
And Perplexed, plenty of women have joined and do join the army and fight in combat for their country, notwithstanding historic limitations placed on women’s opportunities for doing so.
I find it highly amusing how afraid some people on this thread seem to be of Women’s Studies.
I have a Women’s Studies degree — in fact, the title of the degree program was ‘Feminist Cultural Theory and Practice’ — which should make Mr Bad happy.
My program, like Happy Feminist’s and I imagine most Women’s Studies courses, was interdisciplinary. I took modules in the departments of Educational Research, Sociology and Religious Studies in addition to Women’s Studies. One could also take modules given by the Politics, History and English departments amongst others.
The idea that Women’s Studies somehow prevents analysis or critical thought is simply erroneous. I found that the WS program encouraged my analytical abilities at least as much as my previous Philosophy degree course. If you want to find out more about a Women’s Studies course that actually takes place in reality rather than inside your own heads, then visit the website of the WS program I took.
Interestingly, I probably read more works by men in one year of WS than works by women during three years of Philosophy — yet which is regarded by anti-feminists as the ’sexist’ discipline?!
And Perplexed, plenty of women have joined and do join the army and fight in combat for their country, notwithstanding historic limitations placed on women’s opportunities for doing so.
Where have I said they haven’t? I was just letting mythago know that if she is genuinely interested in fighting for her country, she can join the army - as opposed to trying to sign up for a draft in a futile way.
I find it highly amusing how afraid some people on this thread seem to be of Women’s Studies.
Not afraid - I’m usually somewhere between amused and slightly exasperated (depending on the conversation about WS).
I found that the WS program encouraged my analytical abilities at least as much as my previous Philosophy degree course.
Critical analysis though? I doubt it. Can you give me some specifc examples of where your course criticises feminism? I would be interested to read those. Or is everything in lock-step with feminist thinking? Critical analysis takes you out of your comfort zone; sometimes permanently disagreeing on fundamental issues with other students/lecturers. My experience of feminists is that they are always ‘on message’ - a fear of speaking out if it might make them unpopular.
Interestingly, I probably read more works by men in one year of WS than works by women during three years of Philosophy — yet which is regarded by anti-feminists as the ’sexist’ discipline?!
What I find amusing is this obsession with gender many WS proponents have. Why does it matter that the works you read are by men? I certainly don’t care. What I do care about is the content of their works.
Can you give me some specifc examples of where your course criticises feminism? I would be interested to read those. Or is everything in lock-step with feminist thinking?
The fact that you regard ‘feminist thinking’ as a monolithic entity shows that you have little understanding of either feminism or Women’s Studies. There are many different perspectives held and debates to be had within ‘feminist thought’. If I was ‘in lock-step with feminist thinking’ then I’d be contradicting myself somewhere, as some feminist positions directly oppose one another. As the WS department website for Lancaster University reads:
‘Whichever programme you choose you will gain an understanding of the diversity of feminist perspectives and be able to develop intellectually informed and methodologically skilled ways to identify, define and research your own interests.’ (Bold mine)
Many of the feminist readings took me out of my ‘comfort zone’ (a work by Audre Lorde, for example), and for the module ‘Women and Sexuality in the Christian Tradition’ we read some avowed anti-feminist authors, including Pat Robertson. I had to read more anti-feminist books for my dissertation.
As in any other course (philosophy, history, English), WS involves a lot of reading. In WS, like in any other course, we had to analyse the readings (and in my course there was film and picture analysis too); the professor didn’t stand at the front and tell us what to think. I didn’t even know what the professors’ personal views were concerning most of the writers whose works we read.
What I find amusing is this obsession with gender many WS proponents have. Why does it matter that the works you read are by men?
If gender is irrelevant to you, then why are you so ‘obsessed’ with ‘men’s problems’? Or is discrimination and marginalisation only important to you when it appears to be directed at men?
Amyl, when I read perplexed’s comment, I just knew that the old feminist retort about the diversity of feminist thought would follow, as night follows day. (A topic for a different time: Why do so many of these same apologists also seem to believe that the MRA/FRA people are of a single mind?) You are correct, of course, and I’m glad that some of the “feminisms” made you uncomfortable. That’s like options on a car: I am uncomfortable with purple paint on my Buick, Bill won’t use a standard transmission on his Buick, most prefer the Lucerne, some just shake their heads at those LeSabre drivers… Variety! So would you say, then, that a person who held what you would call an anti-feminist perspective (the Nissan) - arguing that the present day movement was off track and presenting papers demonstrating this - would have done just fine in your program?
Why do so many of these same apologists also seem to believe that the MRA/FRA people are of a single mind?
stanton: I think that it’s that disagreements among MRAs aren’t as visible to the general public. Go to any feminist blog, and you can usually find at least a reference to some sort of disagreement among feminists, usually (but not always) along the lines of radfem vs. third-wave.
I’ve really not seen much internal debate among MRAs (though to be fair I don’t look at those forums nearly as often). There’s been a bit of dissent over Darren Mack, but it seems more along the lines of “should we close ranks or disown him?” than an actual ideological disagreement.
I’m curious - what are some of the big divides among the men’s rights crowd, and where can good debate on these topics be found?
Why do you assume that I would describe the point of view of someone who argued that the present day movement was off track as an anti-feminist?
There are many reasons a person could give for believing that the present day movement is not all it could be — and not all such reasons are inherently ‘anti-feminist’.
Thanks for responding, Amyl, but you didn’t address the question - you just picked at the wording. So - how would an unreformed and vocal anti-feminist - however you define it - have fared in your program?
jfp - no time for a detailed response, since I’m headed out of town for an overnight with Ammachi (I LOVE her!). I will try to get back tomorrow, if the thread still lives. One thing I will quickly point out, however, is that I disagree with Gonz about Robert Bly, for example, and many MRAs actually identify as feminists as well.
I objected to your wording because what you said was incorrect and encouraged the categorisation of ‘feminist thought’ as narrow and rigid.
Women’s Studies, just like every other academic subject operates within a particular paradigm. The concepts essential to the WS paradigm include: the belief that women have historically been oppressed, the beliefs that women continue to be treated unequally today and that this isn’t right, and the belief that all people are equal and should be treated as such.
So yes, a person who believed that a certain group of people were inferior would fail the course, assuming they articulated their personal beliefs in their papers. They would also fail most mainstream sociology and history courses that had anything to do with gender/race, just as creationists would fail most mainstream biology courses.
The idea that because there is a (very basic, broad) paradigm means that WS is narrow and that everyone who studies it is walking in ‘lock-step’ is ludicrous. Every academic discipline operates within a paradigm.
Many of the feminist readings took me out of my ‘comfort zone’ (a work by Audre Lorde, for example), and for the module ‘Women and Sexuality in the Christian Tradition’ we read some avowed anti-feminist authors, including Pat Robertson. I had to read more anti-feminist books for my dissertation.
You may have read anti-feminist texts, but I can well imagine you’ve been told to do so with a critical eye. If not, do you know anybody who has graduated from WS who is anti-feminist? Surely if WS is not biased toward any ideology, you would get people graduating with varying beliefs - to the point you will see anti-feminists graduate from WS.
If gender is irrelevant to you, then why are you so ‘obsessed’ with ‘men’s problems’? Or is discrimination and marginalisation only important to you when it appears to be directed at men?
Amyl, you didn’t actually answer my question:-
Why does it matter that the works you read are by men?
Reading books by male authors is irrelevant. It’s what they write about that counts. I found it amusing you felt it important to state they were male authors.
As for problems men face, of course I am interested in them. I am interested in women’s problems. I find WS to be strangely (and hypocritically) exclusive when it comes to equality though. It’s like somebody campaigning for racial equality, but only for blacks and not other races. Racial and sexual equality are by their definition inclusive. WS is sexist because it is not inclusive in that way.
The concepts essential to the WS paradigm include: the belief that women have historically been oppressed, the beliefs that women continue to be treated unequally today and that this isn’t right, and the belief that all people are equal and should be treated as such.
I agree with this description. Given this is a fact, WS’s existance relies on the idea that women are oppressed. No wonder it perpetuates this idea. It’s in its own interest to.
It’s easy for you to say that you just go off of “Content” when reading a book: 90% are written by people like you.
I’m not saying that I don’t enjoy writing by men, but you know? I like to be able to have a role model that I can emulate. And it’s easier to emulate a someone like you as opposed to unlike you.
“Women’s Studies, just like every other academic subject operates within a particular paradigm. The concepts essential to the WS paradigm include: the belief that women have historically been oppressed, the beliefs that women continue to be treated unequally today and that this isn’t right, and the belief that all people are equal and should be treated as such.”
Nice words but not found in practice. Yes, some women have been historically oppressed, just as some men have. The flip side is that some women have been fantastically pampered and privileged, just as some men have. Much of what WS (really feminist studies) attributes to “sexism” is instead classism. IMO one of the the main reasons that they fail to see this is because of what has been euphamistically described as “the gender lens” (an interesting metaphor, since the primary function of a lens is to distort an image in one way or another), which as I see it is a term used for a meme that focuses solely on sex/gender from a feminist perspective and ignores all other perspectives. Men have been oppressed in the past and are oppressed today; in many ways western women are a privileged class relative to men in the west and elsewhere. A legitimate WS or “gender studies” program would examine the oppression of men from perspectives other than the feminist one, but since WS professors apply the “gender lens” model in their approach this doesn’t happen. As I said before, a true Women’s Studies approach would consider the viewpoints of, e.g., Phyllis Schafly, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, Camille Paglia, et al.
And like stanton, I just knew the “many types of feminist” argument was surely going appear, and I wasn’t disappointed. But still, it’s like my analogy of a Religion department composed of solely Christians. Sure there are many types of Christians - Catholics, protestants (and all the subdivisions within), Eastern Orthodox, etc. - but in the end they’re all Christians. Same thing with women’s studies and feminists.
“So yes, a person who believed that a certain group of people were inferior would fail the course, assuming they articulated their personal beliefs in their papers. They would also fail most mainstream sociology and history courses that had anything to do with gender/race…”
Which is why sociology and to a lesse extent history are also suffering serious credibility problems among academics and the public at large.
“…just as creationists would fail most mainstream biology courses.”
Except that’s also not true. Creationists have successfully completed mainstream biology courses, and some highly reputable biological scientists are in fact adherents of the “intelligent design” theory. What separates them from feminists is that they know when to leave their personal religious convictions out of areas where they don’t belong, e.g., their professional work in legitimate academic endeavors.
Of course WS is ‘biased’ if by that you mean ‘operates within a feminist paradigm’. Where did I ever say that it didn’t? As I said in my response to Stanton, every academic discipline is ‘biased’ in the sense that it operates within its own particular paradigm. Mainstream history courses are ‘biased’ against Holocaust-deniers, mainstream biology courses are ‘biased’ against creationists; mainstream English Lit courses are ‘biased’ against people who want to write their essays in the style of e.e. cummings.
If you read what I wrote, you would see that what I am objecting to is not the fact that WS is a feminist discipline, but that there is such a thing as monolithic, narrow, rigid ‘feminist thinking’ to which all feminists adhere. What you don’t seem to be understanding is that there is huge scope for discussion, disagreement, debate, critical thinking and analysis WITHIN feminist thought. So, while I do not know of any anti-feminists who graduated with a WS degree, I know a lot of feminists and not-feminists-but-not-anti-feminists who graduated with a WS degree who have very different views on various gender-related topics. Hence, your accusations of feminists all being in lock-step and refusing to think critically are unfounded.
Reading books by male authors is irrelevant. It’s what they write about that counts.
I suppose you would say the same about the fact that most people in positions of power and authority in the world are male. Irrelevant. It’s what they do that counts, right?
You see, I believe that women make just as good writers and leaders as men, and that a lack of female authors on a course and female politicians in Parliament indicates that there is some kind of a problem going on. Particularly in the context of a world that has only recently started treating women as autonomous people in their own right rather than appendages of their husbands/fathers.
It’s evident that you don’t believe that women are any more disadvantaged in contemporary society than men (I wonder whether you believe that women ever were), so it’s a bit pointless for me to argue with you about the alleged sexism of WS courses.
Oh, and sorry for so many posts, but I missed something.
Myth, what you described was an effort to voluntarily sign up, i.e., enlist in the draft - nobody was forcing you to do anything - thus, it was in no way comparable to the draft. Conscription/the draft is designed to force men to serve against their will; enlistment is voluntary service, and women have been allow to enlist since at least WW-II. Besides, IMO it’s easy to ‘volunteer’ to do something undesirable when one knows full-well that they powers that be will not allow them to actually do it.
And I too would like to know why you didn’t just simply enlist if you were so keen on serving? I’m sure the military would have loved to consider you for a position.
No Amyl, you are the one who is not ‘getting it.’ As I’ve said several times, I understand that feminists are a diverse group (just like MRAs, Christians, et al.).
So, one more time: What I’m saying is that WS is not “Women’s” studies, it’s feminist studies, so they should at the very least change the name to reflect the reality. Truth in advertising and all that. Be honest.
And as I said, Mr Bad (and I specifically directed my comment at you), my course was called ‘Feminist Cultural Theory and Practice‘. Did you notice the word ‘feminist’ in there?
Where did I ever say I have a problem with the discipline being called ‘Feminist Studies’?
As for my previous comment, it was a reply to perplexed, not you. Please try to keep up before castigating others for ‘not getting it’.
Ok, thanks for the clarification and sorry for you taking offfense to my reply re. not ‘getting it.’ But after all, you were the one who said “if you read what I wrote…” as if we just make knee-jerk replies without actually reading and considering what people say. Courtesy goes both ways, as does snarkiness apparently.
“Myth, what you described was an effort to voluntarily sign up, i.e., enlist in the draft - nobody was forcing you to do anything - thus, it was in no way comparable to the draft. Conscription/the draft is designed to force men to serve against their will; enlistment is voluntary service, and women have been allow to enlist since at least WW-II.”
No. She went down to register for the draft, like any man would, and was told “no” because she lacked the requisite penis for proper military combat.
Q Grrl said: “No. She went down to register for the draft, like any man would, and was told “no” because she lacked the requisite penis for proper military combat.”
Q Grrl, if you can’t see the difference between being forced to register for the draft on pain of jail, etc., vs. voluntarily going down like mythago did, then frankly, you’re not a reasonable person and thus there’s no point in further discussion of such issues with you.
Mr. Bad:
If you can’t see that if the government won’t consider you draftable because you don’t have a penis, that it isn’t your fault that you can’t get drafted, then you need to, well, I dunno. Buy a clue, perhaps?
You’re the one trumping the draft card as some sign or symbol of the great sacrifice those with testicles and a penis make (all in the name of citizenship), yet, uh, it those some folks with testicles and penises that are denying draftability in the first place. Duh.
You can’t blame women for something that men refuse to allow them to do. Or, you can, but then you look like some kind of neandrathal fool.
The turnip truck is heading west; if you run a little faster you might catch back up.
If you can’t see that if the government won’t consider you draftable because you don’t have a penis, that it isn’t your fault that you can’t get drafted, then you need to, well, I dunno. Buy a clue, perhaps?
lol Q Grrl - get a grip - mythago can always, you know, join the army (blinding flash of the obvious) if she wants to fight for her country - nothing whatsoever stopping her. Flip side of the coin: a guy doesn’t want to be drafted, but is called by his country? His options: jail, or go to war.
G Qrrl, thank you for providing a further example of the hypocrisy of feminism.
I’m not saying that I don’t enjoy writing by men, but you know? I like to be able to have a role model that I can emulate. And it’s easier to emulate a someone like you as opposed to unlike you.
Antigone, you seem to be going off on a tangent here. Who’s talking about enjoying writing? I merely said Amyl highlighted the fact that she had to read books written by men. Why mention gender? I see that as irrelevant compared to what they write. A man might write Mein Kampf or he might write The Road Less Travelled. The message is much more pertinent compared to the author’s gender. This obsession with gender is unhealthy IMHO - like anyone obsessed with an ‘ism’ - some people only see racism for example, even when it doesn’t exist. WS needs their distorted view of the oppression of women to be perpetuated to keep their funding going.
One thing conspiciously missing from feminists : critical thinking and discipline. It’s all comfort-zone and victim self-pity.
Myth, what you described was an effort to voluntarily sign up, i.e., enlist in the draft - nobody was forcing you to do anything - thus, it was in no way comparable to the draft.
I think some of the pretend cluelessness here is not being able to distinguish between “Selective Service” and “the draft”. Right now, there is no draft–nobody is being called into military service. What men are subject to is mandatory Selective Service reg