The conservative women's group brought some woman to our uni to talk about why there shouldn't be women's studies and she talked about all these horrible things that women's studies classes do. It came out in the Q&A session that she had never actually been to a women studies class (not one!). All the advocates for women's studies erupted into laughter and you could feel the air go out of the room for the conservative women's group.

from the article
"The idea that political power can establish "truth" is a conception so contrary to the intellectual foundations of the modern research university that the AAUP committee could not state it so baldly."

Oh no it isn't: Foucault makes it very clear that those with power define what knowledge is... in fact he goes so far as to say that they are equivalent.

"Does he think that economics, taught from a perspective that usually privileges capitalism and free market ideology, isn't a touch political? Has he ever been in a psychology class to witness how certain behaviors are deemed pathological and others are categorized as sane?"

WELL SAID!!!

We are ALL indoctrinated, ALL THE BLODDY TIME, during our ENTIRE LIVES!

And, Mary Tracy, what these asshats fail to recognize is that we're usually being indoctrinated to believe that the straight, white, male experience is the "normal" or "default" experience, and thus should be given the most credence and attention.

I find it very interesting that he keeps harping on about looking at things in a scientific fashion. I wonder how he expects that to work in an English department? If an English professor advances a particular interpretation of an author's work, an interpretation which is generally accepted in the field, is he going to accuse them of being overly political? What if a student holds an opposing view? Is the teacher indoctrinating them if they hold to the original interpretation? How will the student know that they are free to disagree with the instructor? What about a foreign language class? If the instructor insists on the "correct" usage of the language for tests, rather than idiomatic or dialectic usage, is she indoctrinating students? What about history? They say history is written by the winners. Is a history professor indoctrinating his students by presenting a particular viewpoint of history, which is accepted in the field?

See how stupid this stuff sounds when you put it into another discipline? Despite his rather simplistic interpretation of the term, Women's Studies is not simply teachign students about women. It's about examining the place of women in society, the basis for that place, the perceptions of women in society, the basis for that perception, and what (if anything) has changed, could change, should change, or will change about either of those things. It's a complex topic, and I seriously doubt that every women's studies professor out there is happily parrotting some party line. I work at a university. I know lots of professors. That's just not the way they are. They all have their own viewpoints and their own interpretations, and that's going to come out in their teaching.

Let's leave some complimentary comments over at the New Statesman. Right now the second one has way too much prominence.

The executive director of the National Women's Studies Association, Allison Kimmich, has some good comments that pretty much eviscerate Horowitz's lame arguments over at Free Exchange on Campus.

I also think that what Horowitz and his ilk are really trying to do is delegitimate the university as an arena for the intellectual engagement worthy of taxpayer support, thus reducing access to higher education for all but those who can afford the tuition.

But he's also a world-class creep.

Has he ever been in a psychology class to witness how certain behaviors are deemed pathological and others are categorized as sane? A totally political process, I would argue.

It's considered pretty embarrassing that the APA voted that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Of course, I think it's a great thing that most of the APA believed that homosexuality is not an illness. But it goes to show how much power is in the hands of a few people. Imagine if they voted the other way? What if one day they vote that "Post Abortion Syndrome" is a real thing?

"From a feminist perspective" appears in many of my psychology textbooks, and the context is pretty clear, at least to me, that the authors mean "from a gender equality perspective," not "from a woman's perspective" or "from a militant hairy bra-burner's perspective." I don't know how clear that is for anyone else though.

Ummm ... aren't all studies indoctrination?

Otherwise, why the #@$% do they call the degree I have a "doctorate"?

Foucault makes it very clear that those with power define what knowledge is... in fact he goes so far as to say that they are equivalent.

Just because Foucoult said it doesn't mean it's the truth. He is certainly the foundation for the postmodernist thought that "knowledge" is impossible to obtain because all information is controlled by those in power. I flatly reject that view. Power and perspective have influence, but there is an objective reality. The honest investigator recognizes and attempts to discount the subjective influences to get at the real truth of the matter investigated. Such an effort in the academy is not only worthy but central.

Just as Foucault is not God, neither are the words of white males nearly 90 years ago those of Satan:

Some years ago, Robert Post of Yale, a member of the AAUP subcommittee that drafted the report, summarized the principles that have informed university governance for nearly a century. A "key premise" of the AAUP's classic 1915 "Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," Post wrote, "is that faculty should be regarded as professional experts in the production of knowledge." Post explains, "The mission of the university defended by the 'Declaration' depends on a particular theory of knowledge. The 'Declaration' presupposes not only that knowledge exists and can be articulated by scholars, but also that it is advanced through the free application of highly disciplined forms of inquiry, which correspond roughly to what [philosopher] Charles Peirce once called 'the method of science' as opposed to the 'method of authority.'"

neither are the words of white males nearly 90 years ago those of Satan

Gee, is there a strawfeminist in the house?

Women's Studies does not have to abandon the view that the pursuit of truth is an important goal. That some writers and professors in the field have done so is regrettable, in my view.

“I flatly reject that view. Power and perspective have influence, but there is an objective reality.�

You may reject or accept whatever opinion you want, that does not make the opinion itself wrong. That there exists an “objective reality� is also a matter of opinion. Just because you say there is, doesn’t make it so.

“Women's Studies does not have to abandon the view that the pursuit of truth is an important goal. That some writers and professors in the field have done so is regrettable, in my view.�

Eh? Which writers or professors have abandoned which “truth�? Do you have a monopoly on truth? I bet you haven’t sat in a women’s studies class in your life either.

I dare David Horowitz to come to a Cornell University class in the "Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies" discipline and cry "indoctrination!" after witnessing the plethora and diversity of viewpoints presented.

Which writers or professors have abandoned which “truth�? Do you have a monopoly on truth? I bet you haven’t sat in a women’s studies class in your life either.

You would lose your bet. Give me a day to find some quotes to support my statement, though I don't believe that view is dominant in the field anyway, as Horowitz apparently does. Also, in that context I used the term "truth" as equivalent to "objective reality" so my finding the citations will not likely satisfy you anyway.

SixtiesLiberal, I've a question. Whose interpretation of objective reality are we to rely on? I know you can't be naive enough to say that it's possible to simply point to an idea and say it's an objective reality without applying an interpretation. Ideas, after all, are much harder to deal with than objects (to say "That chair exists" is much simpler, for instance). So even if one buys into your particular viewpoint on truth and objective reality, whose interpretation are we taking as gospel? Yours? Mine? An instructor's?

If we both look at an idea and have different interpretations of that idea (or event, or person, etc. etc. etc.), who is to decide which interpretation is that of "objective reality" and which is not?

It's all well and good to say that objective reality exists. It's something else entirely to define both it and the methods for determining what it is.

Bravo! Again! for the great New Statesman article (again)

SixtiesLiberal:

Rorty (love!) provides a simple, knock-down explanation for why banging on about "objective reality" is rather pointless.

Yes, the world has things in it outside of us (d'oh). But things cannot themselves be true or false. Things just are. Only a statement is true or false. A statement must be composed of language. And language requires a language-using being to comprehend it and apply it. All language-using beings are, inescapably, situated in a particular context. The idea therefore that you can step outside of every aspect of context and consider things from on high is hopeless. More important is to be honest and expansive about all the facets of that context and therefore all the ways in which statements made within a context are affected - i.e. to try to take on board and adjust for as many agendas as possible, not to try to deny the idea that any agendas operate. This makes fields that are explicitly programmatic in some ways rather more honest, ironically (from your point of view), than those that pretend to neutrality.

Gender studies and women's studies are not the same thing. It might make it easier to call them the same thing (although, I really doubt it; people who are against women's studies probably don't want you deconstructing gender either), it would do a disservice to people who want to go into women's studies or gender studies specifically. They overlap quite a very lot, but they still aren't the same thing.

Joan Tronto and I tried to de-bunk the idea that any classroom was neutral way back in 1998.

see www.apsanet.org/imgtest/truthMyers/Tronto.pdf

ciao, jam

Personally I've always preferred "Gender Studies" to "Women's Studies" not as a way of avoiding icky images of militant hairy-legged lesbians but just because it always struck me as a more accurate appellation. To my thinking "Women's Studies" is not the study of women per se, but of the social and psychological constructs of gender and the effect those constructs have or have had on our society.

That was my take on it, anyway. Admittedly, my background includes a combination of psychology and gender studies, so the two exist in my mind as a sort of amorphous blend of ideas; I tend to use psych arguments to defend assertions about gender, and vice versa.

However, I do still roll my eyes at people who claim "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist!" In my experience, that line is almost always used by people who don't actually think women are human.

"You would lose your bet. Give me a day to find some quotes to support my statement"

Fair enough. I’ll be waiting.

Jol- Excellent comment!

Why do guys like Horowitz enjoy making us debate the obvious? Academic fields (with the possible exceptions of pure math & science) are all situated within a context. Isn't that obvious? A heavenly being doesn't write our history books, an individual person or group of persons does.

Same goes with research. Some objective, context-less being doesn't come from the sky and do our research for us, making it perfect and unassailable. An individual or group of individuals does research, making it fallible and situated in a context that affects its outcome.

Is it possible to logically argue that this is not so?

I like "Gender Studies" myself as I feel it is more inclusive. Our university's Gender Studies department includes classes on so much more than just women, but I feel they have no less effect on women. There are several classes that focus on gender roles in different societies (which is includes study on men as women, women as men, and asexual roles), a class titled Deviation and Lifestyle choices and then more of the 'typical' women's classes such as American Women's Literature and Comparative World Women (history).

I think at any university the department (whether it is women or gender studies) is one of the most eclectic and diverse on the campus as it often includes classes from a wide range of disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, communication, English, Ethnic/Cultral studies, history... etc)

And any education is indoctrination. Period.

I think "Gender Studies" makes a lot more sense. If the school takes public money and has a "Women's Studies" or "Feminist Studies" program can't someone argue that there should then be a "Men's Studies" or "Anti-Feminist Studies" program?

I love this site. I've been coming here daily for over a year but just recently signed up to comment. The reason? I find most of the comments too one-sided and blatantly unfair.

For example. When I took what my school called "Women's Studies" I honestly have to report that most of my professors -- most not all -- were fervently attempting indoctrination. In one of my classes a student (female) finally had the nerve to tell the professor in class that she felt the professor "hated men" and expected the women in the class to do so also.

The professor's reply? She said, "Haven't you paid attention? Haven't you learned of the oppression women have lived under in their experience with men? Are you saying we should like or love our oppressors? Any woman who doesn't hate men cannot call herself a true feminist."

Sorry, I don't hate men. And sorry, I will comment here... but I will always tell the truth and not fear reaction that attempts to force me to march in lockstep. Feminism and the need for it is real, but some of its alleged proponents hurt the cause more than help it.

*clutches bingo card expectantly*
"I knew a feminist who said something horrible once"

Only 5 more to go!

Sheila Kelly, I don't think anyone here has claimed that no one has ever done anything inappropriate in the service of feminism. Nor are we claiming that all Women's Studies professors are perfect and paragons of virtue. Of course there are some people out there who are going to use their teaching positions as platforms. I've seen it done by Republicans and Democrats in service of those idealogies, by creative writing professors who are obsessed with "literature" in its snobbiest form, etc. etc. etc.

There are always people who will abuse a position of power. We can do our best to control them, weed them out, or reform them. And we should.

But we also have to remember that that doesn't devalue the discipline of Women's Studies as a whole. Nor does it reflect Women's Studies as a whole. A few bad professors do not, in fact, ruin the whole discipline. And since this conversation has been about the discipline as a whole... I'm just not sure that mentioning one bad professor really has any purpose in this conversation.

I had an Anthro prof who said horrible things about African Americans once. He was not representative of the field. I had a Geology professor who made horrible remarks about women's spatial abilities. Again, not representative of the field.

"Sorry, I don't hate men."
Oh darn. Now you can't come to our special tea gathering where we really cut loose with all the scary man-hate.

See how silly that sounds?

Kimmy and secondhandsally. Thank you for responding. I'm not arguing that a professor or handful of professors are hurting our cause. I'm saying our lack of honesty is hurting us.

My first semester of Women's Studies was particularly satisfying. Why? Because it was fantastic to hear people saying what I felt and had experienced. But, it WAS mostly indoctrination. It was indoctrination that I agreed with, but it was indoctrination.

For us to pretend that indoctrination hasn't occurred and been more prevalent than we feel comfortable admitting only delays our progress. Women's place in history and society and the feminist movement should be studied objectively. When studied objectively: WE WIN! Subjective indoctrination: THEY win. We need men taking "Gender Studies" just as they take Biology and math. It should interest them, too.

And, secondhandsally, while your stridency is impressive you are simply wrong... even one person can hurt a movement. Women, like the professor I mentioned, are as much our enemy as those who oppose us. Feminism is NOT about improving life for women, its about improving life for everyone.

Btw, Sheila Kelly, if you've been coming here daily for over a year, you know perfectly well that man-hating is not a requirement, nor a regular event, here on Feministing. Most of us are quite fond of men (individual men, certainly). While we may hate what many men do, and the way that many men think, we almost never resort to over-all man-hating except possibly in a short-lived fit of exasperated bitterness or frustration. And, quite frankly, saying that (or seeing it said by other commenters) is getting a bit old.

No, "sgzax" it doesn't sound "silly", it sounds apologist. It rests on the illogic that claims a movement should only look and judge outside itself.

Silly stereotypes like "Feminists hate men" live on because of incidents like the one I detailed. It's like all these comments. Be honest. If you took "Women's studies" or "Feminist Studies" and can't begrudgingly admit why someone would say it is "indoctrination" then you are just not being honest. It is understandable why that would happen, but it does not serve the movement. A movement has to be at least as hard on itself as it is on those it seeks to change.

My stridency? I'm confused.

Sheila, quite frankly, I don't understand why you feel the need to come here and educate us that feminism is not about hating men. It is not a valid argument to hold up one person as an example of entire department or movement and that's what I was responding to. You are acting as if I am saying, so she said she hate men, no biggie. No, what I am saying is, if you want to convince me that women's studies/feminism is about hating men then you're going to have to do better than quote what one professor said once.

I'd like to put in a word for the "Women's Studies" over "Gender Studies" argument. You can imagine why feminists wouldn't want to give up the word "women." 1. "Gender Studies" could be somewhat overcome by masculinity and gay male studies. 2. The "Women's studies" field is pretty new to be changing names already; that could affect its legitimacy. 3. The core/history of "Women's Studies" is the "women's" movement.

I've always considered "Postmodernism" and "Religious Faith" to be terrible corrolaries. Without some sort of objective basis, the only manner of reconciling alternative beliefs under either structure is the use of force.

I really see postmodernism as a dreadful system if "true" (sorry to offend with the Enlightenment vernacular), resulting in war of all against all in some manner. For instance, I would think postmodernists would love someone like our current President who finds it quite easy to bend the "truth" to his own current political purposes and situation. What standard would postmodernists even use to debate such dreadful policies, without a real standard.

Also, let's be 100% honest. No postmodernist is applying such belief to his or her daily life. Can you imagine if occupations such as engineering actually believed that no truth standards existed?

I'd like to put in a word for the "Women's Studies" over "Gender Studies" argument. You can imagine why feminists wouldn't want to give up the word "women." 1. "Gender Studies" could be somewhat overcome by masculinity and gay male studies. 2. The "Women's Studies" field is pretty new to be changing names already; that could affect its legitimacy. 3. The core/history of "Women's Studies" is the "women's" movement.

Kimmy, thank you for your additional comment. You talk about not hating men but about not hating what many men do.

Don't you see what you just said? It is not just men we are trying to change. Many, many women (possibly the majority) look upon feminists as the enemy and disagree with at least their perception of it. Feminism is not about men vs. women. It is about achieving true equality and the highest quality of life for everyone. When men finally understand that the tenets of feminism improves their lives as much as women's they will come to us in droves.

I have often wondered if -- as a marketing issue -- calling our movement "Feminism" hasn't been a branding mistake. I truly believe feminsim is really humanism... and possible should be called that. Feminism is NOT about freeing women... it is about freeing us all...

I personally have always disliked the term women's studies. Being possessive, it makes it sound as if the discipline deals with things that only concern women or that only women should/could learn. It puts me in mind of what are commonly referred to in politics as "women's issues," as if only women care about things like child care, abortion, and rape; and furthermore that because these are "women's issues" they are trivial and not worthy of the same time, money and concern as men's issues, like war. Gender, sexuality, and power are issues that affect everyone. Gender does not only pertain to women.

"secondhandsally" I'm beginning to think you are intentionally misunderstanding my point.

My point had nothing to do with "hating men". My point was simple. When I took "Women's Studies" and every woman I know who took the equivalent (whatever its name) admits that ... okay... it really was a bit one-sided and probably could be described as indoctrination. In other words, my point is: Cut it out people... you know that his claim has a basis.

Horowitz has a point... sorry for telling the truth. The answer is to listen to what he says and make it as objective as possible. Those of you arguing blindly for the continuation of Women's Studies as they are seem to think that our positions and beliefs won't survive the bright sunlight of objectivity. Don't worry... objectivity only improves our position. The MORE objective the MORE we win.

"No, "sgzax" it doesn't sound "silly", it sounds apologist. It rests on the illogic that claims a movement should only look and judge outside itself."

Umm, no. You don't get it. What I said is silly because it fleshes out the strawman you created in your post. You aren't making a bold stand when you bravely state that you don't hate men. Most feminists don't hate men. Most women don't hate men. If this is the kind of contribution you plan on making to the dialogue here you're going to get a lot more people pointing out to you that you are arguing with nobody. Heads up.

Feminism is NOT about improving life for women, its about improving life for everyone.

While feminism DOES basically benefit everyone, it disproportionately benefits women because patriarchy disproportionately benefits men.
In order for women to gain social, political, and economic equality, men must give up some of their unearned privilege. Feminism IS about the advancement of women. That is the main objective. Should gender norms and expectations be eradicated, everyone will benefit. But make no mistake about feminism's mission.

"sgzax" the only strawman created and applied here was your deliberate attempt to misportray my point.

My point had nothing to do with hating men. My point was that only the dishonest would claim that they don't understand Horowitz's point. If you've taken Women's Studies you know that on some level you knew that there was indoctrination.

We should cleanse Women's Studies of any hint of indoctrination and strive for objectivity. THAT is my point.

Shelia Kelly I am beginning to think that your comments intentionally misunderstand the point of the post.

The post and most of the comments are raising the idea that objectivity is not, in fact, practiced in any discipline (psychology and english are two examples that have been raised above). To pretend that these studies are objective (when they often historically have had a biased towards white male perspective) and that women's studies is not objective. The point is not "women's studies has NO bias and is totally objective;" the point is that objectivity is not achieved in any discipline. Because this is so, there is a place for women's/gender studies at universities.

But anyway, thanks for coming here to be feminism's knight in shining armor...

The people who are advocating for the continuation of Women's Studies are not "arguing blindly." To suggest that they are is to disregard the points that have been made.

To pretend that...

That sentence should end "...is a fallacy."

Sorry.

I took a women's studies class at my local community college last year. I HATED it - though for the opposite reason most people say they hate women's studies. The class, and the teacher, were downright sexist (and not to men). The teacher was one of those who thinks that feminism was great in the past, but now we have all the rights we need (and all we're going to get) because men and women are so different. First came the question "Why are women more nurturing than men? Nature or nurture?" I responding by asking if women really are more nurturing, or if we're just perceived that way. Teacher was shocked. Then ignored the question. Apparently, the answer was a combination of genetics and environment. Then there was the essay on the pros and cons of being in communities, like churches, that have highly gender-segregated roles (Teacher didn't like it when I told her that my church's minister is a lesbian and we don't have much gender segregation at all). The class got worse from there. The domestic violence group discussion was a victim-blaming fest about how women are stupid for staying with their abusers and for finding new abusers. The worst part of the class was when a guy said that women who dress excessively skanky shouldn't complain when random men grope them and the teacher let it go with her "all opinions are valued" philosophy! ARRGGGGHH! I hated that class! I get upset enough at misogyny on the internet, but that was the last thing I expected in a women's studies class.

So what are women's studies usually like? Am I the only one here to have such a horrible experience?

Oh my God, marle. That's awful. Women's studies classes are usually taught by people who care about the field and not by (I'm guessing here) displaced Sociology profs flailing to keep a full-time schedule in the face of Community College budget cuts.

Women's Studies courses are usually taught by academics who care about theory and the ways theory can provide us with new lenses to view the world. Yes, they are usually feminists. And they usually wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest that everyone's opinion is equal in an academic setting, simply because not everyone's opinion is equally well informed. And anyone who couldn't hang with that... anyone who tried to do some victim blaming while talking about domestic violence, for example... would be provided with ample proof as to why they were wrong.

Women's Studies courses can be an eye-opener. I hope you get to take a real one someday.

Sheila brings up not being a man-hater as if it were some ray of light through the darkness. I point out that most of us are not man-haters, although we occasionally hate the way men think or act. She then lambasts me for not mentioning that women are also occasionally a problem.

Yeah, somebody's really here for serious discussion. You can tell.

Feminism is NOT about improving life for women, its about improving life for everyone

My husband just saw that comment and said "Duh! If the women in my life aren't happy, I'm not going to be happy."

Being that all the women in his life he regularly associates with are feminists, he'd be in a world of hurt if he didn't feel that way, lol. ;)

And how on earth could feminism not be about improving life for women? Some of the major goals are ending oppression of women, marginalization of women, and objectification of women. Key word in those phrases? Women. Duh. Would meeting feminism's goals also benefit men? Most certainly. But the main idea is to do something for women. It just so happens that improving life for more than 50% of the population is bound to have a beneficial effect on everyone (once certain males get over the shock of losing their automatic privilege).

If you've taken Women's Studies you know that on some level you knew that there was indoctrination.

Ah, but don't forget, anyone who goes into a Women's/Gender Studies course with negative perceptions of feminism (i.e. all feminists are militant lesbian man-haters) has already been fully indoctrinated--by the patriarchy.

"Indoctrination" is just a word meaning "you think what you're taught to think." Since none of us exist in a vacuum, we've all been "indoctrinated" by something. Nothing makes me more impatient than people who suggest that somehow just because they got to indoctrinate a person first, that somehow means "hands off!" in terms of exposing that person to any other ideas, especially any that might contradict what you taught them.

It doesn't work that way. You don't get "dibs" on another person's thoughts. You can express and teach your beliefs, be they religious, political, or ideological, but you can't then declare them unassailable, or demand that no one else be permitted to present their ideas.

Sorry for the rant. I just really hate that stupid word. When I hear someone use it, all I hear is "How dare you encourage people to think for themselves!"

In my opinion, teaching feminist ideas to people "indoctrinated" by the patriarchy is simple damage control. It's up to them to ultimately decide which ideas they prefer. I feel most sane, compassionate people would prefer feminism to the alternative, once exposed to it. Why else would people like Horowitz expend so much effort misrepresent it? I could care less if someone else tries to "indoctrinate" them away. If feminism is something they truly believe in, somethng that really resonates with them, they won't abandon it.

That's good enough for me. I'd rather have someone who chose to be a feminist over over someone who's only a feminist because they've never been exposed to anything else.

The university where I teach has a small womens studies program. While I understand that sometimes professors can be indoctrinating, dogmatic, or even just plain silly, our program teaches students to use evidence to evaluate claims and test ideas. While postmodernists may, with some justification, say that most courses have a non-objective point of view or agenda, the fact that most scholars debate ideas and do research that is designed to give their hypotheses a fair test takes us out of the realm of bald indoctrination and toward good scholarship and intellectual honesty.

This point was illustrated by an incident on campus last year. One of the right-wing 'research' groups (I forget which one) sent a speaker to campus to object to our womens studies program and as a counter to the university-supported take-back-the-night march (I'm not making this up.) In the Q & A period after this person spoke, one of our faculty pointed out that feminist theory explained rises in domestic violence by men in terms of crises in male gender roles, and that there was good empirical support for this perspective. He then asked the speaker if her group (the right-wing 'research' think tank) had any theories to explain varying rates of gender violence. The speaker said that she didn't know and didn't consider herself qualified to speak on that. At that point our faculty person pointed out that any of our womens studies students with at least a few W.S. courses could both elaborate the relevant theory and much of the relevant empirical work.

While anti-feminists may not like it, it is really hard to argue against a good womens studies or gender studies program in a non-disingenuous way.

There will always be lousy professors in every field, including WMST. When I was in undergrad, I took a WMST course and the professor, she was a nice woman, but not a good teacher. Does not mean that WMST is bad or is indoctrinating.

At my university, we have a business and a law school as well as a Criminal Justice dept. There are many right-wing professors who try to indoctrinate (we even have a CJ professor who forbids his students to criticize police officers!), no one complains about that. But profs here are banned from discussing the war in Iraq because they don;t want anti-war profs to offend the conservative students.

The elites are right-wing. They own our institutions and any programs that have grown out of social justice movements (WMST or peace studies, or black studies) they are hostile to.

Kimmy, you said:

Yeah, somebody's really here for serious discussion. You can tell.

That type of comment signifies that you aren't either-- making snarky, condescending remarks to shut people out of the conversation and dismiss their ideas, even when they might not be articulating themselves well isn't the type of response that facilitates real discussion and sharing of ideas and opinions. This is especially true when you consider how many people lurk on this blog, only rarely commenting. I don't know about everyone else, but for me, comments like yours are pretty much the reason why I generally stay away from the comment threads, not because I'm afraid that I'll make an argument and be torn to shreds, but because I hate seeing people talk the way you just did to Sheila, even online.

Elzbieta: You delurk for this? Funny who you choose to find offensive and who you defend. Let's review the greatest hits of Sheila Kelly in this thread:

"Sorry, I don't hate men. And sorry, I will comment here... "

"I'm saying our lack of honesty is hurting us." (Whose lack of honesty?)

"while your stridency is impressive you are simply wrong... even one person can hurt a movement. Women, like the professor I mentioned, are as much our enemy as those who oppose us. Feminism is NOT about improving life for women, its about improving life for everyone." (This statement is just wrong all over... but stridency? Is that civil?)

"Silly stereotypes like "Feminists hate men" live on because of incidents like the one I detailed. It's like all these comments. Be honest. If you took "Women's studies" or "Feminist Studies" and can't begrudgingly admit why someone would say it is "indoctrination" then you are just not being honest. It is understandable why that would happen, but it does not serve the movement. A movement has to be at least as hard on itself as it is on those it seeks to change."

(She's like a little worm out to pick everything apart from the inside. Is it wrong to point that out?)

"I have often wondered if -- as a marketing issue -- calling our movement "Feminism" hasn't been a branding mistake. I truly believe feminsim is really humanism... and possible should be called that. Feminism is NOT about freeing women... it is about freeing us all..."

(Well, there you are. She isn't a feminist. Of course, I knew that already. So she really just in here to pick pick pick at something she doesn't actually believe in.)

"We should cleanse Women's Studies of any hint of indoctrination and strive for objectivity. THAT is my point."

(Others have already pointed out that 'indoctrination' is a bogey-man word that could be used as a synonym for education. My real problem with the quote above is the word 'cleanse.' Read that again. 'We must cleanse the movement.' The movement she doesn't believe in. Riiiight.

"Horowitz has a point... sorry for telling the truth. The answer is to listen to what he says and make it as objective as possible. Those of you arguing blindly for the continuation of Women's Studies as they are seem to think that our positions and beliefs won't survive the bright sunlight of objectivity."

(I can't be the only person who found the wording in 'arguing blindly' infuriating, especially coming from a commenter who refused to acknowledge anyone else's points. The people on this thread who disagree with Horowitz largely have informed opinions on the subject. Also, I get skin cancer easily and probably just couldn't handle the bright sunlight that Sheila seems to be advocating.)

Just because a commenter prefaces each remark with 'thank you' doesn't make them civil. Several of the comments above were overtly rude. She called the mass of people on the thread blinded idealogues, rejected feminism (this is a feminist blog, remember), and accused vocal opponents of stridency and lying. But you're fine with that. Nice.

Oh, and in case you want to argue that Sheila is a feminist because she said she was... she called the movement dishonest, said that it needed to be cleansed, tried to suggest that the goal was not to benefit women, and really believed that it should be called humanism instead.

It's like if I said, "I love Republicanism. I am a Republican, but I think we should change it a bit, maybe advocate for individuals over business, and rename it Democracy. But I'm still a Republican." See how that doesn't make sense? I'm not taking her card away. She's doing it herself.

Femily-
"It's considered pretty embarrassing that the APA voted that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Of course, I think it's a great thing that most of the APA believed that homosexuality is not an illness."

I'm not sure if you think homosexuality is a mental disorder, or not. Could you please clarify?

I'm relieved that the APA no longer considers homosexuality a disorder.

"every academic discipline is shaped by subjective and, very often, political forces"

xkcd disagrees

"Horowitz has a point... "

Horowitz has a history of sloppy scholarship, plagiarism and falsely attributing quotes to others in his books. He cannot be taken seriously and anyone who takes him seriously cannot be taken seriously themselves.

Also, during Hurrricane Katrina, Horowitz was collecting money on his website, Frontpagemag.com. if people remember, only amazon, yahoo, and a few other sites were authorized by the Red Cross to collect money. Horowitz took it upon himself to collect for the Red Cross though he was not authorized to do so. The money was going through a right-wing political consulting group (Google:'David Horowitz: American Red Cross Fundraiser').

The guy is shady and anything that he says about wmst should be taken as a compliment. After all, this is the guy who recently targeted Muslims and Arabs in his so-called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"

I wrote a myspace blog on this topic almost a year ago, but of course he's still at it...

Wednesday, November 29, 2006
the only thing left to do is laugh...?
Current mood: amused

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25527

Everyone who attends/has attended Miami University needs to read this article and appreciate its absurdity. I like hearing other peoples' perspectives and having those 'I never thought of it that way before' moments. However, when you clearly know more about a topic than the person whose opinion you disagree with, it's hard to just agree to disagree.

I could go through this article sentence by sentence and tear it apart but do not have the motivation--since it's the end of the semester and I have other things to do (such as final papers and projects as well as the comfort of pointless-in-the-long-run drama that a full belly and life of privelege provide.)

So read this article for yourselves. Realize that anyone who has actually entered Miami as a freshman, attended convocation, taken a Women's Studies class, taken a Black World Studies class, can provide a better and more informed perspective than someone who has glanced at a few websites and then manipulated bits of information to come to this conclusion: "students in the Miami program are relentlessly indoctrinated with views similar to Professor Kelley's. They are taught that felons are "rebels" and that the law enforcement agencies of a vibrant democracy are brutal murderers and oppressors. This is indoctrination, not education."

Like I said, I wasn't going to go through this article piece by piece. I know everyone can do that on their own as they read this. I did have one point to bring up and it's (surprise, surprise) the one that relates to feminism.

In the article, he includes information on the Women's Studies website...

Minimum requirements for the Women's Studies Senior Thesis:

· The thesis must incorporate feminist and/or womanist perspectives and critiques.
And comes to this conclusion...
A program that makes indoctrination in feminist theory the focus of an entire academic curriculum is no more appropriate than would be a program to make students conservatives, liberals, Marxists, or monarchists. It violates the fundamental academic guidelines of Miami University. It is doubly inappropriate in the publicly supported institution of a democracy dedicated to intellectual pluralism.
Well, Mr. Horowitz misses a few key things. A feminist approach means paying attention to women. Is it too radical to ask that a capstone paper in a class about women asks that the paper focus on women? And wouldn't a student choosing to take a Women's Studies class already have a present interest in women and feminism?
I've been working on my Women's Studies thesis all semester. In my paper, I look at belly-dancing through a third-wave feminist lens. In this kind of belly-dancing, it is intended for the female gaze with women as subjects instead of objects. In this experience, women are able to love and appreciate their bodies, especially the belly. The only thing "radical" that I see here is women choosing to love their bodies despite the unrealistic standards set by our culture's media. I guess it's also radical for women to take control of their own representation rather than following the tradition of men controlling their representation. I suppose that these are threatening to the status quo. We currently live in a culture where extreme diet and exercise are acceptable forms of misogyny and self-punishment for not meeting an unrealistic ideal. We also live in a culture so saturated by sexualized images of women in the media.
Alright, enough from me. Everyone just read the article. Get angry, have a laugh, feel passionate for a moment. Just please don't blindly agree with what he says without trying to find out for yourselves.

Women's studies should be a required course. I wish it were part of my degree so the VA would pay for it. :-(

Elzbieta, sgsax has already clearly laid out what's wrong with what Sheila's been up to (thank you, sgsax), so I won't bother with that.

However, in direct defense of my own admitted snark, I'd like to say something. I made attempts to speak to Sheila civilly. She responded by (apparently) deliberately missing my points, and acting as if I were proving one of hers because I hadn't mentioned something which wasn't even part of the topic of conversation (which, in case you got confused, was man-hating in our exchanges).

If you honestly think that, when honest attempts at discussion are met in that fashion, I am in the wrong for being disgusted and snarky... Well, it's nice that you and Miss Manners can get along so well. Personally, I'd rather call people up on the fact that they aren't holding up their end of a discussion in an honest and sincere fashion.

Sheila, while it's disappointing when people come away with a warped view of feminism as a whole from some limited interactions with some feminists (or whatever you want to call these people), they're not the problem and not who we should be directing our anger towards. The problem is people who have a vested interest in opposing feminism and who attempt to misrepresent it as a whole by reference to a limited group.

There's always going to be disagreement between people. Opponents of women's rights will try to point to "the radicals" so that they can say, "oh, those wacky feminists, when will they learn? Look how silly their ideas are!" so they can recentre keep discussion on their own terms and avoid really engaging feminist ideas at all (since, as the prevailing social force, shutting down the discussion means they win by default).

I don't think it's ever going to be practical, or even desirable, for all of us to agree completely on everything. As a result, we really need to put the focus where it belongs - on the opponents of women's rights who're attempting to stop discussion using underhanded tactics like the above.

On topic, I really liked katie's comment about how the name "Women's Studies" makes it sound like something that only pertains to women or that only women should care about. As long as changing the name, like to "Gender Studies", was done on that basis instead of as a way to say "look! Men and women are entirely equal now!" then I think it'd be a good idea.

"You would lose your bet. Give me a day to find some quotes to support my statement"

Fair enough. I’ll be waiting.

Sojourner, if you come back looking for my reply, I made one but it was held up for moderation and hasn't appeared. I don't mind, since it was appropriately pointed out above that a few anecdotes of poor behavior or reasoning does not condemn the whole field. But I didn't want you or others to think I ran away from my promise.

I can't help but find this a little bit funny -- how sad and pathetic that people like him still feel SO THREATENED by women studying their own history and discussing their own futures!

I'm a Women and Gender Studies major at UT. I think it's a nice all encompassing way to phrase it because we do study both women and gender.

I'm majoring in Women and Gender Studies at UT. I think it's a nice, all encompassing way to phrase it because we do study both women and gender.

I took Sociology of Gender as an elective at UGA. It was a great class, lots of thoughtful debate and discussion. No one was ever made to feel that they had to agree with everything outside of the basic facts and information we needed to know (KNOW, not necessarily believe). It was a great class and actually made me regretful that I never took a women's studies course while I was there. Besides, I got to write my final paper on Kill Bill (actually, I think I wrote about women in Tarantino films, so Mia Wallace from Pulp Fiction was included...apparently it was a paper on Uma Thurmon characters).

"Horowitz has a point... sorry for telling the truth. The answer is to listen to what he says and make it as objective as possible. Those of you arguing blindly for the continuation of Women's Studies as they are seem to think that our positions and beliefs won't survive the bright sunlight of objectivity."

Horowitz and the bright sunlight of objectivity. Putting the two together in the same paragraph is ... bold. I need some thesaurus to find a good word, and I do not have any at hand.

I guess, a Horowitz approved topic would be "are islamofascists violent because of genetics or because of their religion"?
"Are college professors dangerous because of being educated by dangerous professors in the past, or because they form a profitable mafia ruling the universities"?

One confusing issue is the purpose of humanities at universities, community colleges etc. There are actually two main purposes which are only tangentially related. The first is to ask questions of some relevance to the society (even if the relevance is indirect, as each discipline has some internal logic of its development), and to pursue the answer in as rigorous manner as practically possible. Determinining what is relevant is very unavoidably subjective, determinining what is a rigorous manner is much easier, but not trivial.

The second purpose of humanities is preparing students for "real life", in part, to teach the skill of writing an engaging piece based on some research or experience, or to take part in a meaningful discussion, to make a speach etc. The underlying topic is almost irrelevant, but the exercise is pointless without some direction of study. Moreover, the exercise is pointless without a large degree of originality on the part of the student, hence also on the part of the professor, so it is good to have a variety of different "studies", points of view, personalities etc.

Now, if humanities were paying enough to attract as conservative faculty as one can find in schools of bussiness... we could get a different mix of questions, points of view and personalities.

A meta-question on leftist indoctrination at American universities: do we have any effects of that? On one hand, we did not see a significant shift of politics to the left until the public witnessed enormous incompetence of a conservative Administration. On the other, I read statistics of steadily increasing tolerance, like decreasing percentage of those who think that gay teachers have to be fired, or decreasing approval of death penalty etc., including some "feminist" questions. Are those changes a result of indoctrination, or simply of modern life experience? Professional conservatives like Horowitz think that the former is the cause, so they want to eliminate leftist indoctrination and to spread conservative indoctrination, like those studies how sex is harming young girls, and how modest young girls are so much happier. And why we should hate immigrants and Muslim. After all, they make a living by fighting the leftist danger to all that is true and pure.

Thank you for mentioning the political aspects of Economics curricula in higher education. I am about to receive my B.S. of Economics from Purdue University, and throughout the process I have constantly felt conflicted by the obvious political leanings of most mainstream Economics principles. It's a very important point when arguing against the notion that Women's Studies should be dismissed as "Indoctrination." It was through a Women's Studies course I was given the opportunity to view the issues Economics through the eyes of a body of people that is far more diverse and closer to societal realities than I had in any course through the Econ department. It gave me the intellectual support to recognize that my qualms with mainstream Economic principles were not just personal.
Women's Studies is necessary in achieving a comprehensive and balanced education in college, because gender issues are so often overlooked in traditional academia.