This is rich. A self described anti-feminist lawyer has decided to sue Columbia University for offering women's studies courses because they are discriminatory towards men.
The NYT's City Room blog reports that Roy Den Hollander (pictured) -- "a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist" who in the past year has sued nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence -- is now setting his sights on Columbia University. Today, Den Hollander filed a suit against Columbia in the SDNY for offering women's studies courses, which he sees as discriminatory toward men. His suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." A Columbia spokesman declined to comment to the NYT.In Den Hollander's suit he calls women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said its women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." He reportedly writes in the complaint: "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.
If his hatred for women isn't apparent enough by his suing the federal government around VAWA, it is clear because he has sued clubs for ladies night (as Ann has covered before). As Jay Smooth just pointed out, "ladies night is for the benefit of men, you idiot! Stop getting in the way of the patriarchy!" (/sarcasm). Obviously, he has never been to a club.
For a little background on what motivates this guy, the Gothamist has some gems from the piece that Ann links about his assault on "ladies night" in the New Yorker.
Den Hollander guy sure knows how to charm the ladies; you'll recall that last summer the New Yorker spent a night out with the divorcee, who explained his life mission: "What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."
This guy might have to get a Feminist Fuck You.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-feminist dumb ass of the day: "Women's studies is sexist".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8752
I'm sure I'm not the first person to point out that "discriminatory towards men" would only apply if Columbia wouldn't let men into the program. Is there really such a case as "this course is discriminatory because I just don't like the subject matter?"
He's totally right! Women's studies unfairly discriminates against men! And you know what else? I don't like this "organic chemistry" deal they got. I mean, what about all the *non*organic chemistry? This is totally unfair! I call on Columbia University and all universities to get rid of organic chemistry once and for all!
Who exactly is he suing on behalf of? The men of Columbia? Does he even have a complaining witness? If he's worried about the teachings of "religionist belief systems" (what does that even mean?), why doesn't he also go after Jesuit institutions?
I've always viewed women's studies as a kind of affirmative action for academia, guaranteeing these issues get taught SOMEWHERE. In a way, it does show a form of bias, but its a bias that strives to establish equality.
What a fucking idiot!!! Whenever I hear shit like this, it reminds me of when I was in elementary/middle school and the boys thought "Take Your Daughter To Work" day was "unfair" and "sexist." Ugh. This guy sounds like a reeeeeeal asshole.
As a women's studies minor, I was always conflicted about women's studies. I felt like I shouldn't have to have a separate minor to learn what should be taught within "regular" literature, history, and science, etc. Women's studies can become an underfunded academic ghetto, and I do hope that one day it will be integrated with other courses.
This guy is a total charmer, though. Men like this make me really sad, I always wonder what happened to them to make them like this.
Oh whoops, sorry for the repost. I had some more charming tidbits to add on this loser.
I guess this asshat would say nothing about how discriminatory HIStory is!!! All HIStory classes should be banned too then by his logic...I wonder how this guy gets enough oxygen with his head stuck up his ass all of the time.
I guess this asshat would say nothing about how HIStory discriminates!!! All HIStory classes should be banned too then by his logic...I wonder how this guy gets enough oxygen with his head stuck up his ass all of the time.
I hope someone with any real power doesn't take him seriously.
I hate stories like this. It's clear that he's just looking for the sensationalist coverage he gets. His motives are pretty clear. He's a lawyer. He wants to 'make a name for himself'. Let's move on to real news.
Granted, I've always wondered if "gender studies" might be a better name. I'm a graduate student in politics and I've just finished an essay on the construction of appropriate masculinities in political theory. Studying men and masculinity is equally important to studies, as it also gives insights into structure, functioning and reproduction of patriarchy.
But yeah, serious scumbag here.
JennyP:
I'm pretty sure you were joking, but just in case. The word "history" has nothing at all to do with an emphasis on any gender. It derives from the Greek word "historia", "to know, to investigate, to see". Like I said, I'm sure you're aware of this, but in case someone reading what you posted wasn't and to prevent them from presenting that humorous skew on language as fact thus embarrassing themselves I thought it might be good to point that out just in case.
"I guess this asshat would say nothing about how discriminatory HIStory is!!! All HIStory classes should be banned too then by his logic...I wonder how this guy gets enough oxygen with his head stuck up his ass all of the time."
Dear goodness, that is not helping anything.
I am going to assume you took a Western Civ class and at least heard about Herodotus, who wrote the Histories, and that the word for history comes from a root meaning of inquiry.
Please don't meet stupidity with even more stupidity.
At my school, they changed it to feminist studies. I was very happy, as it makes a lot more sense than this 'woman's studies' garbage, which seems to incite random sexist drivel just on the basis of its name.
I really think this guy has an uncanny talent for taking things at their absolutely literal face value.
Yes, 'women's studies' is about women. Yes, laws pertaining to women are, surprisingly, mostly to do with women and their rights biological and civil. It's amazing what he extrapolates from the barest facts!
I was joking ladies...just a play on words is all.
Don't you just love how people who have never sat one minute in a Women's Studies (or Gender Studies, or like in my school, Gender and Women Studies) class seem to know all about what's being taught in there. Only they're nearly always wrong.
What this mans problem is that he resents any erosion to unearned male privilege. Equality between men and women means that men don;t get all all of the little advantages simply because they have been born with a penis...yeah smells like boo hoo I want the right to oppress as I see fit.
Also, I like "gender studies" because whenever I hear "women's studies," I think of the derogatory ways in which PMS is referred to as "women's troubles" and ironing as "women's work." It seems like it's saying that it's something unimportant or frivolous, over there away from the 'important' disciplines. Just a personal, gut reaction.
What this mans problem is that he resents any erosion to unearned male privilege. Equality between men and women means that men don;t get all all of the little advantages simply because they have been born with a penis...yeah smells like boo hoo I want the right to oppress as I see fit.
You MUST read his synopsis of his beef against VAWA: http://www.roydenhollander.com/documents/SynopsisVAWAComplaint.doc
In it, he says: "The Acting Manager of Kroll Associates’s Russian operation marries a Russian girl and brings her to the U.S. He discovers she’s a Russian mafia prostitute, former mistress to a Chechen warlord, and that she secretly fed him drugs in order to wheedle him into marriage. He tells the tramp to get lost, but she and her immigration lawyer refuse because they want him to commit perjury by sponsoring her for permanent residency. The guy refuses, so they apparently win or are winning her permanent residency by falsely claiming the guy “battered” her and subjected her to “extreme cruelty” or an “overall pattern of violence.”
Guess who the Acting Manager of Kroll's was...yep, the very same Den Hollander.
ElleStar: It's an essential flaw if binary thinking.
"If I am male and to be male is good as I am good in my own estimation, then to be female which is the opposite of male must be bad."
The class has the word "woman" in it, so it must be anti male. Because clearly there is only room in this world for one thing.
He's intellectually challenged.
Steven and Logrus, I was joking! My snarky mouth doesn't translate well...
JennyP: I knew you were joking, I hope that was clear.
I've just seen (and admittedly been a part of) people parroting things they have seen/heard/read which were intended to be humor as fact. For the benefit of a possible ready I thought it prudent to point out that the whole "HIStory/HERstory" thing is not historically relevant and to look at it's origins, lest they repeat it assuming a background that does not exist.
I mean this is the internet after all, people still repeat the Richard Gere/gerbil thing.
NewsCat, discrimination is more than just not letting someone in (see: hostile work environment lawsuits.)
That said, this guy is still a dickwrinkle.
This may be a good time to bring back a link to the Daily Show's coverage of his original nightclub lawsuit:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/daily-show-oliver-sexual-stealing/1438966297/?icid=VIDURVCOM03
As a male women's studies major, I have to say this guy's a tool. I can't add anything that hasn't already been mentioned here, except to say that I have never been discriminated against in any women's studies class, which is more than I can say for the experiences of my classmates (almost exclusively women) in the various other departments.
I made the mistake of reading the Wall Street Journal blog post about this. The comments are full of support for Hollander that made my stomach turn. Seriously:
Leaving aside the whole WTF of the beginning: I doubt Whitman, Rice, or Clinton took "feminist coursework" as such, too, since they all completed their graduate educations before women's studies became common in the late 1970s.
I, for one, think it's awesome that Anonymous has taken multiple women's studies courses at "most schools" in the country to be able to proclaim with such authority on them!
It makes me wonder what people think is taught in women's studies departments. I mean, if we sat them down and asked them to list the courses that they thought would probably be required for a women's studies major, they'd probably get 101 (which MAYBE a few of them took, MAYBE), and then they'd make shit up because they seriously have NO IDEA and have never bothered to learn. But then straw (wo)men are so much easier to set on fire...
Lorgus, I have to say that I find your explanation of JennyP's post condescending. People are responsible for themselves and their own reading comprehension--are you going to qualify every last pun, play on words, or snarky comment? Insult intelligence much? C'mon.
Also, I agree with JennyP--it's not the origin of the word, it's the fact that the recording of history has, in large part, omitted women's contributions, lives and stories. The focus is overwhelmingly on men. At least, that's my view.
This guy is real cock. Sheesh--seems like his penis is blocking his vision. I agree with the commenter that said he's also trying to sensationalize himself and "make a name for himself."
*Logrus, sorry, didn't mean to misspell your sn.
I propose that any use of the term "feminazi" becomes applicable under Godwin's Law for an instant fail. Who's with me?
*a real cock. Commenting at work: bad idea!
Note: at Columbia the major is called "Women's and Gender Studies." I know because I'll be starting at Columbia in the fall (next week, actually) and I already plan to either major or minor in the subject. FUCK YOU, Den Hollander.
AngryYoungFemme: Well your nickname is certainly appropriate.
Like I said, I've seen people repeat some words/phrases/ideas, which were originally intended to be in jest, as fact and thus embarrass themselves. I've done it several times because I either didn't pick up on the humor of the original statement or because the person I was reading/listening to had picked up some misinformation along the way and passed it on to me. Thus my comments, which were in no way snarky or condescending to the JennyP were meant to prevent someone from doing something which I've done and been embarrassed for doing in the past.
As to history presenting an unfair and biased view of women and their contributions, no argument. Does the same thing to ethnic and cultural minorities. Nevertheless creating a word predicated on the false assumption of the etymology of the originating word and it's associated bias does more to expose linguistic ignorance in anyone using that neologism in a serious tone (as JennyP was not doing) and cause that individual grief than it does to advance any cause. For the few uneducated people who misuse that word it takes the argument against bias in education way off point. It's a distraction.
We're better off learning actual history, and challenging bias in specific case-by-case examples, than chucking aspersions on the entirety of convention. So goes the baby along with the bath water.
katemoore: I second the motion.
I find AngryYoungFemme's condescention of Logrus' condescention incredibly condescending. And offensive.
(do I win?)
for the record, I am also offended by my own abysmal spelling skills ;)
"AngryYoungFemme: Well your nickname is certainly appropriate."
Okay, Logrus...now THAT's condescending.
Back on topic: Roy Den Hollander is an ass. Wow, talk about a man being confronted with his own privilege and not getting it at all.
Oh Em Gee. "Religionist belief system"... LMAO. If ONLY we had that kind of influence!
Xana: Well yeah. I thought it would be helpful to show what it looks like when I'm actually being condescending.
To all who are concerned/dismayed/angry about this lawsuit, consider this:
Some have suggested that Title IX be used to do for women in math and science classes what it has done for women in college athletics.
This VAWA lawsuit is just a preview of what could be coming. Title IX could really be used to eviscerate gender studies.
-Jut
Wow- just read JPlum's post. I'm not surprise this guy went the Russian 'bride' route (what with American women being fat cows with no respect for men and all,) but I'm somewhat amused to see it tuned out for him the way it did.
"Xana: Well yeah. I thought it would be helpful to show what it looks like when I'm actually being condescending."
Not really helpful.
Jut Gory,
The problem is there's a HUGE difference between using Title IX to ensure women get equal opportunity in existing disciplines, and trying to piece together some bizarre patchwork quilt of law to dismantle an entire discipline in the first place. The former is MUCH easier to do than the latter, and for good reason: this pesky little thing we have called the First Amendment.
That's why this loser is trying to call feminism a "religion." That way he can try to lump feminism in with ACTUALLY radical dogmas that also get passed off as "religion" and try to whine that the government is funding the teaching of the feminist "religion." Which is absurd, but it's the only legal option he has. Otherwise the First Amendment is a solid iron bar.
He did admit he's opening frivolous suits he doesn't plan on winning.
Apparently his plan is to open up as many frivolous lawsuits as possible to "demonstrate to feminists how feminist frivolous lawsuits look like"
I have no opinion either way, but its interesting to throw that tidbit in, as I see some people are taking his lawsuits seriously.
I'm as Asian studies major...does that make me racist? His argument is ridiculous...according to his logic, my school could be sued for racism for not offering degrees in "White people's studies".
As a Women's Studies major at Barnard College, I currently take half my classes at Columbia. I can't imagine a more male-friendly environment. Some of the best discussion we have take place with men in the classroom.
Not to state the obvious, but this man is a complete idoit.
I just finished a Women's Studies course this summer. It was called.......
"Domestic Violence"
Obviously, material no one should learn!!!
The Law Fairy:
I am sure you are aware that Title IX has been the justification for parities and quotas in athletics that have led to the end of many male sporting teams. The threat that Title IX would be used to gain access for women in the math and science departments would likely, based on experience, result in the dismantling of those departments.
Do not be surprised if gender studies is next. After all, if he is using VAWA, someone else will think up this Title IX strategy, particularly if it proves effective in math and science. After gender studies, they will go after nursing, etc....
As for your first reference to the First Amendment, I missed your point. I am not endorsing his religion argument, if that is what you were getting at.
-Jut
Yay! The Law Fairy is here!
intellectually challenged
I don't think it's a good idea to associate people with learning disabilities [my inference to the meaning of your use of intellectually challenged] to this guys way of thinking.
For one thing, intellectuals developed and defended this kind of thinking for years. Rousseau wrote about the joys of being a mother, like, what? I think intellectuals should be made responsible for their legacy of thinking.
Likewise, I don't think it's appropriate to borrow on the notion of "challenged", unless, I spoze, if we are talking about a society that is disability rights- challenged. Then i spoze its a bit ironical.
But this guys thinking is precisely in line with patriarchy. Now, I'm not saying that feminist analysis is not intellectual, but I'm also not so eager to associate intellectualism with feminism because intellect is pretty elitest in the sense that it was and is class based, system based, with a whole history of discrimination.
I just don't think that adopting an ableist, discriminatory vocabulary to talk about oppression is going to do all that much to really confront this kind of fellas way of thinking.
Zed, thanks for posting the Daily Show link. I needed a laugh after this loon.
Watching the video though (where the guy suggests that you can make $3000+ per week filing discrimination claims against bars that have ladies' night promos) makes me think he has a lot in common with this charmer: making a living off bogus civil rights claims. Yeesh.
How does having a women's studies program at Columbia "violate his rights"???
Off topic or maybe not, my history professor at UCSB said that history presented is usually about dead white men...
Unfortunately, we only get half of the picture when it comes to history. If you look at many of the primary sources, it's excruciatingly hard to find any written by women. If they are about women, then they are mostly biased against them and portray what the men want to believe about women, such as the portrayals of the "witches" of Thessaly, who were most likely skilled in the art of using herbs for healing.
Women's studies is sorely needed, not because they want to discriminate against men, but if not, how will the voices of women ever speak out?
This is more of the reverse discrimination canard that some of these men love to play, because it gives them a sense of victimhood. You hear it with the cries of the "liberal media," affirmative action, etc.
Practically it used to be that history really was about powerful men to the point where it was rare to hear any voices that did not write the sources. It is about time that those voices finally see the light.
I meant to say that how will the voices of women throughout history come out?
"What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."
“Now is the time for all good men to fight for their rights before they have no rights left. Contact Roy to help battle the infringement of Men’s Rights by the feminists and their allies.”
and yes, someday, men will be regulated in the kitchen, women will take away the right of men to vote...someday women will take away the right of men to be citizens, someday men will not be allowed to become senators, representatives, judges, presidents, etc.
I like this guy!! Very good stuff.
Women are getting special treatments all over the place.
Few examples -
1. They should make Draft for the Army compulsory for Women too. I don't understand why they are not part of it. Are they not strong enough to defend their country?
2. A mother takes drugs during pregnancy (child is severly effected), takes out a life insurance policy on the child, starves the child and kills it. She doesn't even go to jail - http://www.newsnet5.com/news/17188351/detail.html
They will send a father to jail if he does not pay child support just for 3 months.
Unbelievable!
3. A girl accuses a professor of rape and the professor is sent to jail. He is facing 30 years in prison. Later it is found she falsely accused him. She gets Eight days in jail.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004292118_apwafalserape.html
I just don't know why didn't give her 5-10 years.
*sputters*
Why is it so hard for people to spend their time and money in socially ... useful ways? Also, anyone who uses the term "feminazi" in a serious, unaware of its propagandist origins, needs to jump out the window of a moving vehicle.
Jut Gory: I do not understand your argument. I must admit I am unaware of the subject you speak of. However, colleges do not seem to be at a shortage of men’s Football and Basket Ball teams and those teams make them money. They seem to be doing fine from what I can see. Also, why would anyone have to use Title IX for math and science since women are taking those courses in record numbers? There does not seem to be shortage of woman taking these subjects and from what I gather they are not being turned away from these classes. Are you a troll making things up or truly concerned that women will lose Title IX or that women will misuse Title IX and destroy math and science like they have sports (which does not seem to have been destroyed by Title IX).
I read that this guy's case is being heard by a female judge. I hope she dismisses his case, then nails him for wasting the court's time.
PS AJoy -- WTF?? Please scurry back to Glenn Sacks, mmkay?
HIStory/HERstory ... Please don't meet stupidity with even more stupidity.
Uh, who cares. Don't really know why you two are jumping on that. Read some Helene Cixous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Cixous ) and Mary Daly. Their writing is meant to be artistic, playful, and inspirational rather than solely confrontational and argumentative. Every bit of language and thought in the world that is valid does not have to be logical or precise or based on some supposed "historical fact" (historical facts are not "facts," anyway, they are bits of deductions and recombined puzzle pieces filtered through language and a very few experts' subjectivities and biases).
"Read some Helene Cixous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Cixous ) and Mary Daly. Their writing is meant to be artistic, playful, and inspirational rather than solely confrontational and argumentative. Every bit of language and thought in the world that is valid does not have to be logical or precise"
If Mary Daly's writing would be meant to be artistic, playful and inspirational rather than solely confrontational and argumentative, then it would not be wrong to say the same about Dick Masterson's, Otto Weininger's or Arthur Schopenhauer's "artistic, playful and inspirational" mockery of women. Completely ignorant comments like those of yours are what gives more ammunition to misogynist. Congratulations! I hope you're happy now.
Orange_Orange:
I believe the issue was raised on this site within the last few weeks (i.e. using Title IX to ensure fair representation in math and science departments). At any rate, a quick google produced this:
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/news/Wyden.pdf
and this:
http://www.titleix.info/content.jsp?content_KEY=189&t=math_science.dwt
And, yes, men's football makes a TON of money (along with men's basketball), which is then distributed to pay for less profitable sports. However, because football is so scholarship heavy, the quota system in Title IX (as currently interpreted by the government) has destroyed many college wrestling teams, among others, by setting quota limits on scholarships. This is by no means a new phenomenon.
My only point is that this sort of lawsuit is not going to be unique (and we should not be surprised).
-Jut
Wow, AJoy, you found two whole women who are assholes and one instance of patriarchy being bad for men, too.
I hope you didn't break a sweat.
allegra:
"I'm pretty sure you were joking, but just in case."
"I knew you were joking, I hope that was clear."
Yes, clearly I'm "jumping all over it".
"in case someone reading what you posted wasn't and to prevent them from presenting that humorous skew on language as fact thus embarrassing themselves"
"I've just seen (and admittedly been a part of) people parroting things they have seen/heard/read which were intended to be humor as fact. For the benefit of a possible reader (spelling corrected) I thought it prudent to point out that the whole "HIStory/HERstory" thing is not historically relevant and to look at it's origins, lest they repeat it assuming a background that does not exist."
"Like I said, I've seen people repeat some words/phrases/ideas, which were originally intended to be in jest, as fact and thus embarrass themselves. I've done it several times because I either didn't pick up on the humor of the original statement or because the person I was reading/listening to had picked up some misinformation along the way and passed it on to me."
Yes, my reasons for commenting on this are not clearly stated.
For the sake of clarity, that was sarcasm. Because apparently I'm not being clear that I was not "jumping on" anyone, and that my motives were to prevent the accidental dissemination of misinformation in order to prevent the inadvertent embarrassment of someone else as which has happened to me over similar logical-sounding verbiage or concepts.
Thank you for not lumping me in with another poster who responded in a clearly different tenor than my own, and thank you for not jumping on me without reading my comments.
Again, that was sarcasm.
Ajoy:
Guess what? The article you cited for the lady who killed her baby was a press release which means that the woman was just caught and therefore hasn't gone to court yet. Following me? That means she can't have been sentenced for the crime yet.
And what ElleStar said too. Cause you know, it's not the women who are keeping themselves out of combat.
Oh shit, I just fell for the troll bait, didn't I?
Ajoy: your comment would be so much more useful if it actually pertained to the issue at hand.
As for said issue: the guy's an ass. Everyone else said what I've wanted to say.
The threat that Title IX would be used to gain access for women in the math and science departments would likely, based on experience, result in the dismantling of those departments.
Ah, how is this, exactly? What experience are you referring to? To be frank, I'd be *extremely* surprised to see (e.g., since we're talking about Columbia already) Columbia's math department collapse into oblivion if *gasp* they suddenly take more proactive steps toward equalizing things for women in those departments.
The First Amendment point was addressed to the fundamental difference between a Title IX claim (based on access to certain individuals) and a claim based on pure CONTENT (and in this case, not just content, but viewpoint -- making it an even HARDER case for him). Saying "there aren't enough people meeting X characteristic in this government-funded department" is night-and-day different from saying "this government-funded department should not exist because its viewpoint is biased." The second instance -- the claim being made here -- is subject to the First Amendment because the government CANNOT limit speech except in very specific circumstances. This is one of the things that makes our country pretty fucking awesome, in spite of all the problems. The reference to his "religion" rigmarole was to note that this is possibly his best bet (and it's not a good one) to avoid an all-out First Amendment bar to his claim.
AJoy: If your post was meant to be a joke then ignore this, otherwise....
There is no draft. What are you talking about? Are you in some country with compulsory service or are you an American imbecile? If there were some ballot to vote for a draft I would examine it and I would vote to ensure that gender was ignored, as would most feminists and ethical people I know who would support a draft in the first place.
What father got sent to jail for failure to pay child support? I am a father, I pay child support. I was out of work for six months and got behind on my child support during that period. Why am I not in jail? Cite your source or STFU.
The mother who starved her kid to death: Yeah, that's fucked up.
Here is a story about a man who got four years probation for killing someone in a drive-by: http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-99/02-05-99/c06lo078.htm
Here is one about a skinhead man who got probation for murdering a black man:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n24_v83/ai_13610154
Here is one where a man got probation for beating his girlfriend's father to death:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4611513/Man-receives-probation-in-beating.html
None of these guys failed a mental competency challenge and none of them got life. I can do this all day.
With apologies to the King of Spain, but Logrus:
"Porque no te callas?"
There seem to be few threads around here where you're not taking umbrage to some other commenter -- often someone who wasn't even talking to you -- then posting multiple long, defensive replies. It's getting awfully tiresome to wade through this. I imagine you will tackle me next, so I apologize in advance to everyone for having even brought it up.
That said, dear Samhita and other fab Feministers, any chance you can jettison this disruptive gent?
With apologies to the King of Spain, but Logrus:
"Porque no te callas?"
There seem to be few threads around here where you're not taking umbrage to some other commenter -- often someone who wasn't even talking to you -- then posting multiple long, defensive replies. It's getting awfully tiresome to wade through this. I imagine you will tackle me next, so I apologize in advance to everyone for having even brought it up.
That said, dear Samhita and other fab Feministers, any chance you can jettison this disruptive gent?
JetGirl70: I do hope the irony of your own statement of umbrage is obvious to you.
I have to say I actually agree with this lawsuit. While I recognize that many scholars working in Women's Studies programs produce valuable quantitative-based research, my feeling is that the vast majority do not. I'd argue that most of the supposed research done by Women's Studies scholars amounts to academic hair-splitting over feminist theory, bickering over whether or not this or that feminist idea is truly feminist or in fact reactionary, who is in and who is out, etc. It's really pretty silly, in my opinion.
That said, being silly is not the same thing as being sexist. My support for this lawsuit comes from my own experience at Vassar College, where the Women's Studies program (during the 2004-2005 scholyear) was largely responsible for the shutting down of campus funds for the conversative paper, because they accused the paper's writers of propagating "hate speech." This was a completely bogus charge in my opinion, but too few people stood up to them, for fear of being branded hateful themselves. From listening to anecdotes of other people's college experiences, I know that this sort of thing is exceptionally common in academia, where censorship is becoming seen as increasingly acceptable, thanks mostly to Women's Studies programs. I think these programs are the ones perpetuating the bigotry and contempt for alternative opinions, and honestly, I do hope they get shut down - or at least make some serious changes to their policies.
It's true, Logs. You get pretty wordy and pretentious. I hate break it to ya. There's no need to take up two-thirds of your space on the thread lecturing us, "just in case" we sillies don't get it, about how people misuse words all the time.
Carrying on.
LOGRUS:
So, based on your experience with one Women's Studies program, all Women's Studies programs should be shut down? And based on one anecdotal example, all (or, I'm assuming, most) Women's Studies programs are perpetuating bigotry and censorship? Your logic is flawed.
Courtney Stoker:
That's not me.
poetry lover: Since when is "quantitative research" the only valuable kind? And since when does quantitative research give anyone a whole, contextualized picture of any phenomenon, especially a social phenomenon, in any way? I think your statement just discounted about every humanities/social studies subject in the university.
In my experience, conservatives like to act very innocent and willfully ignorant when people point out and argue why certain things could easily be construed as hate speech, especially from the point of view of a targeted minority. They also like to pretend social problems such as racism and sexism do not exist. Luckily for them, they're predominantly white men.
The Law Fairy:
If there i an inequality, there are two ways to reduce it: 1) increase the under-represented side; or 2) decrease the over-represented side.
As I have indicated, the way Title IX is being interpreted now, they have acted to reduce the number of male sports scholarships to gain parity with female sports scholarships.
If they do that with math and science, it will likely lead to eliminating men from those majors, not increasing women (not if athletics is any indication*). Using that same method, what do you think will happen to nursing programs and gender studies, which are disproportionately female?
-Jut
* yes, I know, women's participation in college athletics owes a lot to Title IX and I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that recent interpretations of that law have led to eliminating men's athletics to establish parity with the male/female student ratio on campus. If that happens in academics, watch out.
So, it's only sexism when it's against women? How sexist.
Jut, you're talking about a different issue, then. This guy is suing about the existence of women's studies as a DISCIPLINE. You're talking about the numbers game, which is a separate issue.
And as to nursing and gender studies, I'm certain you must be aware that feminists have been pushing FOREVER to get more men into these disciplines. Although part of the problem is similar for both (social pressures drive men and women toward different career paths), math and science are much more lucrative and respected fields than are nursing and women's studies. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM, isn't that interesting.
lachrista,
You thought that elementary and middle school aged boys were wrong for believing that "bring your daughter to work day" was unfair? What is wrong with boys being able to participate?
allegra "In my experience, conservatives like to act very innocent and willfully ignorant when people point out and argue why certain things could easily be construed as hate speech, especially from the point of view of a targeted minority.
I agree this is true, but I also see liberal academics who will willfully misconstrue a person's viewpoint to come to a conclusion of "hate speech." If I remember the Vassar case that poetry lover is referring to, there was a little bit of both involved.
Personally, if the Women's Studies department at my university had called for the censoring of another group on campus, I would have crossed the street to offer the other group my support.
allegra:
poetry lover: Since when is "quantitative research" the only valuable kind? And since when does quantitative research give anyone a whole, contextualized picture of any phenomenon, especially a social phenomenon, in any way? I think your statement just discounted about every humanities/social studies subject in the university.[emp addedd]
That is something qualitative types tend to do. Really, tomes of writing are on this debate, but I think that overall poetry lover was getting at a good point...
Quoting poetry lover:
"I'd argue that most of the supposed research done by Women's Studies scholars amounts to academic hair-splitting over feminist theory, bickering over whether or not this or that feminist idea is truly feminist or in fact reactionary, who is in and who is out, etc. It's really pretty silly, in my opinion."
I would say from my time on a few feminist boards that is true, there is a constant arguement over what is feminist, for example, people arguing that sex work, a woman not being a feminist if she is a nude model, one woman refusing to take a 'slave name' when she gets married (but its ok if other women want to take their husbands name... and really, slave name?)
It does seem while throwing of the dogma of patriarchy women are at a lost of what the new dogma should be (please use the following def of dogma "a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative").
I think that may be what the subject was referring to when he wrote "religionists belief system called feminism."
Decaf,
I'm glad to hear you would speak out if the Women Studies department decided to use censorship as a political tool. I consider freedom of speech/free discourse the most sacred right Americans have, and it's beyond depressing how disparaged it has become by many feminists (and others) in academia, who often come eerily close to deriding it as a tool of the patriarchy. (And for those who think the right to free speech could never be taken away from us, they should check out how "hate speech" regulation in Canada is playing out these days: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/gagged_in_canada_speech_police.html)
If Women's Studies departments want to contribute something helpful, rather than hurtful, to our society, they are going to have to begin by taking censorship (of political debate, of art, of literature) as a tool completely off the table.
Hmm... I can't get that link to work. But because I think it is a very important article I hope others will read, please search for Rich Lowry's June 10, 2008, "Gagged in Canada: Speech Police Run Amok." Lowry details not only how "hate speech" regulators routinely silence political debate in Canada, he also shows how the problem persists in Europe as well.
Hate speech is categorically not protected speech. People cannot and never could go about saying whatever they wanted, even in public forums. So the issue is, what is and is not hate speech, and how can we tell? There are very good and very persuasive definitions of hate speech, you know, though I really can't judge what was going on at your college because I'm not informed about it.
I don't believe people can freely spew racist, sexist, demeaning, poorly-thought-out trash and not expect others call them out on it and demand that they stop - and, if they really can't figure out WHY people want them to stop, to EDUCATE THEMSELVES on it. Perhaps take an intro sociology class and learn, say, how oppression works as a system. Try thinking on a macro rather than micro level.
And I think you're badly mistaken if you feel your free-speech rights are more threatened by people demanding an end to hate speech than by the Bush administration and the Patriot Act.
One last thought...
In the Daily Show vid didn't the guy look like a poor person's Dick Cheyey?
allegra, I'm not sure where you are posting from, but in the United States there is no legal category called "hate speech" that isn't protected speech (as pointed out by poetry lover, this is different in Canada in Europe.) The most hateful of speech is categorically protected by the First Amendment.
I agree with you that people can spew hateful things and not expect others to call them out on it- I think that is absolutely necessary. And I think you should do everything you can to educate, to counter, to refute them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean no one can say your speech sucks.
What I will not do is say "I demand that you cease to speak, and I will bring down the power of the state or school administration to cut off your (vile, hateful) voice."
And who brought up the Patriot Act, the Bush administration etc? Did anyone here say that they feel their free-speech rights are more threatened by Women's Studies depts than by BushCo, or is that maybe something you are attributing to others?
The Law Fairy: Your point may be valid, but I do not think we are talking about a separate issue. You may be looking at the issue as a DISCIPLINE, but I am looking at the use of LAWSUITS to influence academic issues. Both of those items seem to be in play here (and my comments were more directed toward Title IX as a means to that end).
As for whether feminists want to get more men into nursing or gender studies, I have no position. I do not know if it is social pressure that pushes people one way or the other, or whether it is some form of biological sexual/hormonal trait that makes someone more likely to pick one thing interest over another.
I just know that men are often kept out of education (particularly of young children) out of some suspicion that they must be pedophiles.
However, as to your question about lucrative fields, I learned quite a while ago (and that was not intended to sound condescending) that my education in Philosophy was far less lucrative than the study of Law for one simple reason: supply and demand. No matter how long and hard I studied philosophy, no one was willing to pay me for my opinion (fancy that: I am posting it here for free). But, there is a demand for those learned in the law.
Now, compare that to a nurse, versus a medical doctor, and I would have to say: HMMMMMMMM, your observation is not that interesting. When it takes 2 to 4 years to get a nursing degree and 4+ years to get a science degree that would likely prove lucrative, simple supply and demand should show that the science degree will prove more lucrative (as supply will be lower, even if demand is the same).
-Jut
Excuse me- my comment should read "I agree with you that people can't spew hateful things and not expect others to call them out on it."
Allegra,
I have nothing but contempt for the Patriot Act, as well as the so-called "Protect America Act of 2007" (which authorizes the warrantless surveillance of communication had with parties "believed" to be outside of the US), as well as the myriad attempts by Republicans to ban flag-burning.
poetry lover said:
Ah, anecdotal evidence. So reliable!
Some questions for you:
(1) Who has told you these anecdotes?
(2) Had these people actually taken a Women's Studies course? More than one?
(3) Which schools did they attend? How many schools are represented in your flawless marshaling of anecdotal evidence?
(4) What evidence (other than anecdotes, now, since you value quantitative analysis so much) do you have that "censorship is becoming seen [sic?] as increasingly acceptable, thanks mostly to Women's Studies programs"?
Inquiring minds, etc.
Wow there is just so much wrong with that lawsuit. Putting aside its asinine premise, and the abuse of the establishment clause, he brings it as a class action based on the fact he is an alum of the Columbia Business School? How does an alum of the business school from 10 years ago have standing to bring this claim. How could he be the sole representative class member. I dont' know but I can't imagine you can be both the class attorney and the class representative.
I hate the term frivolous lawsuit becasue it is so misused, but in this one we may have a winner.
Well I wasn't convinced by him at first, but then he used the term "feminazi" and I was like, "Whoa! Now here's a guy who's logic is completely level-headed and unbiased! I need to take him seriously!"
Rachel,
I am so unbelievably sick of blosophere snark, which basically functions as a way for posters to humiliate or otherwise emotionally exhaust people with whom they disagree, rather than share a mutually-educative debate with them. You know, I could write in the same way, but it wouldn’t make my thoughts/feelings on the issue anymore accurate.
In response to your questions:
(1-3) These are kind of non-starters. I mean, do you want me to give out the names and phone numbers of my friends, so you can cross-verify? In my post, I was honest that much of my distrust of Women’s Studies derives from stories I have heard from others, and you are free to take that with a grain of salt.
(4) If you’re interested in more quantitative/exhaustive analysis, I would recommend Christina Hoff Sommers’s Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women or Daphne Patai's Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies. Admittedly, both of these books are becoming dated (published in 1994 and 2003, respectively), but I think they offer at least the beginnings of scholarly groundwork for anyone concerned about the connection between Women’s Studies depts. and the proliferation of censorship and “hate speech” regulation in academia.
I find it amusing that Hollander accuses 'ladies nights' at clubs of being sexist against men, because the inherent theory OF them is to attract a larger female pool than male pool so that the male clubbers may have their pick. If anything, 'ladies nights' are sexist against women.
I also don't see how Hollander expects to get mass support using the phrase 'transfer of power from guys to girls.' It blatantly screams he believes there isn't enough 'power' to go around to both sexes, therefore either one sex or the other must have it.
"They should make Draft for the Army compulsory for Women too. I don't understand why they are not part of it. Are they not strong enough to defend their country?"
The draft ended in 1973, and it was replaced by an all-volunteer military. The number of volunteers is what is keeping a compulsory draft from being reinstated. Currently, about 20% of the military is made up of women volunteers, and this is helping to keep the volunteer numbers up so that men don't have to be drafted. About 14% of the army is made up of women, and 91% of the jobs in the army are legally opened to women. One in seven soldiers in Iraq is a woman. Despite the no combat rule, women are fighting in combat because the military doesn't have a choice because there are no front lines and no safety zones. Women are serving and dying just like the men, but instead of recognizing this fact, we're patronized with idiotic questions like, "Are they not strong enough to defend their country?" We're good enough to fight in combat in Iraq, but we're not good enough to be treated as human beings by our fellow male soldiers. Instead, we're raped, sexually assaulted, and the military does everything it can to cover this up for the benefit of the good old boys network. Yet, despite our combat roles in Iraq, it's the conservatives who want to keep women from being drafted while they put down the women who actually volunteer to serve. Right now, there are women who are dying in combat in Iraq while their very presence in the military is keeping whiny little assholes like you from being drafted.
poetry lover,
Obviously not. But the anecdotes do come from your friends. That's what I wanted to know. You haven't talked to students across the country; the anecdotes don't come from a wider range than the people you hang out with. For all I know, you could hang out with 100 people or two, but either way the friends who would share anecdotes with you are likely to agree with you and not represent divergent opinions.
I fail to see how answering questions 2 and 3 could possibly compromise their identities. If they represented a wide range of schools, and if they had direct and extended experience with the Women's Studies departments, that should only boost your claims, shouldn't it? If they were accurate?
Instead, what I see is you generalizing from a small and probably biased set of stories about a small set of institutions, with no evidence that any of those anecdotes stem from direct experiences with the departments in question.
My experiences with the Women's Studies department at my university have not reflected any of the qualities that you claim are so prevalent. At the same time, I recognize that my limited positive experience with the scholars in that department (of which I am *not* a part, incidentally) makes it invalid as any basis for claims or arguments about Women's Studies departments across the country, or even across the state.
Thank you for the references, though; I look forward to weighing their arguments carefully.
I see another flaw in the lawyer's suit. I have to wonder what kind of demand there is for a men's studies program at the university in question.
I went to CSU, Chico, where the faculty attempted to start a men's studies program, but it failed miserably because not enough students signed up. It failed because of a lack of demand.
I sent Den-o the following message yesterday:
"As a seemingly professional person, I am shocked and amused by your use of the term "feminazi," which is always a red flag for intellectual laziness. You are clearly threatened by any challenge to the patriarchal status quo and have absolutely no clue what feminism is actually about. Your ignorance, falsehoods and malice are astounding."
I received this response:
"Your ad hominems carry no weight here. Go sell your kool aid elsewhere."
Awww, I think I hit a nerve.
Rachel,
Most of my friends went to upper-tier colleges, comparable to Vassar, in various parts of the country. Typical of that crowd, most of my friends, like me, are committed liberals/leftists. Thus, I certainly acknowledge my friends don't constitute a representative sample of American college students, but neither do I think they constitute a sample predisposed to take issue with Women's Studies programs.
That said, I think you may have a point. It occurs to me that Women's Studies programs probably have a LOT more influence at schools like Vassar, where the faculty and student body also leans heavily to the Left. I can imagine that at a more conservative school, the Women's Studies programs could simply not get away with the things they get away with elsewhere.
I do hope you'll read the books I mentioned. It is always so difficult for me to address concerns I have with the feminist movement (mostly re: censorship and ideological rigidity), since I feel like a lot of feminists are quick to brand dissenters as "backlashers" before even listening to their arguments.
I'll get right to reading a book by Christina Hoff Summers after I finish wringing my hands over how girls' achievement hurts boys' self-esteem and when I'm done wanking to Ann Coulter. Seriously, she's funded by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, that ought to show her political stripes. She's one step below Phyllis Schlafly.
I'll get right to reading a book by Christina Hoff Summers after I finish wringing my hands over how girls' achievement hurts boys' self-esteem and when I'm done wanking to Ann Coulter. Seriously, she's funded by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, that ought to show her political stripes. She's one step below Phyllis Schlafly.
Moxie,
That's absurd. I agree Sommers has grown increasingly conservative in the last ten years or so (if memory serves, she was a registered Democrat while writing Who Stole Feminism?), but she is still light-years away from an Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly figure. It's frustrating that you can't draw a meaningful distinction between a scholar who raises legitimate, well-documented objections to some of the more ideologically-rigid practices of a minority of feminists on the Left, and people who argue against a woman's rights to vote!
I don't agree with everything in Who Stole Feminism? My largest problem is with Sommers's vastly oversimplistic division between "equity" and "gender" feminists. But I do like the book overall, because I think she offers a much-needed and almost astoundingly exhaustive discussion (using statistics, as well as an abundant amount of case studies) of the ways in which a minority of feminists on the Left have succeeding in "policing" political discourse and artistic creation in academia, largely by creating a culture of fear in which dissenters are tarred and feathered as bigots. I was treated just this way in college, and (obviously) pretty emotionally scarred by it, and thus I feel pretty passionate on the issue.
From my own experience, it seems that ANYONE who dares to speak out against these issues is accused of being anti-feminist. The hostile tone of many responders to my comments on this thread seems to prove my point. And yet, I am a longtime activist in support of a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, pay equity, efforts to combat rape and eating disorders, the protection of Title IX, and a host of other strongly feminist issues. Thus, I'm not sure what hope someone like Sommers (who I would assume votes Republican these days) has of ever being heard (truly heard) by the feminist majority.
Careful of Hoff Summers. She claims to have previously been appointed to Clark University; based on some basic research I did while writing a paper on the conservative use of the word "feminism", I concluded that she never held a full-time tenure track appointment at Clark (hence, was never an actual professor there) and was dismissed around the time of publishing "Who Stole..."
Beyond drifting rightward, she is now on board with the Heritage Institute and Concerned Women for America, two downright (ha) far-right neo-con institutions. I don't care if she was a Democrat (hell, even Strom Thurmond was once a Democrat), she is currently a strident neo-con Republican.
Speaking of the conservative use of the word "feminism", in my paper I explored common, liberal definitions of second and third wave feminist political/philosophical movements. I then explored the ways in which those defitions were co-opted by "equity feminists" (Hoff Summers pre-eminent among them) and skewed in such ways to redefine the word away from common usage, towards fundementally anti-feminist meaning. This is a larger pattern in the neo-con movement: torture is now enhanced interrogation, etc. The Daily Show recently had a good recap on Bush's use of redefining words to fit his f-ed up politics.
Now, when teaching about feminist theory in my Sociology courses, I make sure to emphasize that Hoff Summers et al are NOT feminists. They have their own, seperate, political agenda, and that is fine. It is just inconsistent with the philosophy and tools of analysis of academic feminism (which seeks to understand the role of gender in systems of stratification, as well as those intersections between gender and other societal institutions like race and class). I have to work, hard, to make sure the students understand the difference between using feminism as a tool of analysis and using feminism as a political movement. Hoff Summers is ONLY a political movement - her analysis is shallow at best and theoretically devoid...
Women's studies where I teach, btw, is known as Gender Studies and includes required classes in GLB studies and Trans studies (yes, seperate classes! it's a pretty awesome department, if i do say so myself).
Oh, and to whomever dismissed qualitative research and then relied solely upon anecdotes for his evidence... think about that contradiction for about a week, and then I welcome you to join me in a Intro to Social Science research class here in NY. I guarentee you will no longer dismiss qualitative research (limited in generalizability but rich in detail and meaning), while at the same time learn how to conduct quantitative research (more generalizable, but missing crucial details that contextualize the data). We can put together a large scale survey for the thousands of women's studies majors out there, and perhaps include a random subsample of extended structured interviews. For farts and giggles, we can even send field researchers to do some participant observation of women's studies classrooms. Then we'll have the trifecta of research methods and a solid dissertation for a variety of disciplines! :D
Attacks like this are fairly common to disciplines that challenge the status quo like women's studies, ethnic studies, gay and lesbian studies etc. This is not that first time someone has tried to use that argument to attack women studies courses. Of course, much like the overprivledged in my class who argue that sexism does not exist and challenge the definition of patriarchy, this man is the typical type for saying women studies is discriminating against men. He is just angry that he is losing his unrightfully unearned male privilege to be on top, and angry that the spot light is being taken off of men and actually place on women and other oppressed groups to have their stories and lives told in an academic setting. Women studies classes, like many others are an attempt to get the knowledge about women, their history, experiences and lives out there, considering for much of history it has not been. Because your normal history or literature classes often do not include women in them, classes like this attempt to put women back where they belong. Just like the “top rock guitarist lists” often do no include women unless it says “top female guitarists”, women are often not seen as making significant contributions to society, when they in fact have, time and time again, and are left out for the billions of reasons a patriarchal society will use. If a history book does not say "the history of women in the world" women will rarely be mentioned in the text.
The whole of academia and of course much of our society is male centered (androcentric is the fancy academic term) and if for one second a group (those damn feminists!) tries to change that, they get angry, which just confirms the existence of patriarchy in the first place! Ugh, I know I am just lecturing now. I just have to finish my though process. If this class is somehow discriminating against men, I do not want it to exist. But unfortunately, this is the common case stated against women studies classes, mostly by white privileged heterosexual men who are just angry people they think are unequal are getting a voice. I doubt the class is discriminatory. Classes like women studies are the ones trying to end it. He is just angry that the world is slowly no longer revolving around those who have penises. This class is one of those things, and therefore because it is trying to give women their rightful space so it must be “anti-man.” That is how patriarchy works, it is a win-lose mentality and when it comes to a society based on one gender being on top, he is always going to see it as a loss rather than him having too much pie.
As a women studies instructor, and master’s student, I deal with this constantly. The reason our department chooses to use “women studies” instead of gender studies is the fact that we will not continue to do the patriarchal accommodating of not stating our point to include “women” in. There is nothing wrong with declaring it to be women studies. It needs to be said, it needs to exist and we cannot be afraid to use the term “women” to declare it. If the word “women” like I have said before is not in the title, they are often left out of whatever it is. That is why we has a separate women’s movement in the first place! Women had to stick up for women and demand their rights. No one else will do it, and few will teach about women in the regular history, literature, science and art classes. I am not dissing gender studies by any means, but to me not using the word “women” in something like, this continues to make women invisible. And if women remain invisible, they will remain oppressed, second class, and never an equal and integrated part of our world.
Anyways, ugh, I have enough of this crap to deal with when I am teaching, gosh it never goes away. It is so freakin tiring to be someone who is fighting for social justice!!!
Attacks like this are fairly common to disciplines that challenge the status quo like women's studies, ethnic studies, gay and lesbian studies etc. This is not that first time someone has tried to use that argument to attack women studies courses. Of course, much like the overprivledged in my class who argue that sexism does not exist and challenge the definition of patriarchy, this man is the typical type for saying women studies is discriminating against men. He is just angry that he is losing his unrightfully unearned male privilege to be on top, and angry that the spot light is being taken off of men and actually place on women and other oppressed groups to have their stories and lives told in an academic setting. Women studies classes, like many others are an attempt to get the knowledge about women, their history, experiences and lives out there, considering for much of history it has not been. Because your normal history or literature classes often do not include women in them, classes like this attempt to put women back where they belong. Just like the “top rock guitarist lists” often do no include women unless it says “top female guitarists”, women are often not seen as making significant contributions to society, when they in fact have, time and time again, and are left out for the billions of reasons a patriarchal society will use. If a history book does not say "the history of women in the world" women will rarely be mentioned in the text.
The whole of academia and of course much of our society is male centered (androcentric is the fancy academic term) and if for one second a group (those damn feminists!) tries to change that, they get angry, which just confirms the existence of patriarchy in the first place! Ugh, I know I am just lecturing now. I just have to finish my though process. If this class is somehow discriminating against men, I do not want it to exist. But unfortunately, this is the common case stated against women studies classes, mostly by white privileged heterosexual men who are just angry people they think are unequal are getting a voice. I doubt the class is discriminatory. Classes like women studies are the ones trying to end it. He is just angry that the world is slowly no longer revolving around those who have penises. This class is one of those things, and therefore because it is trying to give women their rightful space so it must be “anti-man.” That is how patriarchy works, it is a win-lose mentality and when it comes to a society based on one gender being on top, he is always going to see it as a loss rather than him having too much pie.
As a women studies instructor, and master’s student, I deal with this constantly. The reason our department chooses to use “women studies” instead of gender studies is the fact that we will not continue to do the patriarchal accommodating of not stating our point to include “women” in. There is nothing wrong with declaring it to be women studies. It needs to be said, it needs to exist and we cannot be afraid to use the term “women” to declare it. If the word “women” like I have said before is not in the title, they are often left out of whatever it is. That is why we has a separate women’s movement in the first place! Women had to stick up for women and demand their rights. No one else will do it, and few will teach about women in the regular history, literature, science and art classes. I am not dissing gender studies by any means, but to me not using the word “women” in something like, this continues to make women invisible. And if women remain invisible, they will remain oppressed, second class, and never an equal and integrated part of our world.
Anyways, ugh, I have enough of this crap to deal with when I am teaching, gosh it never goes away. It is so freakin tiring to be someone who is fighting for social justice!!!
Ps. This is my first post! Hurray!
Kay,
I mentioned that Sommers was (I believe) a Democrat when she wrote Who Stole Feminism? fourteen years ago, not to deflect arguments that might be made against her politics now, but to respond to Moxie's refusal to read her books because Moxie believed her to be "one step below Phyllis Schlafly."
Of course, being a Democrat does not necessarily imply that one is liberal. Yet being a Democrat in 1994 tends to suggest that a lot more than being a Democrat in the '40s (in the South no less), as was the case with Thurmond. Party alignments were quite different then, and Southern Democrats were notoriously ultraconservative.
You are not the first person to take umbrage with my comment on "valuable quantitative-based research," although I have avoided addressing the issue until now. That was a lazy shorthand for me, and I think I meant something closer to "in-depth sociological research." I would much prefer to see work that employs the "trifecta" of research methods you mention. (Indeed, Sommers employs this trifecta in Who Stole Feminism?, and it is one of the reasons I enjoy the book.)
As a member of a Woman's Studies department, I would love to hear your thoughts on censorship and speech codes/"hate speech" regulation. I am not sure if you have managed to follow the whole thread (it's been all over the place!), but this conversation initially began because I raised concerns about the connections between Women's Studies departments and the proliferation of censorship and "hate speech" regulation in academia.
Radical on the Rocks, if you're interested in participating in this conversation, I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.
Kay,
I mentioned that Sommers was (I believe) a Democrat when she wrote Who Stole Feminism? fourteen years ago, not to deflect arguments that might be made against her politics now, but to respond to Moxie's refusal to read her books because Moxie believed her to be "one step below Phyllis Schlafly."
Of course, being a Democrat does not necessarily imply that one is liberal. Yet being a Democrat in 1994 tends to suggest that a lot more than being a Democrat in the '40s (in the South no less), as was the case with Thurmond. Party alignments were quite different then, and Southern Democrats were notoriously ultraconservative.
You are not the first person to take umbrage with my comment on "valuable quantitative-based research," although I have avoided addressing the issue until now. That was a lazy shorthand for me, and I think I meant something closer to "in-depth sociological research." I would much prefer to see work that employs the "trifecta" of research methods you mention. (Indeed, Sommers employs this trifecta in Who Stole Feminism?, and it is one of the reasons I enjoy the book.)
As a member of a Woman's Studies department, I would love to hear your thoughts on censorship and speech codes/"hate speech" regulation. I am not sure if you have managed to follow the whole thread (it's been all over the place!), but this conversation initially began because I raised concerns about the connections between Women's Studies departments and the proliferation of censorship and "hate speech" regulation in academia.
Radical on the Rocks, if you're interested in participating in this conversation, I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.
That's absurd. I agree Sommers has grown increasingly conservative in the last ten years or so (if memory serves, she was a registered Democrat while writing Who Stole Feminism?), but she is still light-years away from an Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly figure. It's frustrating that you can't draw a meaningful distinction between a scholar who raises legitimate, well-documented objections to some of the more ideologically-rigid practices of a minority of feminists on the Left, and people who argue against a woman's rights to vote!
Being registered a democrat doesn't make a person a progressive or a feminist. Bill Clinton was a democrat and he passed the Defense of Marriage Act.
What I find very frustrating about you is that you act as if feminists are this one, ideologically-motivated bloc, and we're really not. There are loads of nuances within the feminist movement and what bell hooks says is going to be different from what Betty Friedan say. You seem to be entirely ignorant of this. Have you ever read anything by either of those authors? You seem unfamiliar about feminism aside from what your friends (Or friends of friends, or cousin's sister's friend's roommate's) tell you.
And while Sommers may not be the head of the IWF, her and the likes of Kate Roiphe and Camille Paglia give people like Phyllis Schlaffly (however poorly researched) ammunition and legitimacy. You may not be aware of this but there's a tremendous amount of internal criticism within the movement. Trusting Sommers criticize feminism in an unbiased manner is like trusting Michael Moore to criticize the right wing in an unbiased manner--they both have agendas.
Moxie,
>
Indeed, I said as much in my previous post.
>
I am well aware feminists come in a million different stripes, and I have probably read more feminist books/tracts than anyone I know combined. Interesting you mention bell hooks as I just last week completed her Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black, which I loved. And yes, I have read Friedan's The Feminine Mystique cover to cover, as well as de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, Faludi's Backlash, Butler's Gender Trouble and (since we're on the subject of free speech) Excitable Speech, Ellen Willis's No More Nice Girls, Alice Walker's In Search of My Mother's Gardens, every book Katha Pollitt has ever published, etc. etc. I am very well-informed on feminism.
For some reason the top of my comment didn't post. I wrote (responding to your comment):
"Being registered a democrat doesn't make a person a progressive or a feminist."
Indeed. I said as much in my previous post.
WISC (Women in Science at Columbia) has invited Roy Den Hollander to speak about his lawsuit against the aforementioned university. He'll give a short talk briefing us on the case against Columbia and then answer any questions from the audience. All are welcome.
The talk will be Thursday, August 28 at 1:00pm, on Columbia campus in 209 Havemeyer.
If you use facebook, please feel free to rsvp:
http://www.new.facebook.com/event.php?eid=27929186974
I took an undergraduate Women Studies class and I must admit, some of the language and theory borders on misandry. I found out if you agree with everything the professor teaches, its an easy {A}. The class was a good example of academic bullying.
Should it be banned? .. Definitely not, I don't believe in censorship.
He does have a point when he says if a Women Studies exists, a Men's Studies must also.
Its all about Title IX.
Sometimes feminists forget the bill is not only for women, but for overall gender equity.