Talk:Women's studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-06. The result of the discussion was Keep.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Women's studies, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] gender studies & women's studies

Gender studies is quite distinct from women's studies, to assume that discussion of gender is discussion about women is decidedly sexist.

LegCircus 17:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

NO it's not necessarily sexist! Most gender studies programs do indeed use sexist studies of the gender problems of the female 'gender' alone to commit reverse sexism...see Misandry and Nathanson and Youngs research. To men and to women who love men I ask for non-sexist balance here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
There is a separate article on gender studies and another on gender and sexuality studies, though all of these are somewhat scanty at the moment. Maybe you can help improve them, instead of lobbing such vague accusations? -- Rbellin 17:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the contention that gender studies and women's studies are quite distinct, and calling such a statement decidely sexist is decidely narrow-minded and reactionary. Simply looking at academic departments in the US, many women's studies department have changed their name to gender studies or have become departments of women and gender studies . Much of want is considered the domain of women's studies, such as the social roles and expectations of women, are part and parcel of gender studies. Nearly all of the humanities and social science research in women's studies is a subset of gender studies. However, I would agree that women's studies, when it enters biosocial and biological issues of women, breaks off from gender studies, which is a completely cultural concept. While I agree their should be seperate articles for gender and women's studies, these fields are highly connected, and to say others replaces fact with polemic. --chemica 09:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woman in the image

The woman in the image is described as "an upper-class Pompeiian"; correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that image is a portrait of the poetess Sappho. Should the description be changed? -- Iotha 09:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sappho wasn't a Pompeiian, was she? So one way or another the current caption ("With stylus and tablet, an upper-class Pompeiian, Sappho, demonstrates her privilege: literacy") is incorrect. FreplySpang (talk) 14:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I have my own qualm with this image, that being that it has less than zero to do with the topic.--Ensrifraff 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Sappho was not from Pompeii. Sappho wasn't even Roman. She was Greek, and lived on Lesbos, an island off the northwest coast of Asia Minor. I'm not going to change the error, because leaving it there says more about the dubious field of Women's Studies than I ever could. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the qualms expressed above about the caption, and I also think a picture of Sappho is irrelevant to this topic. So I've removed it for now. Discussion is, as always, welcome; but please recall that Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not for airing personal opinions of its subject (especially not opinions which interfere with improving the article). -- Rbellin|Talk 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us be fair: it is well-known, widely-reprinted, and most, if not all, of the reprints say that it was once identified as Sappho. I think it's decorative; and I find it hard to dispute that the history of women's literacy is part of women's studies. Septentrionalis 18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel-worded claim cut

"Women's studies courses have often been criticized as being misandrist." Often? Then you should have no trouble finding a solid citation. I've cut this until someone does. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you really want to leave it in without citations, say something like, "Women's studies could be criticized as misandrist because ..."12.17.189.77 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that is still POV. My point is, if this criticism has been made by someone of significance, it should be easy to cite for, and if not, it should not be in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It definitly has been critiziced by people like Warren Farrell, but I don't remember which of his books he says that in. This article needs major work, especially in the citations category.Emmett5 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Robinson0120 Ooh, touchy, aren't we? Here's one from a writer: http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1966. If you want another one, check this interesting and novel source: www.google.com. In fact, you can type in "Misandry in Women's Studies" and find more examples!

[edit] SDSU

Hi This is Joyce Nower. jnower@mail.sdsu.edu. Your article on the formation of the WSP at San Diego State University is correct. Can we settle this so that my emails can be deleted? I made a mistake on the date. I should have looked it up rather than relying on memory. If you need more confirmation, let me know. Thanks. Joyce

Hi Joyce. We generally try to keep all talk sanely accessible to our editors, but I'll do a maneuver there that should prevent it being searched by Google (it will end up only on a "no robots, no follow" page). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs to see the discussion about the date of the formation of the WSP at San Diego State University, here's the diff for the edit that removed it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added template Project Gender Studies

I've added {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} - but please let's discuss it if editors here think it might not be appropriate. Its shaping up to be an umbrella project encompassing gender, feminism, mens movement, and some sexuality stuff. AnAn 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minor punctuation

there's an open parenthesis in the second paragraph, and normally I'd just close it, but I'm not sure where it's supposed to close.

Moofoo.

  • Fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminist studies

Is there a distinct difference between Women's studies and Feminist studies? To my understand one is a subcategory of other. If anyone feels the same way, then perhaps are merge should be initiated. Sjschen 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Robinson0120 From a cursory glance it appears that the feminist studies is based more in gender than the explicit study of women's role, but I'm not quite sure.

[edit] Conference

I have cut what appears to have been an entire section on a not particularly notable conference. It might merit a mention somewhere; it certainly does not merit such lengthy mention in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But a section for conferences and meetings is necessary - as knowledge of women's studies is somehow discoursed and built based on those. I agree with Jmabel that what was mentioned is not the most notable one; somebody, however, should do a search and suggest the notable international conferences that merit a mention.147.8.22.234 09:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)NF

[edit] Women's Studies in areas other than USA and UK

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

Expert help is needed to give the full picture of women's studies, based on this White page.

[edit] POV Check:Criticisms of Women's Studies as a discipline

Why does a critique—more of a diatribe—by the not terribly notable Karen Lehrman merit half the article? - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it takes up almost half the article is more a comment on the ill-developed state of the rest of the article than an indicator of truly excessive length, but I agree that that section does not really belong here in any but the most abridged form. It's fine to have brief citations of notable anti-women's-studies positions here, but not lengthy recapitulations of relatively little-known ones. I'd support either moving that material to a more appropriate place (like its author's article, if one exists) or deleting it outright. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's give 7 days for someone who wants to salvage this to do so; if no one does so, though, my inclination is just to remove it. And I agree that the article is ill-developed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we back in the USSR, gentlemen!? Are you guys KGB agents for the ideological wing of the radical feminist Sisterhood? Do you care at all about wiki values of free speech and NPOV or will you try to do to me here what these and many other authors assert happens to students in womens studies? I insist that you discuss specific issues in a constructive fashion before you remove anything here to prevent a needless edit war.
To call this content Lerhman's "diatribe" is disengenous. Did you read The Lipstick Proviso or are you just spouting uninformed opinions. Lehrman summarizes Professing Feminism to make her case there. I will be glad to bring in Professing Feminism directly if you keep whining about 'diatribes'. However, please keep in mind that many feminist and non-feminist whistleblowers have been claiming severe personal harrassment for being brave enough to criticize the reigning radical feminist establishment. I expect better from you and from other NPOV wiki editors here...please be open-minded, specific and constructive with your concerns.
To bring up "length" as a show breaker in a tiny undeveloped article is absurd. This entire article needs to be expanded to reflect the realities of women's studies. (For example several authors have explained the ideologies underpinning womens studies. That content is relevant here too.) Criticism is just one essential part of a longer article which I imagine this article will become given women's studies' keystone role in propragating feminist ideology and indoctrinating young feminist political activists in our so-called 'universities of higher learning'.
Where is 'notable' used as a test in wikipedias policies. I could have brought in Paglia who is a quite notable intellectual but I chose Lehrman, Patia and Koerge because they have been credited for bringing "rigorous common sense" to the feminist debate. As 'notable' dissenters from TODAY's Russia show it takes just one person to puncture a balloon full of bombast but of course they usually die from (KGB?) poison. This is wikipidia so please refrain from censorship here based on some kind of politically correct popularity contest.
I believe the best place for specific criticisms of womens studies is in the article itself because that is where specifics are most relevant. There are whole chapters of these criticisms from many diverse authors...(Paglia, Hoff-Summers, Nathanson and Young etc) and of course Professing Feminism is a whole book on the subject. The content I added skims the surface of Professing Feminism. It is hard to come up with a more 'abridged' form than this! However, if you have constructive suggestions after a glance at sources I listed in references and the link (Off Course) about how to tighten this I for one would be glad to listen to them. However please spare me attempts to delete content just because it is unpopular to those who have an interest in propagrating propraganda, policing (internal or external) dissenters and other cunning Stalinistic strategies that demean and destroy well established Western rights to free speech and civil liberties. (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006.

You ask "Where is 'notable' used as a test in wikipedias policies?" Please see Wikipedia:Notability.

If you want 'notable' I would be glad to pull in Chessler, Paglia, Hoff-Summers, Kate Fillion, Nathanson and Young, and many others. Then I expect someone would whine about 'length'. The fact is that a whole host of independent authors have made these claims with Professing Feminism being the most comprehensive and least rhetorical. (anonymous)

I stand by "diatribe". I'm aware that Lehrman has done some (much) more extended writing on the subject. You might try mining that for her more substantive points. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC):

Please direct me to her writings. I added her Mother Jones article here. Lehrmans so-called 'diatribe' is merely a summary of Professing Feminism. Please read what she says in The Lipstick Proviso (The Sisterhood) so you can make a distinction between her opinions and those of the sources she quotes. Yes I am guilty of creating some of your confusion with my tortured quotes of quotes so I apologize for any misunderstandings here. (Anonymous)

[edit] POV Check: Further reading list

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the first five (or eight) listings in the "Further reading" list are basically hostile to the field of women's studies (and the last one is not exactly "friendly" either. Are we really serving a reader well by this? Someone comes to the page presumably wanting to learn more about this academic discipline. Where are the overviews? I doubt that this pattern is similar for any other academic discipline (unless the same people have been adding "reading lists" to African American studies, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you add some 'friendly' sources here rather than merely complaining about what you call the 'unfriendly' ones. Why don't you 'serve the reader well' by expanding the points of view here with credible sources. Please refrain from beating me up unless you have something else to offer that is better...we can cull the list once we have some kind of balance. May I also ask that you make a distinction between being hostile to womens studies versus being hostile to HOW women's studies DOES womens studies. Being hostile to totalitarian tactics anywhere (say in the White House) is a good thing as far as I am concerned but that doesn't mean that I am hostile to the White House itself (nor am I hostile to GENUINE womens studies scholarship.) (anonymous)
No, you're not mistaken. This article seems to have gotten a lot of attention from anti-women's-studies POV-pushers (like the anonymous user who replied above with complaints about Stalinism) and very little from people with any real knowledge of the field. I'm sure that the most basic perusal of introductory women's studies syllabi would yield a very different reading list, and summary of the field, than this one. It's not that there is no place in a well-developed article for a brief summary of positions critical of the field, but there's almost nothing else here, and that makes the critical stuff very unduly prominent. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are so sure about women's studies syllabi...please provide a somewhat credible and systematic study that shows your POV and I will be glad to work with you to balance the content here.
The fact that this article is (so far) underdeveloped in other areas is no basis for outright censorship of critical content. Please expand the article with relevant content so that people can better understand what women's studies is. As for people with real knowledge in the field I say please!? The authors listed here have long experience with and use exhaustive examples of feminist scholarship. This discipline indeed one that has been singled out as being particulary 'problematic' by a whole host of independent authors female and male. It is also one that is influential enough (600 programs nationwide) to attract attention. As for overviews these are (critical) overviews. Now maybe there are positive overviews as well but I am not finding them in any title in the women's studies section at my bookstore/library. If you have opposing overviews we can use to balance this content then please bring your sources in.
These authors indeed do use syllabi and many other sources from women's studies programs to make their exhaustive cases. Chessler who has always been a brave voice on male and female issues has several chapters blasting feminist academic practices in The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom, Phyllis Chesler, 2006, ISBN 1-4039-6898-5. Hoff Sommers has many examples of this in a chapter in Who Stole Feminism. Many other credible authors have been critical of the state of scholarship within women's studies. We are indeed serving readers well because this nation (wiki) is founded of free speech and civil dialogue. Therefore young students need to know about these well-known studies as a warning. (If you find women's studies programs using Professing Feminism in class rather than trying to silence it (as Lehrnman suspects) please say so so I can be surprised.) In any case, please don't try to silence their research here. NO ONE is 'hostile' to women studies as a program what they are hostile to is terrible scholarship within women studies that takes us back to the dark ages (or as Paglia says to the Kremlin) I insist that we stick to the issues rather than calling people names here. If you have CREDIBLE sources that show womens studies (in general) as a place where fine scholarship is standard by all means please balance these studies with your sources and content. Otherwise please stop whining about these courageous whistleblowers and their research. To go up against what Chessler calls "cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarians" was no fun for these authors. I expect better from wiki editors as we sort this out...no offense to anyone here. (anonymous)
It's good to have a section of criticism, but I would like to think that editors interested in making a good article would recognize the problems in offering an imbalanced "further reading" list that includes disproportionate numbers of anti-feminist and/or anti-women's-studies works. Ideally they would delete superfluous cites themselves. I'll work on adding more to explain what women's studies is. IMO, my sense is that the further readings sections of any article should have a majority of citations explaining that field, and criticism would be a minority. --LQ 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally concur, although I'm not sure I'd apply that principle to phlogiston or phrenology. Not to say for a moment that this is analogous. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check related to 'undue weight'

Content at issue:

Criticisms of women's studies as a discipline

A number of independent authors from both within and without academia have criticized scholarship standards within most women's studies programs. These authors include feminists like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff-Sommers and Phyllis Chessler, misandry researchers, journalists, and social commentators such as Karen Lerhman. (Womens studies)Researchers Patai and Koertge note that the feminism espoused in the vast majority of women's studies departments "bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of it's ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism..." Lerhman asserts that feminist writers "by squelching all internal dissent" have "allowed hyperbolic rhetoric, false statistics, politicized scholarship, reverse sexism, and general silliness free reign". The major themes that Lerhman and other authors note about scholarship within most women's studies programs are listed below.

  • Orthodoxy and ideological policing
  • Ostracization and/or termination of female dissidents
  • Exclusion of male authors from course syllabi and scholarly papers
  • Politicized scholarship and "thinly disguised indoctrination"
  • Faculty appointments based on political rather than professional qualifications
  • Questionable methodologies, statistics, and conclusions
  • Advocacy disguised as research
  • "Womb-like" classroom atmospheres where expressing unpopular opinions or asking unpopular questions is suppressed and where critical thinking is discouraged
  • "Unremitting emphasis on women as oppressed victims"


The article and its further-reading list are now both clearly violating the WP:NPOV policy by giving extreme undue weight to critical sources and claims which are marginal at best within the field of women's studies itself. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis you make this incredible claim? Have you read Paglia's, Hoff-Summer's, Kate Fillion's, Phyllis Chesslers, Lehrmans Off Course, Patia's, Nathonson and Young's and many mass media journalists takes on this. These widely known and less widely known authors are critical of womens studies and many other forms of feminist inspired sholarship both from WITHOUT and from WITHIN the field of womens studies. I would be glad to bring their observations in here to show how POV you are being by trying to censor CREDIBLE critical overviews on womens studies. To censor politically incorrect points of view is POV. I am willing to work with you here on specific POV concerns but I will not back off on the need to include critical overviews directly relevant to this article here. If you have 'positive' sources that show other POV's please bring them in...otherwise I ask that you refrain from trying to impose your POV on this article by censoring content you don't like. I have no problem tightening up further reading list but I insist that you provide opposing sources or spare me these unfounded 'weight' or 'extreme' characterizations. The accusations these authors make about extreme and fraudulent scholarship in MOST (but I hope not all!) womens studies programs are important topics to include in this article...because they speak to the very credibility of this discipline. Many of the same kind of criticisms have been made recently about String Theory 'group think' in Physics programs nationwide. May truth rule here. Please be specific and constructive with your POV concerns so I can consense on NPOV as per wiki policies. (anonymous)

For a sanity check on the article's topic, I just spent a while looking over the results of a Google search for "introduction to women's studies" +syllabus, a practice I'd recommend as an easy though fallible check on any Wikipedia article on an academic discipline. Not one of the dozens of syllabi I read included a single text from the large number of hostile sources recently added to this article. Furthermore, of the two texts which I saw cropping up a lot as primary textbooks (Women's Studies: Gender in a Transnational World and Women's Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings, though there are doubtless another dozen or so popular textbooks that we ought to look at), neither one includes a single reading by any of these authors. It's becoming clear to me that this article does almost nothing to introduce a reader to the field using sources or ideas that the field's scholars would use to explain it. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NO offense but that is indeed quite a "fallible' check. Can anyone imagine professors who are being accused of silencing other POV's including critical content in their syllibi's!? This is not an article for or by "the field's scholars". It is supposed to be a NPOV take on the topic from ALL credible sources. (anonymous)
I also notice there appear to be several standards vis a vis undue weight here. When this article and the references links were weighted almost 100% in the 'friendly' direction you seemed to have no problems with 'undue weight'. The linked sources are now almost all friendly to womens studies yet I hear no complaints from you about that. Please own your POV and your biases here too so we can find some balanced common ground. (anonymous)

Why is more than half the article devoted to criticisms of Women's Studies, and why so many critical entries in "Further Reading"? Seems blatantly one-sided. Kabulwu 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop exaggerating here. I see a full page of general content with about a half a page of this content. Within a reasonably complete article, this section is far from too big based on what I see in many other articles. As for the entries in "Further Reading", there are many authors in my bookstore who have made critical comments about the totalitarian tactics that they say are status quo in women's studies...these are just a few. I see no books that oppose these criticisms but maybe you can help us here. However, before you try to censor unpopular POV's by calling them 'blatantly one-sided' please bring in other credible POV's that show the other side. Some similar (group think) criticisms have been made recently about the physics discipline but no discipline has earned nearly as much bad press as this one, to my knowledge. This deserves to be shown here so people understand the state of Women's studies today.
As I'm sure you can see, you are far from alone in this complaint; the answer seems to be simple: because someone (or more than one someone) hostile to women's studies has taken the time to write some dubious, opinionated content, and because no one more sympathetic to the field has made it a priority to write what should be the core of the article. Feel more than free to be the one to remedy this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the Criticisms section. I am not 'hostile to womens studies'. I am hostile to a supposedly NPOV discipline in academia being prostituted and hijacked for pejorative political purposes by a group of radical female-superiority feminists who as Hoff Sommers says represent a minority of both feminists and women. These criticisms speak to the very credibility of this discipline which is why they deserve to be summarized here. Before I added this section this whole article was 'sympathetic' to womens studies so please bring a single standard to bear here. If these criticisms made by so many prominent feminists were innaccurate surely someone else would have written a 'sympathetic' rebuttal. Instead I see deafening silences, false accusations of antifeminism and personal slander from the targets of these criticisms. This is sound sourced content that represents a diverse and prominent group of femininist whistleblowers, feminist dissidents and other non-feminist critics (see misandry) rather than my personal opinions. It belongs here along with whatever so-called 'sympathetic' POV's that exist in credible sources. I ask all editors tempted to censor this politically inncorrect but valid material to offer constructive NPOV options instead so that all POV's can be included here. I am not stuck on the exact form of this section but I do insist that this theme be well-covered here.
As for the 'core' of this article I see little overall explanatory content about womens studies as discipline. Before other editors take issue with undue weight I believe we need to fill in the core here. This article is far from complete in my opinion. I need to know more about the history, the current status and key themes within womens studies for example to understand this topic. It would also be nice to know something about the key movers and shakers in Womens studies and what they have contributed. With a reasonably sized article the content I added is far from an example of undue weight. I welcome others to finish the article which now seems to be just a stub. As it stands I get far more solid info about Women's studies from passing scans of Paglia's, Chesslers and others' (womens studies related) opinions than I do from this article itself. I ask that before you complain about undue weight you bring in other general sources and finish the overall article. (drop in editor)71.102.254.114 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check: Freedom from censorship in wikipedia articles?

Feminist Phyllis Chessler in her (2006) The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite academic and media circles. I added these excerpts here because I added well-sourced section to the article (see preceding discussions here) that reflects these concerns about Women's studies. Ironically but not surprisingly, I imagine I will face the same tactics as an editor to silence this 'bad' content from 'good' feminists and other editors who sympathethize with them...no personal offense to any editor here. Already, I see double standards being called upon to censor content critical of women's studies. There were no such complaints when this article and it's sources were ALL sympathetic to womens studies, so one wonders about claims of 'undue weight', 'blatant bias' or 'unfriendliness' here. I have no problem with constructive NPOV criticisms but I have sound cause to suspect that this article, in particular, is a politically loaded article which will require great care to create as a NPOV article. I hope we will use civil, overt, and constructive discussions here rather than cunning, covert, and destructive totalitarian tactics to resolve issues related to the addition or subtraction of politically incorrect and/or politically correct content in this article. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Does she (an unnamed lifelong Democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"
"It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."
"What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues? What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"?
"Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."
"Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness". Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".

[edit] updating reading list

I've updated the reading list with a better balance of selections, although I'm sure I'll somehow be labeled a Stalinist for doing so by our anonymous friend.

Kabulwu 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I welcome the new sources. Now no one can use shameless undue weight accusations...about the sources anyway. Could you direct me to any of the sources that relate to the Criticisms section content so I can balance that section with any opposing or so-called 'friendly' POV's. Also please refrain from the usual sarcastic slander of what you call "our" anonymous "friend". I see no need to label other editors here so please spare us the very totalitarian TACTICS that so many sources accuse Women's studies professors of using against dissidents here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page: Criticisms

I came across this article and its weirdly hostile to itself. It's probably backlash of some kind. So I took the liberty to take out the criticism (which was longer than the content about Women's studies itself) and put it to a separate page. Now the backlash and anti-backlash can fight over there while everyone can focus on what Women's Studies is... hope this will help the article's future If not, I think you should delete and rewrite this article... Towsonu2003 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to see this content summarized but to try to silence it by burying it in what you call a separate 'backlash' page is something I take issue with. I see this content as a neutral critique by feminists and a few non-feminists of the quality of Women's Studies scholarship rather than the content. This critical section has nothing directly to do with backlash or anti-backlash...unless someone opposes Women's Studies right to exist. Patia and Koerge's bookback notes that "feminists have often called Women's Studies 'the academic arm of the women's movement". The activist, highly politicized nature of this so-called discipline is essential to note here because it is fairly unique in academia.(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that Towsonu2003 is making a good faith effort at cleaning up the article, and I appreciate it, and also appreciate Towsonu2003 explaining the rationale & action here on the talk page. I think we should all look at these pages closely, and figure out what should go here; I'm not convinced that a separate criticism page is warranted, although I agree with Towsonu2003 that the criticism in this page has often been disproportionate to the other content.
128.111.95.47 makes some good points (although couched in rather inflammatory language -- "so-called discipline", for instance). A few thoughts on the 128.111.95.47's points:
  • Women's studies is tied more closely to the political women's movement than an "ivory tower" image of academia might suggest. That connection should be reflected (I like the level of emphasis indicated by 128.111.95.47's suggestion that this we should "note" this connection in the article); we should all be able to agree that this note shouldn't unduly swamp the article. It's not unusual for sociological studies to have an activist or practitioner wing; social work, the academic practice, is closely tied to social work, with its activist and charitable history. Psychology, political economy, and so on, all have relations back and forth from pure academic research and thinking, to practical applications of various sorts. In the case of the academic discipline women's studies, it's led to political opposition from critics of the women's movement.
  • Criticism of scholarship within the field should also be noted, and in connection with the political criticism of women's studies / the women's movement.
Since 128.111.95.47 already put the original content back in, but agreed that they would be "glad to see this content summarized", I have attempted to summarize it, moving some of the material to references. I've also added a bit more information about criticism from within the academy & other academic cultural studies movements. All of this content needs fuller references, with cites; these should be added sooner rather than later.
Most importantly, we need to fill out the main part of the article, explaining the discipline, significant works and movements within it, and so forth. That will help keep the (important and necessary) criticisms proportionate and balanced. Eventually they should be woven together, since an isolated "criticism" section isn't really the best formatting. Right now, however, there's not enough positive content explaining the history, works, and so on, for the criticism to be integrated into appropriate places, so we'll have to leave it as a separate section.
I'd appreciate it if 128.111.95.47 could make sure that I didn't miss any important nuances in the summary paragraph. Some of the previous bullet points were clearly redundant -- the first two, for instance, were essentially the same thing, and point #8 could be wrapped up in there (and avoid the very POV and problematic term "womb-like"; that's appropriate for a rhetorical argument as in Patai/etc's work, but not appropriate for the drier tone expected from an encyclopedia); points 4, 6, and 7 were basically all the same thing, as well, and tied into point 5; points 3 and 9 i think stand separately. I took the liberty of pulling point 9 ("victim feminism") into the separate paragraph that lays out various criticisms from the left, the academy, and so on; I realize that it's used on both sides but thought it worked better in that paragraph. At a later date, when we can flesh out this section without overwhelming the explanatory content on the page, we can explain the fuller history of this critique. (It should really have its own page.) --lquilter 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
128.111.95.47 says s/he would love to see a summary of Criticisms of women's studies, while what I see is the link to Criticisms of women's studies on the main article being deleted, all criticism being brought back to this article (instead of a summary), and the article hostile to itself again. I usually assume good faith when people revert my changes, but 128.111.95.47 shows bad faith by inflamatory language such as "so-called discipline" etc.
Moreover, I do not see any counter arguments by 128.111.95.47 to the arguments I proposed at Talk:Criticisms of women's studies.
This article, as it is now, along with all the resistance against it being fixed, is very poorly written, it mostly has the anti-feminist backlash as opposed to definitions and history of what the department is... I do not think it is fixable and I suggest this article be deleted and rewritten. Towsonu2003 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Marked so. Towsonu2003 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Towsonu2003 -- Actualy, while 128.111.95.47 reposted the original, I went in after and significantly summarized & shortened that section. I then added W/S discipline responses to the criticisms, which seems important; it makes the "criticism" section seem larger, again, but I believe it's more balanced now. At this point, I did not make edits to the substance of the criticisms, because I thought that issue should be saved for another day, if we could just get the proportionality better. Could you please look at the current edits & see what you think? --lquilter 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think your edits are great. The rewording gave the criticism part a nicer shape. But the article is as biased against itself as I saw it the first time... If we deleted this and let the "criticism" article live, I don't think much would change at all... I still think this article is broken beyond fixage. I really think it should be deleted, and as deletion will attract a bit attention and an opportunity to start from scratch, the opportunity should be taken to get attention from experts and systematically input what an encyclopedia entry should have for this: definition, branches of women's studies, methodology of women's studies, history in the US and abroad, big names, big books / articles etc. When I go to an entry for info, I don't wanna see the criticism section screaming at me, I wanna see what that entry is all about... Criticism is of secondary importance, and if people feel so strongly about it, they should play around in a different entry and import the summary of a well-done criticism entry here... Does anyone here see a giant section of criticism at Sociology? Women's studies is the same, it's a discipline and its entry should be deserving of what that discipline achieved. Towsonu2003 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestions for more work

Suggest that we need

  1. better definition of what it is
  2. discussion of curriculum & academic work; the subjects of women's studies
  3. branches of women's studies
  4. methodology of women's studies
  5. more detailed history - history in US & beyond
  6. major scholars, works, articles, etc.
  7. Convert "Current courses in women's studies" to "Prevalence of women's studies programs" or something like that, examining access to minors & majors, departments of W/S, and so on, around the world
  8. Influence of w/s - examining a) influential works and scholarship; and b) disciplinary and academic influences on queer theory, etc., and methodological innovations
  9. Then the criticism section which is (not surprisingly) already well fleshed out (I edited it down & tried to make it more wiki-style per discussion above; as a result, with the substance of the criticism whittled down & the responses included, it's still too big)

--lquilter 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have removed the speedy tag

First of all, the "db-attack" tag is for pages that specifically attack and disparage individuals. Regardless of one's feelings about this particular article, this is absolutely not the way to go about it. If someone wants it deleted, bring it to WP:AFD and let people discuss it. Cheers. Dina 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

my ignorance of procedures, sorry Towsonu2003 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess now it's okay? Towsonu2003 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
as per "specifically attack and disparage individuals", it says "specifically attack or disparage its subject", doesn't mention individuals... Towsonu2003 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge or redirect from Feminist Studies

I just came across an article called feminist studies which is IMO just an ad for programs in Stanford University ad Southwestern Univesity. I've recommended on that page it be merged to here or turned into a redirect. If that page can't be fixed it will have to be delted. Has anyone any comment on what content might be useful for this page, if any?--Cailil 02:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of NPOV

I have removed the NPOV warning on the Women's Studies page, I belive that this article is of a neutral point of view, I am a womens studies major and everything in this article looks correct to me. --Kylehamilton 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/m/Talk%7EWomen%27s_studies_1c3c.html"