December Debates Feminist Academia

Great Debates
21

Nuh uh, doesn’t work that way. december stated a proposition. I told him that I disagreed. He told me to prove it. It is not my responsibility to put my neck on the block twice. He needs to lay out his argument, not just some asinine proposition.

For example.

Maeglin: In the year 2005, I am going to grow a second head.
Grim: You’re a few baguettes short of a full deck, Maegs.
Maeglin: Oh yeah? Prove it.
Grim: Um.

I am not going to bring a complete argument to bear against december’s two dimensional proposition. He can change his tune about what “advancement” means during the course of the argument, a condition which I am just unwilling to tolerate.

I just don’t see why this is such a big deal.

22

I’ll buy that for a dollar. Now… How do we tell if feminist studies have done so?

Or giving her a goat, or some other means of economic improvement. I know that this has been done in underdeveloped countries as a way to raise women (especially widows with young children) out of poverty, or at least start the cycle. Now, was this done based upon a hunch, or was it result of a study(ies), or some other decision-making process…?

23

Maeglin, from your OP:

I completely understand that you want to have your terms set before committing to battle. However I personally don’t want to see a half-assed definition proposed and then torn apart. I didn’t come to see a massacre I came to see what I hoped would be an enlightening discussion about “feminist tools” and their efficacy.

If december inputs some dopey definition we go absolutely nowhere and no deeper examination of the issue occurs. If you two discuss what a proper definition is then no massacre takes place (even if fun to watch) and we all come away a little more knowledgeable about the issue. It is my sincere hope that this won’t devolve into a “Prove it to me!”, “No you prove it to me!”, “I asked first! You prove it to me!”, etc. style pissing match.

Adversarial debating can be fun and informative. Sometimes it get’s us nowhere.

Grim

24

Actually, I’m willing to take a shot at this. Of course, I’m no expert at what, precisely, constitute “feminist academic tools,” but perhaps the discussion itself will flesh this out.

So I’ll contend that the feminist movement, in general, and the specific “feminist academic tool” of teaching that equal pay for equal work, was instrumental in moving this society towards that goal. I’m not sure we’ve achieved it, but as a nationa, we’re certainly more accepting of the concept today than in 1952. The past fifty years have seen a dramatic rise in the number and type of jobs that were formerly male-dominated open to women.

By accepting women into such positions, the business community, and the national economy as a whole, has been strengthened, since the talent pool has increased. Even accepting that this has also had some negative effects, such as the loss of the ubiquitious stay-at-home mom for child-rearing, I contend that the overall effect has been positive, and is the result of the feminist movement.

If this is not an example of what the OP was talking about, he is cordially invited to refine his terms. I am wary, however, of descending into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

  • Rick
25

Thank you for your list of questions, Tranquilis. I shall answer them provocatively, in hopes of getting a debate started.

I’ll leave this question as stated for the other side. I assert that WS has harmed women by giving them fake education.

I think it has helped certain women to gain greater power in academia. It has hurt women, by painting them as airheads.

I don’t believe it was ever anything but political. First, through university politics, something with the name “women’s studies” got some status. Afterwards, people set out to create the field – a project that’s still in progress.

Fascinating question, which I have read a few books about. One of my favorites is called Judging Science, which specifically focuses on the question of when science is good enought to be admitted in a courtroom. The Committee of the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal also deals with this sort of question in their magazine, The Skeptical Inquirer.

This is a really big question. If we try to answer it before debating WS, we’ll get stuck before the real debate begins.

It has taught women to think badly. It has given women bad courses to take, when they could be studying real academic stuff.

It has seriously harmed the campus by introducing a large volume of politicized, non-academic, dishonest course content. It has brought a lot of turkeys and turkeyettes onto the faculty, who took the place of real academics.

In short, it’s a kind of Gresham’s Law. Bad academics and bad academicians have driven out the good.

26

How many people owe Phil money?

27

Cha-ching!

Of course, december also is debating using the “Look! A big distracting thingy!” approach by attempting to limit the discussion to women’s studies programs specifically, rather than what Maeglin asked about, which was feminist academia.

28

Was anyone sucker enough to take the bet?

29

…which is what december originally objected to.

I think I am going to go home and inject lemon juice under my epidermis now.

30

december: *I shall answer them provocatively, in hopes of getting a debate started. *

Translation: “I don’t know enough about the subject to give an intelligent response, so I’ll pull a few insults out of my ass in the hope of provoking an opponent into posting some actual substantive information that I can then pick at.”

*I assert that WS has harmed women by giving them fake education. *

Cite? In what way is Women’s Studies “fake education”? Are all Women’s Studies programs providing what you consider “fake education”, and if so, what’s your evidence for that? If not, which Women’s Studies programs in particular are you accusing of this? Do these constitute a majority of Women’s Studies programs? What statistical evidence do you have for deciding that this is the net effect of WS programs in general?

It has hurt women, by painting them as airheads.

Cite? Who believes that women are “airheads” on account of WS programs, and why?

First, through university politics, something with the name “women’s studies” got some status. Afterwards, people set out to create the field – a project that’s still in progress.

Cite? In what substantive way does this differ from the early history of the institutionalization of most other new academic fields in the humanities and social sciences (and some in the natural sciences as well), e.g., area studies and other interdisciplinary fields like Communications or Political Science or International Development? Please use comparisons with the history of other such fields to support your contention that the origins of WS were somehow uniquely or contemptibly “political”.

*It has taught women to think badly. It has given women bad courses to take, when they could be studying real academic stuff. *

Cite? What are the “bad courses” to which you refer? What do you consider counts as “real academic stuff”?

*It has seriously harmed the campus by introducing a large volume of politicized, non-academic, dishonest course content. It has brought a lot of turkeys and turkeyettes onto the faculty, who took the place of real academics. *

Cite? What specifically is the “dishonest” or “non-academic” course content to which you refer? Who are the specific people you are referring to as “turkeys”, and what specific “real academics” were displaced by them?

In short, december—do you actually know anything about Women’s Studies in academia that isn’t just parrotting a few anti-academic shibboleths from some pissed-off conservative op-ed writers? If so, kindly use it to back up your currently unsupported accusations.

31

That’s really more of a policy position (and not necessarily uniquely feminist) than a critical analysis tool unique to Womens’s Studies. For better or worse I think December is asking (in his special style) if there is a special mode of critical thought, analysis or some unique methodological tool(s) used in the area of Women’s Studies that is truly differentiated from the analytical tools used in other historical/social/economic sciences.

The answer to this specific question is (I think) yes and no. No to the question of truly unique methodological or analytical tools, and yes to the extent that these tools are used mainly from or within the context of a female perspective. Whether the use of these tools from a feminist (or female aware) perspective becomes something truly different and consitutes a “unique” and productive tool for critical analysis in and of itself or as part of a specific feminist critical theory paradigm is open to discussion.

I suppose the critical question (for me) in evaluating the explanatory or analytical power of any particular social science paradigm or mode of analysis, is does it really truly illuminate or explain some aspect of history / economics/ sociology or life in general better than the models used before it?

32

Ok, I’m officially disappointed in the direction this thread has gone. Why december?! Why?! <sigh> I shall now withdraw and do something more stimulating… <lifts shirt, picks bellybutton lint>

33

OK, so the sides are shaping up, but to date, no one has presented anything substantial (although there are hints beginning to form).

Does anyone have actual cites or links…?

34

At a measly 3-2? Sh’ya, as if.

35

I’m with Grim. This debate is going nowhere. I also agree with Tranquilis. Some cites an links are needed to get us going. Since I have none, here’s a parable based on a 100 year-od joke.

*An international expedition goes to Africa to study the elephant. Afterwards, each member writes his own report.

The American’s report is entitled, Bigger and Better Elephants.

The Frenchman’s report is entitled, The Sex Life of the Elephant

The Jew’s report is entitled, The Elephant and the Jewish Problem.*

We can laugh at a scientist who saw everything in the world through its relationship to Zionism. However, you would now have wanted him as your zoology teacher. :slight_smile:

It’s less funny when women are given tenured university positions because they see the world through the lens of feminism. What’s not funny at all is that the condition is likely to last indefinitely. Because of the tenure system, this sort of monomania will continue to be rewarded with university teaching positions.

And, students will continue to learn about the elephant as an aspect of feminst political thought. :frowning:

36

Gee, december, do you even get your own joke?

See the Jew see’s the elephant through its relationship with “the Jewish problem.” But the Frenchman isn’t much better…he’s only interested in its sex life. And the American - only an American could study the elephant and come away with a report titled “Bigger and Better Elephants.” Seems to me, they are all pretty flawed, and all through the lens of their own experience.

Course, the feminist report would be entitled “The Matriarchial Society of Elephants” - IIRC (and I don’t know too much about elephants) they are pretty matriarchial

37

Let me explain it to you, dear. See, elephants can be bigger and better. And, elephants do have “love lives” – i.e., sex. The American and the Frenchman were at least discussing a real aspect of the beast, from their particular interest.

But, the elephant has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a Jewish homeland, so the Jew’s report makes no sense at all. All he cares about is the Jewish problem.

I don’t know if you were kidding or not about that feminist report topic…

38

december, Dangerosa was trying to point out that the thrust of your joke is that all kinds of people are prone to seeing things from the perspective an identity they call their own. In an uncharacteristically blockish move, you have somehow decided that the point of your joke is that the stereotype of the oversexed French or the grandiose American is more attractive than that of the self-concerned Jew.

More to the point: what evidence do you have that women studies professors (or self-styled feminist scholars inside our out of women studies) are “monomaniacs”? Academia tends towards specialization. Why is someone who specializes in the study of gender more of a monomaniac than someone who works on 13th-century agriculture, or quantum physics? I think the burden is on you to produce evidence that work coming out of respected women studies departments is substandard by some recognizable criterion. If you can’t produce that kind of evidence you really ought to post in MPTIMS.

39

december, Dangerosa was trying to point out that the thrust of your joke is that all kinds of people are prone to seeing things from the perspective an identity they call their own. In an uncharacteristically blockish move, you have somehow decided that the point of your joke is that the stereotype of the oversexed French or the grandiose American is more attractive than that of the self-concerned Jew.

More to the point: what evidence do you have that women studies professors (or self-styled feminist scholars inside our out of women studies) are “monomaniacs”? Academia tends towards specialization. Why is someone who specializes in the study of gender more of a monomaniac than someone who works on 13th-century agriculture, or quantum physics? I think the burden is on you to produce evidence that work coming out of respected women studies departments is substandard by some recognizable criterion. If you can’t produce that kind of evidence you really ought to post in MPTIMS.

40

december, Dangerosa was trying to point out that the thrust of your joke is that all kinds of people are prone to seeing things from the perspective an identity they call their own. In an uncharacteristically blockish move, you have somehow decided that the point of your joke is that the stereotype of the oversexed French or the grandiose American is more attractive than that of the self-concerned Jew.

More to the point: what evidence do you have that women studies professors (or self-styled feminist scholars inside our out of women studies) are “monomaniacs”? Academia tends towards specialization. Why is someone who specializes in the study of gender more of a monomaniac than someone who works on 13th-century agriculture, or quantum physics? I think the burden is on you to produce evidence that work coming out of respected women studies departments is substandard by some recognizable criterion. If you can’t produce that kind of evidence you really ought to post in MPTIMS.