Should this mural be expurgated?

[december]

Merry Christmas, **Kimstu **

But heaven forbid [lack of experience] should stop you from shooting your mouth off…If you don’t like it, it must be junk, and whether or not you actually know anything about it is irrelevant, right? :rolleyes:

Lack of experience /= lack of knowledge. I have read a substantial amount about women’s studies. I invite better information from dopers with actual experience.

So are you objecting to all “interdisciplinary” departments and courses that don’t fall into an “established” departmental structure? How do you feel about, say, my own field of history of science? Is that a “contrivance” where people can teach “only what they want to teach” instead of something “real”?

I didn’'t set out to address other fields. Your attempted hijack suggests that you may lack arguments defending the value of Women’s Studies.

You remind me of the old 1950’s-era graduates of my university who write letters to the alumni magazine expressing their outrage that the Ethnomusicology program teaches, say, a whole semester course on African drumming. Academic courses on music, as far as these guys are concerned, are supposed to be about Bach and Beethoven and the history of counterpoint. They have no clue about the musicological or historical or performance traditions of African drumming, or what the teaching involves; but hey, they know what “real” music is, and anybody who works with all this “PC” “multicultural” stuff instead must just be a charlatan.

African drummking = Bach and Beetholven? No comment!

When I read complaints from people like you about the “institutional fraud” that colleges are perpetrating these days with progams like Women’s Studies or Ethnomusicology, I wonder if it could be half as bad as the institutional frauds they perpetrated forty or fifty years ago by letting such people graduate from college in a state of such self-satisfied arrogance and intellectual incuriosity.

I cannot see where Women’s Studies has anything to do with ethnomusicology, except that both are controversial.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

African drumming = Bach and Beethoven? No comment!

Could you please explain this comment, december? Are you insinuating that African tribal music is so far inferior to European art music as to be completely unworthy of study? Do you actually know anything about African drumming? (I don’t mean that sarcastically, I’m asking in all seriousness)

[Apos]

—I’ve never taken a women’s studies class, and I’ve never been a woman.—

Thailand is the place to go, if you ever want to try it. Or so I’ve heard. Cheaper to fly there and back for the surgery than it is to just have it here.

—In many cases, this “women’s aspect” is bogus. Ironically, it also seems blatantly sexist to pretend that a field like science is different for men and women.—

But this is just one radical view within a whole host of social theorizing, plenty of which rejects this view. If what you’re really mad about is po-mo, you have many more enemies than just Women’s Studies.

—My impression of women’s studies is that it’s docrinnaire, rather than deductive or experimentally based.—

So… what is the study of literature based on: deduction or experiment? If things are neither, are they automatically doctrinaire?

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**I usually oppose censorship in any form, but the fact that this mural is painted on the wall of a dorm that students pay to live in renders that objection moot. It would be different if they wanted to remove a painting from a museum or an art gallery, but this is just an offensive doodle on a kitchen wall.

**

I agree. IMO, it’s decoration. Artful decoration, but just decoration. This is not censorship anymore than you throwing out a painting you are sick of. Or simply deciding you want to repaint your walls.

[Jackmannii]

“Respect for the artist”? (snort).

“Beetholven”?

All I.S.U. needs are a few discreet alterations in the mural. New version: a group of serious-minded academicians of diverse ethnic backgrounds carrying a fully clothed* sexual harassment compliance officer in a sedan chair.

*perhaps a smart pinstriped suit?

Go Cyclones.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**
Go Cyclones. **

yeah…go to Boise, Idaho at the end of December for a football game.

Go HAWKS

Ahem.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[december]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**This is not censorship anymore than you throwing out a painting you are sick of. Or simply deciding you want to repaint .your walls. **

It wasn’t their mural. The women mounted a campaign to destroy a painting in a section of the dorm where the men lived. And, the women were only temporary residents in their section. The mural is destroyed for future residents.

Forcing other people to not have art just because you disapprove of it is censorship.

[zwaldd]

*Originally posted by december *
young women pay thousands of dollars of tuition to the “Women’s Studies” department, which teaches them to to complain about some mural in their kitchen.

They complained about something they had to see every day (it’s not like they had a choice) and got the problem fixed. Now they don’t have to spend another minute thinking about it. Sounds like a good life lesson to me. You’re complaining about something you can’t change and has no bearing on your life whatsoever. Who taught you to do that? I’m anti-censorship as much as anyone, but if I moved into a dorm where I had to look at a painting of a guy in a speedo every morning, I’d probably be glad to see it go, too. Doesn’t mean the painting shouldn’t be available somewhere so people can see it if they choose to. As Diogenes mentioned, a dorm is not a museum.

[TeaElle]

For reference, the Women’s Studies program requirements at:
Michigan State University
Northern Arizona University
Hollins University
Spelman College

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by december *
**It wasn’t their mural. The women mounted a campaign to destroy a painting in a section of the dorm where the men lived. And, the women were only temporary residents in their section. The mural is destroyed for future residents.

Forcing other people to not have art just because you disapprove of it is censorship. **

No, my dear boy, the women (the tennents) complained to their landlord (the school) about the decor. Much as I have done at my apartment. The landlord (school) thought the complaints had merit.

The tennents have rights here. The landlord has rights here. You know who doesn’t have any rights here? The artist (or rather the frat boys who painted it in the first place). It then belonged to the landlord, who could preserve it for posterity or light it on fire, or paint over it or slightly alter it as they saw fit.

There is no issue here. This wasn’t the Mona Lisa, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. This was more along the lines of Elvis on black velvet or dogs playing poker.

What makes you think the future residents are now deprived of a signifigant peice of art? Can you link to photo of it?

Simply because a piece of art is created is no reason to protect it from destruction. Some art sucks.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
**yeah…go to Boise, Idaho at the end of December for a football game.

Go HAWKS

Ahem.
**

I was, of course, referring to the many intellectual pursuits for which Ames, Iowa is justly famous, not some pissant football game.

How I miss those wintry walks down by the scenic riverfront in good 'ol Davendorf, Iowa.

What?

Oh, the mural. Carry on.

[monstro]

Originally posted by monstro
Crappy argument. If someone put up a swatiska on your kitchen wall, would you have to do a poll to show that it was offensive?

Originally posted by december

Obviously a mural including a woman in a bikini is not nearly as offensive as a swastika. BTW lots of great art includes partially undressed or nude women. Do you think all such art is offensive and ought not to be displayed? IOW why is this mural particularly offensive, in your opinion?

I read the article. Did you? It mentioned that the mural had been used as to showcase low-brow graffiti, such as captions underneath the soldiers referencing date rape drugs (roofies). Even if the mural itself isn’t offensive, it promotes an inuendo that’s more appropriate for a bathroom stall wall, not a kitchen shared by men and women.

(I know when I envision this mural, I automatically think “raping and pillaging”. Something about the guys being uniformed soldiers carrying weapons. But maybe I’m just overly sensitive).

My point is that this was a bit of weasel wording. It’s not automatic that the same standard should apply to new art as to existing art.

The fact that it took some time for the decision to be made to remove the mural shows that it wasn’t automatic, december. So I still don’t get your point.

Originally posted by monstro:

So one can argue that the women weren’t doing anything more outrageous than highlighting a violation to the school’s sexual harrassment policy. That hardly seems trivial, seeing as how this is a co-ed dorm and considering the implicit theme of the mural.

That’s an interesting point. Hill’s memo says, “under today’s policy on graphic designs within the residence halls, [the mural] would not be allowed.” He doesn’t say why it wouldn’t be allowed. Nor does he say what the theme of the mural is. What do you think the theme is and why do you consider it to constitute sexual harassment?

I dunno. Something about scantily clad women makes me (and apparently those with a fondness for roofies) think “sex”. Sex isn’t always inappropriate, but it’s not something I want to think about while I’m eating my Cheerios in the morning. Don’t you see how such a mural (and its associated commentary grafitti) could make someone feel uncomfortable?

What really bothers me is not the complaint, but the fact that this was part of an (allegedly) academic course.

Not all the women who complained where in the course. And how do you know that women hadn’t complained in the past, but it was only until the Women’s Studies class stepped in that action was taken?

There was nothing in the article that said complaining about this mural was required in the course. It could have been as simple as the professor encouraging the students to do something about the mural and acting as their advisor while they issued their complaint through the appropriate channels.

Fair enough. As you know my wife and many of our friends are women scientists. In principle, women’s studies could coexist with science. However, it’s HARD to become a scientist. The more outside things that dilute a student’s attention and passion, the harder it is to succeed as a scientist.

This past spring I participated in a seminar series sponsored by the Women’s Studies department. All of the participants were women scientists interested in increasing the involvment of females in scientific fields. Every month we got together and discussed readings from feminist writers and scientists, and then we would discuss the ways our fields could be improved to make it more inclusive for everyone, especially women. This interaction was very positive for me because I hadn’t really been around so many women scientists before, and never before had my opinions and ideas seemed to carry so much weight. So I disagree very ardently that being interested in women’s issues is distracting to scientific training. If anything, I have become a better scientist since participating in that workshop.

These women’s studies profs did takes thousands of dollars of my money, when my daughters were in college. After graduation, both daughters had to then train in computers to get their jobs.

A lot of people aren’t trained in computers while in college. I’m just a two semesters away from getting my Ph.D in biology and my knowledge of computers is limited to MS Office and a couple of stats package. So has my education been a waste of time?

I WANT them to ask me for a job and to crowd me out. My complaint is that I think Women’s Studies is holding women back.

Personally I would love to see more women scientists. But women who are going to be scientists aren’t going to major in Women’s Studies. You have to be interested in something before you pursue it. If someone is interested in chemistry and they are majoring in Women’s Studies, it won’t take long for them to realize they aren’t suited for their major and they will change. And if they don’t, then there’s always graduate school. One of the best professors at Rutgers is a women who got her BA in linguistics. She’s been an environmental scientist for more then 25 years.

On the contrary, my writing skills got me excused from the required writing course in college. I don’t think I have a bias against humanities. I love theatre, music and literature.

However, I do have a bias against bullshi*t. ISTM that a certain amount of humanities education is bogus and that a high amount of women’s studies is bogus.

Have you ever taken a women’s studies course? Have you ever read an essay written by feminist writer? How are you coming to the conclusion that a high amount of women’s studies is bogus? That’s like an English major coming to the conclusion that calculus is bogus without ever having set foot in a class.