Yuku free message boards

Method Man wrote:

---

Often times, people make unsubstantiated, unfair assumptions about disciplines like women's studies without even taking the time to so much as engage the literature. It's sad, really, and there's no need to hypothesize about why this is so, whether a result of fear, arrogance, insecurity, or otherwise, the end result is a lack of understanding and, truth be told, we're enriched whenever we broaden and challenge ourselves. This post will, hopefully, present an opportunity to problematize some of those assumptions - and to challenge people to explore women's studies and feminist perspectives for themselves.

The illusion of modernist objectivity maintains all the currency of a geocentric universe. Today, many practitioners realize that all of our scientific endeavors represent specific, rather than universal, traditions and feminist perspectives have proven tremendously influential in this regard. I'd recommend checking out some of Dr. Donna Haraway's work, especially Simians, Cyborgs, and Women and Primate Visions. She's been highly influential in the field of women's studies, but her background includes a Ph.D. in biology from Yale. She discusses how scientists transpose their biases upon their studies and, thus, their subjects, citing, as an example, Robert Yerkes' famous study of masculinity and femininity in chimpanzees. It's of critical importance to unveil the latent biases that have become so interwoven within various "objective" disciplines, as well as within various cultures, if we are to achieve any progress with respect to gender/sexual equality or, more broadly, social justice.

Now, Haraway's work may be a bit daunting for those without a solid grounding in biology, but I still consider it a great place to start for those interested in the intersections between women's studies and the physical sciences. (though, of course, physical and social overlap when you get in to fields like primatology.) While it may not be the most immediately accessible work in the world, unfortunately women's studies scholars and, too often, women in general find themselves placed in a double bind situation. If their work is not dense and technical, it's considered insubstantial and devoid of intellectual or methodological rigor. If their work is "too" complex, then they're faulted for being out of touch, too specialized, beholden to the ivory tower. It is, however, an excellent example of work in the women's studies rubric that defies stereotype, challenges attempts to marginalize women's studies as somehow "lesser" academic work.

It's sad that people continue to assail upon fields like women's studies. Our conception of society as a whole improves as we analyze it from a wider variety of perspectives, just as one cannot gain a complete view of a building by leafing through photographs taken from a single vantage point. Every discipline has something unique to offer the world. For years, economics and psychology were considered "soft" disciplines, but the world needs more than just biologists, engineers, and so on. Fields are, often, resistant to the neat conceptual boxes people attempt to shoehorn them into. There are countless areas of overlap and intersection, like Implicit Analysis Tests someone mentioned earlier in this thread, for example, that combine elements from fields like psychology, sociology, computer science, statistics, women's studies, african american studies, and so on. There's much to be gained from syntheses like this, and combining qualitative and quantitative reasoning is hardly a rarity in this day and age. Yes, some individuals or even academic departments attempt to segregate themselves - but often those with an interest in practicality and real world applications can scarcely afford to resist interdisciplinary approaches. The world is simply too complex to engage otherwise.

Just today, I made the comment that some of our employees "manned up," to which she corrected me, they "womaned up." (The people in question were 2 women and a gay man). It is these kind of comments that infuriate me. Maybe the curriculum of their school just touches on certain subjects, but I just feel like they've taken all of these courses, and learned nothing from them. I don't know if the school is to blame, (it's a Cal State), or they are just too dense to absorb the subject matter and truly understand, but I refuse to believe that standing up for the ability to correct someone over a
stupid phrase so the word woman is included is what they learned in their women's studies courses.
Thank you for your input, I just wish I could meet more of these women (and men) that you speak of, who actually have a desire to learn and understand what women's studies has to offer, instead of coming away with a man hating attitude.

Well, I won't speak for these students but what it appears they're reacting to is the gendered nature of the languages and cultures in our society. There is an assumption in "man up," isn't there? We associate certain qualities with being "men" as opposed to "boys." So, to say that someone should "man up," meaning "accept responsibility," does have some negative ramifications with respect to women, does it not? Yes, it's "just a phrase," but it's the sort of thing that we constantly and, often, subconsciously reference and reinforce. Another great example, with Earth day recently behind us, is "mother nature," or "mother Earth" and the association between women and passive nurturers. It may irritate you, at first, to have people call attention to examples like this - but I think you'll agree it's important to be aware of them, just as it's important to be aware of racial stereotypes that are so frequently invoked on a tacit, "race neutral" basis - like calling something "ghetto" - or heterosexism expressed by using the word "gay" as a pejorative. It may come across like someone hates men when they "correct" something you've said, but it could very well be that what they're reacting to isn't you as a man, but the sexism that so often goes unchallenged in our society. Rather than taking that as an attack on you personally, you could consider it an opportunity to think critically about the hidden meanings in our everyday conversations.

It may seem like a "stupid phrase," but how many stupid phrases are like that? I'm sure you can recognize the cumulative effects of embedding sexism in our languages and cultures. Perhaps the two individuals you've encountered aren't being effective in how they're raising these issues, but it may be that they're well intentioned and they're just hoping to try and share some of the awareness they've gained with others. Rather than write them off as obnoxious or disrespectful, you may want to consider showing interest in the subject and talking with them about it. It may surprise them to know that you are considerate, concerned, and conscious of gender/sexual inequality. Again, I think you'd also find it valuable to take a women's studies course yourself or read some of the literature. In addition to Haraway and Collins, you might get quite a bit out of Judith Butler, who writes about the performative aspects of gender in Gender Trouble. Deborah Tannen is more of a linguist, but she's done some fascinating work on gendered communication styles that prove relevant in the situation you cited, so she's someone to consider looking up as well. There's a lot out there, and familiarizing yourself with it will certainly give you a better idea of what's to be gained from women's studies as a discipline. Certainly, someone with more expertise and experience with women's studies than I would be poised to offer a broader range of suggestions.

I'm a heterosexual male, but I know I've benefited immeasurably from my exposure to women's studies, feminism, and q ueer theory. They have countless applications in everything from biology and psychology to public policy, economics, and law. Beyond that, there's obviously a great deal of utility for this material in our everyday personal lives as well - how we relate to others. I know it's somewhat en vogue for people to bash women's studies for a variety of reasons, but those who give it a chance will emerge stronger as a result. I'm not at all concerned about some of the talented young women I've met who majored in or have taken women's studies classes. They may despise sexism, but they don't hate men. Some have gone on to Ph.D's in public policy, others were adept at economics and statistics. So, again, when people hold up these stereotypes I can't help but shake my head - because they bear no resemblance to the strong, brilliant women I've been privileged to meet, befriend, speak with, and read, who, to me, represent women's studies with aplomb.

My wife always criticizes me for writing long winded, thought out responses to the various threads on NT, and it is responses like these that give me reason. She insists that I am writing to a bunch of teenagers, but there are at least some people who take the time to put out quality posts. I really do appreciate your input, and I'd like you to know it was not in vain, because there is plenty I can come away with from reading it. You have opened my eyes, or at least stimulated thought, to the potential of this field. I will admit, I dismissed it in the past, but would likely not be so quick to if I were to repeat my education. My two choices for my Humanistic Inquiry requirement were Classical Mythology or Women's Studies, and I went the mythology route. In hindsight, I probably would have came away more relevant knowledge pertinent to today's society, and I suppose I could say I regret it. I did enjoy Classical Mythology, but to me what I learned is useless trivia. I've already completed my B.A., but maybe there is a chance I can indulge myself at a local community college. Thanks again for the attention you've paid to this thread, it's one of the few quality threads I've participated in on this forum, devoid of the immaturity found in every other thread.