The strange world of Women’s Studies
January 14, 2010
On January 12, 2010, the CBC Radio program, The Current, investigated the topic of “Women’s Studies” in universities today (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/). It noted that, with these programs, “women created a new field of study… one centred on their own experiences and perspectives”. There was also a discussion of the fact that Women’s Studies programs are transforming themselves into “Gender Studies” and “Sexuality Studies” because it is becoming difficult to attract sufficient numbers of students to major in these programs. To investigate this topic, Catherine Porter (a columnist with the Toronto Star) and Barbara Kay (a columnist with the National Post) were interviewed.
Although a number of important criticisms of Women’s Studies were expressed by Barbara Kay, the columnist’s anti-feminist stance inhibited an understanding of the troubles the have been brewing for quite a while in these interdisciplinary programs. As has been argued in Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge’s Professing Feminism and Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism?, one can be a feminist while still being opposed to the field known as Women’s Studies. This is because it is currently not a program that focuses on women as a subject (a valid and important topic for academic study) that can be analyzed with a wide range of theoretical perspectives. Instead, it insists that women must be studied in a particular way, which, as Patai and Koertge have pointed out, results in all sorts of ideological policing.
The main problem, which was not discussed on The Current, is the insistence of Women’s Studies programs that biology determines knowledge (i.e. “perspectives”). Women have a special ”way of knowing” that is different from how men understand the world. Those who do not study women in the right “way” are not welcomed into the postmodern sisterhood. The result is the isolation of the study of women from mainstream disciplines, and an entire body of research that has not been scrutinized by scientific methods accessible to all.
Studying women is very important to the knowledge of humanity as a whole, and it should not be immune from rigorous scholarly evaluation. To do so makes the entire field subject to wishful thinking, demagoguery and superstition. Instead of understanding women’s role in history and the social and economic conditions influencing female-male relations, the field is contributing to sexual segregation. Taking the arguments of Women’s Studies seriously would mean that women cannot participate equally in scientific research and modern occupations because their “way of knowing” would prevent them from collaborating with men for the benefit of all. This obstructs, rather than facilitates, the achievement of gender equality.
2 Responses to “The strange world of Women’s Studies”
Leave a Reply
January 15th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
It is true that on The Current we barely scratched the surface of why Womens Studies in my opinion run counter to the purpose of a university, and if I’d had time to expand I would have adduced the reasons you point out here. But in a half hour aimed at the general listener, it’s difficult to make more than one point well. I think the role of women can be well taken care of in other departments with specific courses in history, or literature or whatever. As it is, WS is the academic arm of a political movement, which I resist wholeheartedly. It should not be a university’s job to “empower” women, and in fact any woman of university age who actually needs “empowering” has personal problems no academic course can help her with. I am a big fan of your work (and your courage) in the field of aboriginal studies. Barbara
January 16th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Although I appreciated a number of insights provided by Barbara Kay in this interview, one unfortunate consequence was there was no clear demarcation between Women’s Studies and feminism. Rejecting Women’s Studies programs, as they are currently envisioned, has nothing to do with accepting or questioning the valid goals of feminism. The problem is that most Women’s Studies programs reject scientific methods and embrace a cultural relativist “world view” that is anti-intellectual.
Opposing current developments in Women’s Studies also is not related to a rejection of interdisciplinarity. There are many interdisciplinary programs in universities today – Environmental Studies, Policy Studies, Urban Studies, etc. Perhaps all these subjects would be better studied in the traditional disciplines – biology, political science or geography – but there might be benefits to using a variety of disciplines to study a specific subject. A greater understanding of women as a subject might occur by having a number of scholars from different disciplines working together in a specific location. Knowledge about women will not be increased, however, by asserting that the possession of ovaries gives one insights that cannot be assessed by those with a Y chromosone.
To be frank, I am not sure how “empowering” women should fit in with the university. In most universities today, for good or ill, there are a number of attempts to encourage students to feel that they are part of a “community”. Chaplaincy services, sporting events, etc. are all promoted under the auspices that this will help students to self-actualize and become confident and fulfilled human beings. Maybe they are helpful, maybe not…
What I am sure about, however, is that these “self-actualization” goals should not intrude upon the study of academic subjects. There is no problem with holding debates, forums, etc. so that students can explore feminist ideology; the problem is when it is mandated, within an academic field, that the study of a subject should be policed by a particular ideology. This prevents students from engaging in critical thinking and questioning whether or not an ideology is consistent with the evidence available.