OK, what kind of major is Womens Studies?

deleuze wrote:

Good points!! Excellent ones to bring up in a women's studies class!

Actually I read an article a couple weeks ago about the emergence of men's studies programs. I think you make a lot of good points.

My sense is that your portrayal of the type of feminism that goes on in these academic departments is a far cry from your description. Most of what goes on in these departments is criticism of the sorts of bad feminism that you describe there and search for better feminisms, ones that for example don't paint the relationship between women and men in antagonistic terms.

Cheers!

For the record, I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with the kind of discourse that goes on in women's studies classes. My bone to pick is more with society at large, where it seems that the common view is that anything that discriminates against women must be equalized, but anything that discriminates favorably for women, at the expense of men, must be maintained.

Personally, I have a science degree, but some of the most interesting courses I took were ethics courses in the humanities. The best debates I've had have been with those who have humanities degrees, and I can definitely see the benefit of being able to think critically, a skill that is lacked by many in the sciences.

Another thing that really irks me, and was discussed somewhat in the "inconsequential things that really piss you off" thread, is how white males are consistently portrayed as idiot buffoons in many sitcoms and TV commercials, while the wife, or sometimes the daughter is usually the voice of reason. Network executives seem overly sensitive about portraying women and minorities in a negative light, so if they need an idiot for comic relief, it invariably falls on some white guy. I'm not saying that this kind of show should be banned, as I've laughed at many a Simpsons episode in my lifetime, but it would be nice to see a little more balance on the air at times.

Your point about sitcoms are right on, and I think that most feminists would agree that gender inequality does not just cash out in bad consequences for women, but also in bad consequences for men. The infantilization of men has, in a certain sense, been a reaction to feminism. Adam Sandler's movies are great examples of this. The bumbling, kind-hearted man who holds a strange power over beautiful and competent but sometimes bitchy women--this is an image that speaks to us today. Why? Is there a certain power in being a dumb guy? Have men been forced to appropriate this role, just as gays appropriated being queer?

Along the same lines, more subtle feminist analyses have looked at how, for example, keeping women in the home is a way of taking the power to rear a child away from fathers, perhaps diminishing the emotional life of men in the same way that--for example--old style gender dynamic used to deny women the opportunity to try their professional sides.

The main thing on the mind of folks who think about gender dynamics today is exactly how to reconstruct gender roles in the wake of the critical revolt that was 20th century feminism. That feminism was concerned with breaking down stereotypes. Now, how do we build positive images of manhood and womanhood out of the wreckage? Breaking down the division of labor in the family seems to have weakened the family structure. How can it be rebuilt now in ways that allow for more flexibility in roles of both men and women? That's a huge "feminist" issue, and it's also an important general social issue.