Daphne Patai, Women's Studies, and the Chronicle

PAGE 3 OF 3

This week's Newsweek covers the recent debates about Women's Studies
generated by the Mandle/Patai press.  Happily, the reporter, Sharon
Begley, includes quotations from me and two of my former students as
well as an anecdote concerning a third.  There's also a brief reference
to that offensive Men's Health article that  I called to Begley's
attention.  You can read it on-line:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/479422.asp?cp1=1#BODY

Diana

Diana York Blaine
Visiting Assistant Professor of English and Writing
USC
dblaine  @  usc.edu

Greetings:

While we're on the topic of WS criticism, it seems to me that
most classes don't teach students about how patriarchy works *as
a system*.  That is a huge minus in my book.  I've had some shocking
conversations with students who've taken at least four WS classes
but are still unclear about what patriarchy means and can't describe
the characteristics of liberal, radical, multicultural, ecological,
psychoanalytic, marxist, socialist and postmodern feminisms.

Also, I expect WS to teach students how to be feminist activists, just as I
expect music appreciation to teach students to support Western classical
music, just as I expect biology to teach students to support the theory of
evolution, etc.  I find it very interesting that those who want WS
professors to stop teaching even elementary mainstream liberal feminism are
hardly knocking music professors for not teaching non-Western types of
classical music.  And they most certainly are not demanding that biology
professors give equal time to criticism of evolutionary theory (BTW, not
all critics are religious fundamentalists).

Kathleen Trigiani
ktrig246  @  airmail.net

*********************************************
"Out of the Cave:  Exploring Gray's Anatomy"
http://web2.airmail.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/
You Don't Have to Settle For Mars&Venus!

I was surprised to read the Newsweek article.
I had no idea these ideas were circulating
anywhere but on this email list and in
Daphne's Web Chat.

Mike Rice

Kathleen Trigiani wrote:
quote:
 I find it very interesting that those who want WS
professors to stop teaching even elementary mainstream liberal feminism are
hardly knocking music professors for not teaching non-Western types of
classical music.
end quote

And I just wanted to mention [without making any comment on what one
should/shouldn't teach in Women's Studies] that, in fact, schools of music
that want to stay accredited are under an obligation to teach and to
require their students to learn about non-western types of music (the
"classical" of other cultures, one might say).

JoAnn Castagna
joann-castagna  @  uiowa.edu

Kathleen,
You don't mention which four courses these students took and whether or
not they were majors in Women's Studies.

Courses listed as part of the Women's Studies Program vary greatly in
content, because it's an interdisciplinary field.  In most programs,
courses are offered from traditional departments along with courses
directly from the Women's Studies program itself.  Schools vary greatly
in the amount of money they'll allot for Women's Studies-generated
courses; one school may have 15 sections of the intro. to wmst; another
school, of the same size, may have only one section and need to fight
constantly to retain it.  About course content:  Women's Studies
programs are under attack for being too "hardline" and for not being
"hardline" enough--by the same people (I don't mean you).   That's
unfair.

If you spoke to a student who chose four "women's studies" classes
originating in academic departments--e.g., "women in the ancient near
east" (History), "women and western music" (Music), "women in medieval
literature" (English), and "women in world religions" (Phil./Religion),
they might not hear about the (largely contemporary American) political
positions you mention.  We need to find out whether students who are
under a degree program designed by faculty, i.e., are majors in the
field and are taking the "Women's Studies Program-generated" courses
required for the major, are receiving the basic information.

I would agree that Women's Studies majors should know the political
positions you mention (liberal, radical, etc.).  But students should
also know that those positions are derived from the western intellectual
tradition. Also, there are other kinds of traditions they may need to
know also (e.g., religious, cultural) to understand the experiences of
non-western women or of western women before the advent of those
positions.

About "patriarchy": it went out of fashion a bit in recent years as
theoretical positions were developed that provided exciting new
analyses.  I agree that we need to retain it as a basic tool of
analysis.

   Jo-Ann Pilardi
   Director, Women's Studies Program, Towson University (MD)
   (& Prof., Philosophy and Women's Studies)
     pilardi  @  saber.towson.edu

A couple of observations re: recent comments from Kathleen Trigani and
Jo-Ann Pilardi:

1.  Students may well have been exposed to some ideas without being able to
articulate them very well a semester later -- I see this happen often, even
with good students.  Ideas often have to be reiterated several times to
really stick.

2.  Wouldn't the idea of many shades of feminisms be one that normally would
be mentioned in Intro. to Women's Studies, but dealt with at length in an
upper level feminist theory course?

3.  Are we sure it would be crystal clear to everyone what, e.g. "radical
feminism" is?  As an interesting exercise for my Intro. to WS class, I
polled WS colleagues in my institution for their definitions of radical
feminism.  All these people were quite knowledgeable, and all the
explanations were quite good, but they certainly did not all match!  I
imagine we would get the same result if we tried such an exercise on this
list.  So if students can't define shades of feminism, it may well be
because they have encountered different usages among their WS faculty.  Is
this a problem?

  -- Gina Oboler <roboler  @  ursinus.edu>

Two questions:

Kathleen, could you please clarify who are "those who want WS
professors to stop teaching even elementary mainstream liberal feminism ."


Jo-anne, could you please explain who you're referring to in the following
comment:  'Women's Studies programs are under attack for being too
"hardline" and for not being "hardline" enough--by the same people people.'

Thanks,
Daphne

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Kathleen, can you clarify what you mean by "support"? I may be
misunderstanding your intentions, but immediately the warning flags
went up in my mind. I'm not sure how it is in other disciplines, but
in my own (psychology) I feel it is my "job" as a professor to expose
students to theories, to teach them to examine them, to identify and
explore and critique the assumptions underlying the theory, to think
about what the theory predicts and how adequately it does so, to
understand how different data either support or fail to support the
theory, to consider the strengths and weaknesses of a particular
theory, etc. In other words -- I want to teach them to critically
examine theory -- not to "support" any particular theory. Even if it
is a theory about which I am wildly enthusiastic, I hope that I can be
open to alternative points of view. (by the way; I don't think I ever
fully succeed at encouraging critical thinking about theory; sometimes
it seems that students want to support or oppose --- rather than
analyze -- various theories; but still, one tries.)

Cheers,
Deb Hume

At 01:08 p.m. 25/10/00 -0500, Kathleen Trigiani wrote:
>> Also, I expect WS to teach students how to be feminist activists, just as
>I
>> expect music appreciation to teach students to support Western classical
>> music, just as I expect biology to teach students to support the theory of
>> evolution, etc. 

This seems to me an excellent example of the phenomenon -- blending
pedagogy with political partisanship -- that Daphne Patai and others have
criticized.  I'm politically very much on the left, but when I teach
political science I don't consider my job to be "teaching students how to
be leftist activists."  Likewise, when I teach international relations, I
don't want students to learn how to "support marxist theories of I.R."  As
Deborah Hume puts it,  "I want to teach them to critically examine theory
-- not to 'support' any particular theory."

Best,
Adam Jones

Adam Jones, Profesor/Investigador, Divisi=n de Estudios Internacionales
Centro de Investigaci=n y Docencia Econ=micas (CIDE), Mexico City
Executive Director, Gendercide Watch <http://www.gendercide.org>
Personal website: <http://adamjones.freeservers.com>

Is there a fundamental difference, though, between women's studies and other 
fields of study?  While I don't agree with Trigiani's examples from music (I 
think it's a false analogy), I've come across the idea that activism is a 
fundamental part of women's studies several times.  It's associated with the 
idea that women's studies is interested in women's lives as well as academic 
theories; women's studies is not an ivory tower pursuit (of course, you could 
argue that no study is isolated from life...) but should be connected in some 
way with grassroots activity and lived experience.  Many programs have an 
activist component, which includes community service, as part of their degree 
requirements.  Teaching women's studies is, in part, about teaching feminisms 
-- I wouldn't argue that it is about teaching a particular brand of feminism, 
which would be more in line with Jones' argument.  In economics, you teach 
students to critically consider the economy.  In women's studies, we teach 
students to critically cons
ider the construction of womanhood -- which is associated with feminism.  
When we emphasize activism, many of us aren't saying students should be a 
particular *type* of feminist activist.  Jones is giving a particular type of 
political activism in his example.  While 'feminist' is a particular type of 
activism, it is far more inclusive of a variety of activisms than something 
like 'leftist' would be.  Or at least I hope it is!  Can you be apolitical in 
the classroom and teach political science? To a large degree, I think the 
answer is yes.  Can you be apolitical and teach women's studies?  Not as easy 
an answer, since women's studies depends upon the positive valuation of 
women's lives...which can't be apolitical.
Alyson Buckman
Austin College

Dear Listmembers,
When this weeks Newsweek arrived, Nov. 27th issue,  I was pleased that
there were three letters concerning the previous article on women's studies
which was discussed on this list.  The letters were all pro women's
studies, and all critical of the article, particularly of what Joan Mandle
had told Newsweek for the article  about the flaws in women's studies at
Colgate. She said she had lost her position because she "insisted on
rigorous academic standards" and rejected ...'feminist orthodoxies'"

Two professors at Colgate state that in fact she  was no longer head of
women's studies because she was away for three years in a row, so one of
the women who wrote this letter was appointed head.  The consider her claim
that the teachers do not  insist on rigorous academic staandards is
insulting to the program, women's studies faculty, and former and present
directors as well as to the departments cross listing courses with women's
studies.

Mandle objected to the policy that half the readings should be by or about
women, but they insist that it would be  odd if it weren't..  Mandle had
reported that half the courses should by by women, omitting 'the "or about".

This issue is particularly important to me because she was given the
"Feminist Activism Award " by SOciologists for Women in SOciety.  It had
been named for me, but I took my name off it rather than  have her receive
an award with my name on it.  I remembered her participating in a meeting
at NWSA trying to get support for her position that women's studies
programs should not engage in feminist activism.  It should be taught as
other courses are taught, presumably value free, which we know is not
possible.  Activism should be left to the women's center.  Unfortunately I
couldn't back up my position.  After the award I found her book for sale,
"Can you wear pearls and still be a feminist" or something like that, in
which her position was explicated.  She even refused to have women's
studies become involved in an anti rape program.  I knew that she wasn't
telling the truth in her description of her accomplishments e,.g.. that she
had persuaded SWS to take a suggestion from the radical women about their
name.  In fact it was Jesse Bernard who had done so.  In fact I was the
liason between the two groups at the sociology meetings because I was
trusted by both Arlie Hochschild and Alice Rossi, but Jesse was the one who
brought the information from women in Boston that our name should be
Sociologists for WOmen In Society, rather than limiting ourselves to  women
in sociology.

Best. Pauline  pbart  @  ucla.edu
A rising tide lifts all yachts.
           Professor Lani Guanier
           NWSA Meeting, 2000

pbart  @  ucla.edu  310-841-2657