Gender Studies - what is taught in gender studies courses?

[pErvinalia]

Interesting. I can't see what gender has to do with feminism, but there you go.

[Svartalf]

I'm not sure what gender studies has to do with feminism. Can you give examples?

It's absurdist feminists who started the whole shebang

[pErvinalia]

Did they?

[Forty Two]

So, the stuff they teach in Gender Studies programs? Mainstream? Normal stuff? The accurate statement of social justice concepts, modern feminism, and gender identity politics, etc.? Or, is it mostly whacked out crap?

[JimC]

I think the main issue is not that these academic theories are part of such courses, but that they are the only part of the course, and that skeptical enquiry into the received wisdom, and consideration of alternatives is unwelcome.

[JimC]

Think about pre radical behaviourism vs cognitivism. They are two different abstractions of biology to psychology. They can't both be right, but nevertheless both have added to our understanding of the mind. Assuming that the "oppression" model of social interaction is wrong, it's not necessarily the case that investigating things under the paradigm is lacking in value.

However, as I've already said, it seems pretty clear that, within such courses, they are anything but welcoming to a diversity of views. Their particular method of analysis is one among many social theories, but it seems that, within their domain, it is Holy Writ, not to be viewed with appropriate rational skepticism. Academic marxists of the past had a rather similar bent...

[Forty Two]

I think the main issue is not that these academic theories are part of such courses, but that they are the only part of the course, and that skeptical enquiry into the received wisdom, and consideration of alternatives is unwelcome.

that certainly is an important issue...

But, once you aver that science and logic, and knowledge itself, is a construct of the patriarchy meant to oppress women and marginalized groups, you pretty much have eliminated any possibility of debate.

[pErvinalia]

I think the main issue is not that these academic theories are part of such courses, but that they are the only part of the course, and that skeptical enquiry into the received wisdom, and consideration of alternatives is unwelcome.

We only have this guy's anecdote to go by. I looked up a woman's studies program at Australian National University and it had a broad range of topics focussing on the interaction of women with various parts and histories of society.

[pErvinalia]

Think about pre radical behaviourism vs cognitivism. They are two different abstractions of biology to psychology. They can't both be right, but nevertheless both have added to our understanding of the mind. Assuming that the "oppression" model of social interaction is wrong, it's not necessarily the case that investigating things under the paradigm is lacking in value.

However, as I've already said, it seems pretty clear that, within such courses, they are anything but welcoming to a diversity of views. Their particular method of analysis is one among many social theories, but it seems that, within their domain, it is Holy Writ, not to be viewed with appropriate rational skepticism. Academic marxists of the past had a rather similar bent...

There's nothing strange about a course insisting that you stick to and learn the curriculum. That's how university works. If every subject at university was teaching this stuff then that would be a problem. And even in the case of women's or gender studies, it's not clear to me that these are actual degrees. In Australia, at least, they appear to be majors in an Arts degree. So this isn't the only thing they will be doing/learning in their studies.

[JimC]

I think the main issue is not that these academic theories are part of such courses, but that they are the only part of the course, and that skeptical enquiry into the received wisdom, and consideration of alternatives is unwelcome.

We only have this guy's anecdote to go by. I looked up a woman's studies program at Australian National University and it had a broad range of topics focussing on the interaction of women with various parts and histories of society.

From various other examples, some of which have been aired on this forum, it seems that at least some US unis have gone on an ultra PC track, as compared to the Aussie versions; you yourself have said as much...

Think about pre radical behaviourism vs cognitivism. They are two different abstractions of biology to psychology. They can't both be right, but nevertheless both have added to our understanding of the mind. Assuming that the "oppression" model of social interaction is wrong, it's not necessarily the case that investigating things under the paradigm is lacking in value.

However, as I've already said, it seems pretty clear that, within such courses, they are anything but welcoming to a diversity of views. Their particular method of analysis is one among many social theories, but it seems that, within their domain, it is Holy Writ, not to be viewed with appropriate rational skepticism. Academic marxists of the past had a rather similar bent...

There's nothing strange about a course insisting that you stick to and learn the curriculum. That's how university works. If every subject at university was teaching this stuff then that would be a problem. And even in the case of women's or gender studies, it's not clear to me that these are actual degrees. In Australia, at least, they appear to be majors in an Arts degree. So this isn't the only thing they will be doing/learning in their studies.

However, in a unit on cosmology in a University physics course, I'd be pretty sure that the lecturer would go through all the competing theories, even if he had a pet one himself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the particular social theories involved should not be part of a uni humanities course, just that they should be able to be critically examined and challenged. And it's not just the anecdote related in this thread which suggests a very "circle the wagons" mentality; many articles I've read in the media over the last few years say much the same thing. The academics involved seem to see their theories as not only being correct, but that challenging them is immoral and dangerously oppressive...

[DaveDodo007]

I don't understand femsplaining, can a man translate?

It is like mansplaing but it is done by self loathing gimpy cucks or misandrist women.

[pErvinalia]

@Jim.. It depends on what articles you are reading. A lot of the articles 42 posts are highly sarcastic and clearly biased, so lack journalistic rigour.

[JimC]

@Jim.. It depends on what articles you are reading. A lot of the articles 42 posts are highly sarcastic and clearly biased, so lack journalistic rigour.

He does tend to imply that all US university humanities departments are full of the loony fringe of feminism and gender studies, which I'm sure is over the top, and there are probably a certain amount of critiques from moderate academics directed at them (which would not interest the media, and so would not show up).

Having made that allowance, I'm pretty certain that there are still a fair number of such blinkered and defensive courses in US academia, and that they are worth being attacked.

[Forty Two]

@Jim.. It depends on what articles you are reading. A lot of the articles 42 posts are highly sarcastic and clearly biased, so lack journalistic rigour.

He does tend to imply that all US university humanities departments are full of the loony fringe of feminism and gender studies, which I'm sure is over the top, and there are probably a certain amount of critiques from moderate academics directed at them (which would not interest the media, and so would not show up).

You're "sure" that it's over the top to "imply" that all US university gender studies programs are loony fringe? Well, that certainty must make it easy to locate one example. I am, of course, very interested in seeing what is, in fact, the non-loony fringe gender studies department. That would allow us all to come to some understanding of what is being called "loony fringe" and what is being called "reasonable and mainstream", and by whom. That's the only way to resolve this issue. In so many threads, the back and forth becomes an argument between what the real/majority/mainstream feminist or SJW or gender studies people think, and what the loony fringe thinks.

To me, it seems as if the big bulk of feminists/SJWs/gender studies folks are pushing some really wacky stuff. So, the question is, are the things being pushed wacky, or are they mainstream? Or, is the mainstream of feminists/SJWs/genders studies wacky when compared to the general population?

If the media is not interested in the mainstream, normal, rational gender studies programs, we would nevertheless see examples of those things publicized when one of the wacky programs or events is highlighted and criticized. The mainstream folks would post responses saying "hey! wait a minute! What about such-and-such college, which is a prime example of the real feminism and gender studies, not that wacko stuff ya'll keep going on about!" But, alas, that simple, easy rebuttal, which you say you are sure is out there, is never raised (as far as I can tell). This thread is, essentially, a clarion call for that rebuttal. So, rebut!

Having made that allowance, I'm pretty certain that there are still a fair number of such blinkered and defensive courses in US academia, and that they are worth being attacked.

Agreed. I don't think it's enough, however, to simply make that allowance without having some substantiation that there are, in fact, such non-blinkered programs.

[Forty Two]

@Jim.. It depends on what articles you are reading. A lot of the articles 42 posts are highly sarcastic and clearly biased, so lack journalistic rigour.

So, post citations or links to the good, reasonable, journalistically rigorous sources. Which articles are you reading?