Talk:Women's studies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New page: Criticisms

I came across this article and its weirdly hostile to itself. It's probably backlash of some kind. So I took the liberty to take out the criticism (which was longer than the content about Women's studies itself) and put it to a separate page. Now the backlash and anti-backlash can fight over there while everyone can focus on what Women's Studies is... hope this will help the article's future If not, I think you should delete and rewrite this article... Towsonu2003 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to see this content summarized but to try to silence it by burying it in what you call a separate 'backlash' page is something I take issue with. I see this content as a neutral critique by feminists and a few non-feminists of the quality of Women's Studies scholarship rather than the content. This critical section has nothing directly to do with backlash or anti-backlash...unless someone opposes Women's Studies right to exist. Patia and Koerge's bookback notes that "feminists have often called Women's Studies 'the academic arm of the women's movement". The activist, highly politicized nature of this so-called discipline is essential to note here because it is fairly unique in academia.(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Towsonu2003 is making a good faith effort at cleaning up the article, and I appreciate it, and also appreciate Towsonu2003 explaining the rationale & action here on the talk page. I think we should all look at these pages closely, and figure out what should go here; I'm not convinced that a separate criticism page is warranted, although I agree with Towsonu2003 that the criticism in this page has often been disproportionate to the other content.

128.111.95.47 makes some good points (although couched in rather inflammatory language -- "so-called discipline", for instance). A few thoughts on the 128.111.95.47's points:

• Women's studies is tied more closely to the political women's movement than an "ivory tower" image of academia might suggest. That connection should be reflected (I like the level of emphasis indicated by 128.111.95.47's suggestion that this we should "note" this connection in the article); we should all be able to agree that this note shouldn't unduly swamp the article. It's not unusual for sociological studies to have an activist or practitioner wing; social work, the academic practice, is closely tied to social work, with its activist and charitable history. Psychology, political economy, and so on, all have relations back and forth from pure academic research and thinking, to practical applications of various sorts. In the case of the academic discipline women's studies, it's led to political opposition from critics of the women's movement.
• Criticism of scholarship within the field should also be noted, and in connection with the political criticism of women's studies / the women's movement.

Since 128.111.95.47 already put the original content back in, but agreed that they would be "glad to see this content summarized", I have attempted to summarize it, moving some of the material to references. I've also added a bit more information about criticism from within the academy & other academic cultural studies movements. All of this content needs fuller references, with cites; these should be added sooner rather than later.

Most importantly, we need to fill out the main part of the article, explaining the discipline, significant works and movements within it, and so forth. That will help keep the (important and necessary) criticisms proportionate and balanced. Eventually they should be woven together, since an isolated "criticism" section isn't really the best formatting. Right now, however, there's not enough positive content explaining the history, works, and so on, for the criticism to be integrated into appropriate places, so we'll have to leave it as a separate section.

I'd appreciate it if 128.111.95.47 could make sure that I didn't miss any important nuances in the summary paragraph. Some of the previous bullet points were clearly redundant -- the first two, for instance, were essentially the same thing, and point #8 could be wrapped up in there (and avoid the very POV and problematic term "womb-like"; that's appropriate for a rhetorical argument as in Patai/etc's work, but not appropriate for the drier tone expected from an encyclopedia); points 4, 6, and 7 were basically all the same thing, as well, and tied into point 5; points 3 and 9 i think stand separately. I took the liberty of pulling point 9 ("victim feminism") into the separate paragraph that lays out various criticisms from the left, the academy, and so on; I realize that it's used on both sides but thought it worked better in that paragraph. At a later date, when we can flesh out this section without overwhelming the explanatory content on the page, we can explain the fuller history of this critique. (It should really have its own page.) --lquilter 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

128.111.95.47 says s/he would love to see a summary of Criticisms of women's studies, while what I see is the link to Criticisms of women's studies on the main article being deleted, all criticism being brought back to this article (instead of a summary), and the article hostile to itself again. I usually assume good faith when people revert my changes, but 128.111.95.47 shows bad faith by inflamatory language such as "so-called discipline" etc.

Moreover, I do not see any counter arguments by 128.111.95.47 to the arguments I proposed at Talk:Criticisms of women's studies.

This article, as it is now, along with all the resistance against it being fixed, is very poorly written, it mostly has the anti-feminist backlash as opposed to definitions and history of what the department is... I do not think it is fixable and I suggest this article be deleted and rewritten. Towsonu2003 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked so. Towsonu2003 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Towsonu2003 -- Actualy, while 128.111.95.47 reposted the original, I went in after and significantly summarized & shortened that section. I then added W/S discipline responses to the criticisms, which seems important; it makes the "criticism" section seem larger, again, but I believe it's more balanced now. At this point, I did not make edits to the substance of the criticisms, because I thought that issue should be saved for another day, if we could just get the proportionality better. Could you please look at the current edits & see what you think? --lquilter 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think your edits are great. The rewording gave the criticism part a nicer shape. But the article is as biased against itself as I saw it the first time... If we deleted this and let the "criticism" article live, I don't think much would change at all... I still think this article is broken beyond fixage. I really think it should be deleted, and as deletion will attract a bit attention and an opportunity to start from scratch, the opportunity should be taken to get attention from experts and systematically input what an encyclopedia entry should have for this: definition, branches of women's studies, methodology of women's studies, history in the US and abroad, big names, big books / articles etc. When I go to an entry for info, I don't wanna see the criticism section screaming at me, I wanna see what that entry is all about... Criticism is of secondary importance, and if people feel so strongly about it, they should play around in a different entry and import the summary of a well-done criticism entry here... Does anyone here see a giant section of criticism at Sociology? Women's studies is the same, it's a discipline and its entry should be deserving of what that discipline achieved. Towsonu2003 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the term "Women's studies" is the most anti-feminist discipline ever? It's like there are distinct "Men's studies" vs. "Women's studies". Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.107.4 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (Moved post to be reply and outdented it: Nick Levinson (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

There are indeed distinct men's studies and women's studies in academia. And it's not antifeminist. But, at any rate, Wikipedia neutrally reports what's in the sources about the world, and the field of women's studies is an existing and notable field of study, so it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on it. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

suggestions for more work

Suggest that we need

1. better definition of what it is
2. discussion of curriculum & academic work; the subjects of women's studies
3. branches of women's studies
4. methodology of women's studies
5. more detailed history - history in US & beyond
6. major scholars, works, articles, etc.
7. Convert "Current courses in women's studies" to "Prevalence of women's studies programs" or something like that, examining access to minors & majors, departments of W/S, and so on, around the world
8. Influence of w/s - examining a) influential works and scholarship; and b) disciplinary and academic influences on queer theory, etc., and methodological innovations
9. Then the criticism section which is (not surprisingly) already well fleshed out (I edited it down & tried to make it more wiki-style per discussion above; as a result, with the substance of the criticism whittled down & the responses included, it's still too big)

--lquilter 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag

First of all, the "db-attack" tag is for pages that specifically attack and disparage individuals. Regardless of one's feelings about this particular article, this is absolutely not the way to go about it. If someone wants it deleted, bring it to WP:AFD and let people discuss it. Cheers. Dina 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

my ignorance of procedures, sorry Towsonu2003 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess now it's okay? Towsonu2003 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

as per "specifically attack and disparage individuals", it says "specifically attack or disparage its subject", doesn't mention individuals... Towsonu2003 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

merge or redirect from Feminist Studies

I just came across an article called feminist studies which is IMO just an ad for programs in Stanford University ad Southwestern Univesity. I've recommended on that page it be merged to here or turned into a redirect. If that page can't be fixed it will have to be delted. Has anyone any comment on what content might be useful for this page, if any?--Cailil 02:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV

I have removed the NPOV warning on the Women's Studies page, I belive that this article is of a neutral point of view, I am a womens studies major and everything in this article looks correct to me. --Kylehamilton 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

temporary page for rewrite of criticisms

It was recently decided to redirect the criticism of women's studies article to this page because it was a POV fork. I've made a temporary home for the rerite of that section here. For the moment I'm replacing the overlong and totally unsourced criticism section with

A number of authors have criticized scholarship standards within women's studies programs. These authors include feminists like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff-Sommers and Phyllis Chesler; and journalists and social commentators like Karen Lerhman.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Researchers Daphne Patai and Koertge note that the type of feminism espoused in the vast majority of women's studies departments in the United States 'espouses a totalizing world view.'‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

. While the response to criticism attempts to redress the undue weight given to this section it is itself compltely unsourced. I'd appreciate it if someone could actually source the Patai & Koertge claim--Cailil 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Totalizing worldview reference.

The following web site: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/fem_overhaul.html

has the following sentence, "To a feminism that rests on a totalizing epistemology, such indifference cannot be countenanced." This supports the fact that Daphne Patai feels feminism to invoke a totalizing worldview, which is what the article asserts.

Elzoog (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

stub with sections?

Okay, what we have here is a stub - but one with sections. The question I keep asking myself is why the sections (there’s nothing wrong with this page being a stub). Before anyone says it please be aware that criticism should be integrated into the article not given its own section. NPOV requires that the article is properly balanced - not written and then given an addendum that argues against the subject. There is also a problem with the ‘Courses on Women studies section’ - exactly what is the point of this section? It's an ad, it's trying not be but it really has no other function. Women's studies courses, like every other gender/feminism/men's studies/LGBT course in every university is different. Individual course teams and co-ordinators bring a different flavours to their teaching and their courses. It would be impossible to document the number of different approaches within any academic area so there is little point doing it here. What I'm proposing is simple. We scrap the courses section, then remove the other section headings and integrate the criticism to the appropriate places within the text--Cailil ^talk 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cailil, I think I've addressed your comments, although I did it without checking this page first (sorry). I noticed activity on this page and looking at it felt that it needed some work. There were too many sections for the relatively small amount of content and, as you pointed out, "criticism" sections that are isolated are not good stylistically and act as troll magnets. So I consolidated three (if I recall correctly) sections into two: "history" contains an overview of development and current levels of programs; "curriculum and methodology" which needs to be significantly built out, includes the curriculum material that was in one of the previous sections, and the material about criticisms of curriculum. I noted a couple of other places that need cites, and moved the patai book -- cited twice! in further reading -- to references where it properly belonged. Still needs work of course but hopefully this helps the article along. --Lquilter (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made a vast improvement Lquilter - especially the curriculum section which with the criticism integrated into now makes some sense, well done--Cailil ^talk 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who may not have read WP:CRITICISM

Giving due weight to ideas is one of the pillars of writing wikipedia articles. One knows when an article is giving undue weight to something when he page becomes lopsided. This is happening again here. Adding notable, verified criticisms of women's studies to the article is fine, as long as we give it due weight. Unfortunately what we have here is a case of undue weight because almost 35% of the page's text (not including refs, headers and links) is criticism. That might be okay if the criticism was not repetitive or made up of very long quotes - which this is.

I'd also like to point-out WP:CRITICISM for those who might not have read it. Integrating criticism into the article where it is relevant and appropriate is far better than creating a criticism section (this is why we have {{criticism}}) - this prevents POV forking and helps keep other sections neutral. I've done some work on the criticism that Grundle2600 added today - and in fairness I think their addition is better than the rest of the criticism here but I'm suggesting that the quote be reduced further and then put in the Curriculum section as it is about curriculum. The other critical piece needs to be reviewed as we already have a seriously lopsided curriculum section--Cailil ^talk 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note about recent edits (December 08)

Ok for those who have not read the above comment about criticism sections - please go back and read it. Recently a number of edits were made that are in contravention of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE, and WP:RS. Before adding content to the site please read our policies and guidelines. Also attempts to turn this page into a coatrack for criticism are considered disruptive and "pointy" - please consider these points before reinserting material that has been removed 3 times by 2 different editors and has been contested by a further editor--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section recreated again.

Daphne Patai, a professor of Brazilian literature at University of Massachusetts Amherst, criticizes Women's studies programs saying that:

many women's-studies programs have allowed the political mission of training feminist cadres to override educational concerns. The strategies of faculty members in these programs have included policing insensitive language, championing research methods deemed congenial to women (such as qualitative over quantitative methods), and conducting classes as if they were therapy sessions.

Carrie Lukas, author and director of policy for the Independent Womens Forum, questions alleged claims such as that "one in four" women are raped. Ms. Lukas, in an interview with "The Lantern", further states that classes are taught with a biased political view and agenda. "Women are also told in courses that marriage is a prison they are tricked into pursuing, even though more than 80 percent of college women say that marriage is an important goal"

---

I am killing it yet again, after cleaning it up (I lightheartedly hope). An enterprising person may or may not have use for the reworked content, which I include above. sinneed (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that Sinneed. It was reinserted by the IP again - I've removed teh section again. The problem here is simple - WP:DUE. Also there are basic issues with the material that come under WP:RS and WP:SYN--Cailil ^talk 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the key would be the undue weight,the rest looks fixable by wise use of the sources out there. If the IP were not pursuing hiserits agenda so single-mindedly, a controversy section, with multiple positions presented would be useful. But not a criticism section (and I say Thank You for that bit of knowledge). But it is a pain to keep such things even vaguely balanced and ... what will it really add to an encyclopedia article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 December 2008

hmm controversy sections are really much like criticism sections - have a look at the criticism section essay for more on that. What's worrying about the additions is the appearance of pov in this IP's edits and their possible links to a website that attempted meat-puppetry here before. But I hope this IP can see where we're all coming from and bring their editing in line with site policy and protocol--Cailil ^talk 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They are certainly editwar and PoV magnets. *shrug* If someone cares enough, they can beef up the article and, as you say, embed the pro and con discussion in the text.sinneed (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)