From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:42:15 GMT

In article <BvzoMo.Dru@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.031955.10104@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <Bvw2un.KM9@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>>>
>>>Hmm, I disagree with this, because altho there is certainly
>>>a lot in 'Women's' Studies that has women as the focus - there has
>>>been a critique of all society and history as well - for example
>>>topics such as militarism and masculinity will focus either
>>>primarily on men and society or on both women and men; 
>>>looking at violence against women
>>>without also focusing on men is absurd. Also since women and children
>>>constitute the majority in the world and women's studies focuses a
>>>great deal on their oppression (which obviously involve men) I think
>>>it is foolish to label it 'women's' studies if you then think it only
>>>involves women.
>>
>>
>>  Look to the in-order-to of 'women's' studies.  
>
>What exactly  is an 'in-order-to'?
>
>
>>However,
>>the purpose, still, is to find the place of woman in societies
>>across the ages.  
>
>I disagree, you cannot look at 'women's place' without looking at 
>'men's place' - that is, the whole picture. 

  Yes, but the question is "why do we look to the position
of men's place" and "under what conditions does this looking
take place?"  Plenty of the history of philosophy, etc, looked
to the position of the "man's place" without any regard whatsoever
for the position of the woman's place.  This is simply to say that
"women's studies" may look at the "man's place" in-order-to(there 
is the answer to your above question) reveal the "woman's place." 
(I am not so arrogant as to assume that this is the only place
that it looks.)  In essense, I am simply saying, without a real
desire for a prolonged debate, that the methods employed by "women's
studies" focus on this and that topic for the purpose of(the
in-order-to) tell us something about women--not, as one might suppose,
about society as a whole which would make it a study in anthroplogy or
sociology.  In this sense, "woman's studies" could be categorized
as a sub-field, or a gender-graphic, study in anthropology or
sociology.  Nothing more or less needs to be read into what I have
said.

>
>As a small example, here is the description of the program
>for the Study of Women and Men in Society at the univ. of s.california:
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -  It is important that this is a study
                                   of "Women and Men"; this is different
                                   than "women's studies."

The rest of the article follows naturally:

>'Drawing on feminist scholarship in many disciplines, from biology
>and psychology to religion, literature, and the arts, our program
>examines the personal, societal and symbolic manifestations of sex
>and gender. In focusing on issues of gender, we seek to be inclusive
>                                     ^^^^^^
>of variations by race, ethnicity, social class, age and sexuality,
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in a global context. We explore, across disciplines and cultures,
>the changing positions and images of women and men throughout
>history.'    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                    
>
>Even if this is only an example, it is quite different than your generalized
>description of women's studies.
  But, as I have already pointed out, this is a study of "Women and Men."

>
>>Whereas the traditional feminist argument against
>>the history of male thought is the absolute lack of "women" being
>
>male thought or sexist thought? (remember that 'male' is defined
>by biology)

  I refer to "male thought" in the tradition of feminist writers--
you may, however, refer to it as "sexist thought."  In fact, I 
agree with you on this point.  However, do not forget that
many feminists, and critical theorists, belive "male" to be something
more than just a matter of genetics.

>>
>>>
>>>I think as these other 'fields' evolve towards non-sexist ones,
>>>perhaps then 'women's' studies will actually become to mean more of
>>>what the name tends to imply.
>>
>>  In what way do you mean this?
>
>For example, suppose you have a sexist curriculum that excludes
>women artists from artists reviewed in  a contemporary arts class 
>- then the women's studies
>dept. offers a course in women artists. If the art course did not
>exclude the study of women artists to begin with - there would be
>less need to have it in the women's studies dept.
>Second example, suppose the curriculum in another dept 
>only includes sexist authors
>(male or female) - then there is definitely a need for a course
>with non-sexist ones (male and female) and if that is not possible
>in the traditional dept. , many times it is created in the 
>women's studies dept.
>
I still do not understand how if these other fields evolve towards
"non-sexist" views, that "women's studies" will actually mean more.
Perhaps there is an error in your writing--it seems, based on your
examples, that you mean to say 'so long as these fields do NOT
move to "non-sexist" views, women's studies will mean more.'

>Vera B.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------