From: s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice)
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:35:11 GMT

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'?

>Even if it is 
>a critical study on the masculine, or the phallo-centricism, or
>the male-centristic elements of society and culture as a whole,
>generally they have a point to make in reference to women.  In studies
>such as those, they are typically deconstructional in terms of 
>revealing the sturcture of "masculine" thinking, etc.  

Do you mean sexist thinking?

>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. 

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:
'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.

>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)

>mentioned; we do not find this to be the case whatsoever in 
>even critical studies of male thinking.

critical in a feminist perspective? and what exactly is 'male' thinking?

>
>>
>>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.

Vera B.