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: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:58:24 GMT

In article <Bw70pG.D0q@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.004215.21148@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>
>>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.  
>
>Not really, because in patriarchy, a sexist anthropology that
>either excludes the relevance of women and/or a critique of its
>patriarchal/sexist frame of reference in not called anything other
>than "anthropology". Have you ever heard of a course called
>"Sexist Anthropology 101"?

  You are entirely correct to point out that "Sexist Anthropology
101" does not exist as a course.  However, I believe that as
certain Anthropologists continue to critizise sexist methodologies,
this course will never have to come into existence.  I am, I suppose,
being a bit optimistic when I write that "anthropology and
sociology look at society as a whole."  However, I believe
that this is becomming the case as best as it can.

>This is the point I am making - 'women's' studies - altho the name
>says 'women' - analyses, studies and focuses not only on women, but everything
>else - and for the purpose of the benefit of all of society (which
>certainly includes women).

  Should we, though, really accept this as 'women's' studies, because
it would seem to me to be a misnomer.  If we, in fact, investigate
men from the field of "women's studies" aren't we studying
men from a matriarchal viewpoint?  This argument rests, of course,
of the common critique of refering to the human race as "man"
and the english usage of "he" though in some cases it is considered
neuter.  I am so radical as to claim, not conservatively by any means,
that "women's studies" is a dying field--and it is time, indeed,
to move forward to the more correct, not P.C., "Men and Women's 
Studies" or perhaps, "Gender Studies"(though 'gender' carries with
it a biological connotation that I think is not appropriate.)
Also, would you agree that "women's studies" originally started
as such?  And that it later developed into a field of the
study of both sexes?  Or are you inclined to argue the reverse?


>>"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.'
>>
>I wrote 'more of what the name actually is'. When one says -
>women's studies - the word 'Women' for many is not 
>understood as 'women and men' - but in practice a fundamental part
>of what is studied is exactly women *and* men.  If other fields
>were non-sexist (which can only happen when society itself
>changes), there would be no need for 'women's' studies
>to study society and could focus on specific things related to
>women only. 

 Ok, I see--yes, I am in total agreement on this point.  In refernce
to my statement above, that "women's studies" is a dying field,
I apologize for my oversight as to what direction you were taking.
I would rather say that "Women's studies" is a dying title as
I believe that various areas of studies are, in fact, becomming
more non-sexist.


>
>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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------