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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:51:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221555.18643@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <BvsyE7.2vE@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>>In article <-1367383082snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Oct6.133109.15664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>>
>>>What we mean by the term "anthropological" is material not published
>>>within the discourse of Anthropology as a study of society & culture.
>>
>>If a lot of so-called 'Women's' Studies is exactly about studying
>>and analysing society and culture as a whole  - and therefore it is 
>>exactly anthropological -
>>is the difference drawn because traditional anthropology either is
>>directly sexist in its analysis or indirectly by its lack of
>>critique? 
>
>  Here the demarcation would need to be drawn between old anthropology
>and new anthropology.  The fact is that "old" anthropology was, 
>in many instances, ethno-centric and sexist.  The "new" anthropology
>is more concerned with this issue and works to prevent, as best
>it can, issues of ethno-centricity.  As a professor of mine, Wendy
>Doniger O'Flaherty, put it: the new anthropology is "inter-subjective"
>or "inter-objective."  
>   Women's Studies draws from anthroplogy for its evidence.  Its
>main focus, however, is not "society and culture as a whole," but
>rather "women in society and culture as a whole."  As such, 

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. And I have read several authors in 'women's' studies
whose primary concern was society and culture as a whole - without
a doubt - the difference was in their perspective from uncritical
traditional ideas and not the focus. Which is not to say that
there aren't a number of works and analysis focusing 
solely on women's experiences.

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.

By the way there is an excellent criticism of the way these divisions
between fields are set up in 'Education for Peace' - by B. Brock-Utne.

>anthropological women's studies would exist as a branch of
>anthroplogy.  However, Women's Studies also works with literary analysis,
>sociology, and psychology.

>
>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>

Vera B., I :)


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology