From: s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:39:15 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

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

>>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.  

Plenty of history, philosophy never took even a glimpse of what
"men's place" realistically was or is - because most of patriarchal
discourse is never critical of patriarchy, sexist discourse is
not critical of sexism, and so forth...

>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"?

>>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."
>

I chose this example exactly because the name is inclusive of both
sexes - I think it is a good example of how language influences our
perception of reality.

>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.'    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                    

Look at the program of 'Women's' Studies at Albany:
'The Women's Studies Program encourages students to re-examine their
own lives and world around them. The curriculum explores how
institutionalized sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexualism limit
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
human achievement and dignity - and examines the changes necessary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for society to eliminate these limitations.'
    ^^^^^^^

To me it is clear the similarity - and the all inclusive approach
to both. Yet one is called 'women's' and the other 'women and
men's'.

Now, if we changed the just the name of the first program to 'Women's'
Studies - would you think it was different? 

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).

>>>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.
>
Ok - I wasnt sure if you were linking sexism to biology or
to a sexist social construction of 'male'. 

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

Vera B.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands