I really bristle at the suggestion that WS should be “upbeat” and “evangelical,” because that’s not the language of serious scholarship. Nobody tells me that my dissertation should be more happy. Nobody told me that my class on 19th century American intellectual history should focus on the positive. That’s not how academics talk about subjects that they take seriously. And we’ve fought extremely hard to have women, people of color, and other marginalized groups recognizes as legitimate subjects of study. What you’re arguing is that we should give up that fight and decide that studying women is different from studying men, that women don’t deserve the dignity that comes from being taken seriously, that women’s studies is akin to marketing or some other pre-professional major, rather than akin to an academic major like philosophy or anthro. What you’re saying is that we should admit that women are second-class subjects, worthy of study only for totally instrumental purposes. And that offends me, both as a scholar and as a woman.

I’ve got to say that I’m not all that impressed that you live near a university. Academic trends are complicated, and they aren’t the kind of thing you pick up by osmosis. (I’m not saying that you have to be in academia to have a handle on them, but you’re not going to pick up on them by listening to chit chat at the campus coffee house.) The biggest threat to women’s studies, I think, has actually been the turn to gender studies and to post-structuralist approaches which call into question the entire idea of a unified category of “women.” And actually, part and parcel of that has been a much more complex theory of power, one that argues that even the seemingly-oppressed have their own sources of power. What’s ironic is that you’re so out of touch that you seem not to realize that there has been a significant turn away from what could be termed theories of victimization (although I wouldn’t characterize them that way.)

Finally, I’m not blaming anything on the “uneducated.” I’m suggesting that you’re massively over-estimating the reach of women’s studies. You seem to think that most young people today are the children of people who took women’s studies classes. And that’s stupid. There has never been a time when most college students took a women’s studies class. I’d wager that there’s never been a time when 5% of college students took a single women’s studies class.

Q Grrl asked if I “begrudge” the political ambitions other fields of study have, yet she misses the point that I believe that (to repeat two of my main points earlier) WS needs to take a more upbeat, evangelical approach to society, and it needs to reach everybody. That doesn’t sound like “begrudging” to me.

And the point QGrrl misses is that all of the fields she cited succeed in their ambitions. Whether they are ethical or not, these fields are yielding measurable results, whereas WS is not.

But I’m curious about where you get your vast expertise about this.

As I’ve said elsewhere, for eighteen years, I’ve lived right by one of the largest universities in the USA. In addition to having close associations with both students and WS professors (who bemoan the declining understanding of -and support for- feminism that I spoke of), I’ve seen a distinct rightward shift among the student body.

Here’s a poll on feminism Time magazine did in 1998:

-only 32 percent of the population have a favorable image of feminism, as compared to 44 percent in 1989. Overall, 37 percent of all women perceive feminists as man-haters, 44 percent believe feminists don’t respect stay-at-home moms and only 39 percent of all woman feel feminists share their values.

here’s a study the Guardian did in 2003.

Now, you might look at these and say that people are wrong about what feminists believe. And you’d be right. But the point is, people still have this negative image of feminism, and feminists should feel compelled to clarify their beliefs.

First of all, I’m not convinced that it’s the job of WS to translate the ideas off campus. That’s the job of the political feminist movement.

The campus is frequently a student’s first exposure to feminism. Therefore, how WS communicates with them has a huge impact on feminism’s vitality.

And btw, the percentage of parents and students who have a college degree has been increasing, not decreasing. So blaming this situation on the “uneducated” doesn’t hold up.

First, I find the earlier criticism, that people take up WS or AS (or whatever S) to “find themselves” interesting and infuriating. I realize that as a Chinese-American woman, the dual concentrations in WS and AS may seem to some like a soft cop-out. But people who tend to give knowing smiles also tend to grossly misunderstand the nature of multidisciplinary studies. I am not an AS major because I want to learn how to make dumplings or arrange flowers, nor am I here to bitch about the great problem of my ethnic identity. Multidisciplinary studies exist to approach various disciplines - like literature, history, anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, and philosophy - in ways that include a group of people that probably have traditionally been left out of mainstream, Western academia. Rather than being isolated from other sections of learning, multidisciplinary people often engage in a broader range of studies than other majors. I have taken courses in AS, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, economics, WS, literature (including Brit. Lit.), Classics, languages, political science, history, and education, all of which have contributed to my concentration. My thesis paper is on the impact of nationalization on women’s employment and non-employment in Japan. What part of that is soul-searching? It’s actually more like soul-scarring.

A point brought up by daffodil was that WS has failed to show substantial impact on the broader community. I can see how this is true on some levels - a degree in WS does not necessarily translate into a job that deals directly with women’s/gender issues, or in jobs in which a WS background is readily visible. A degree in Hotel Management, which will probably lead to a job involving hotels, might sound more substantial to the outside ear. But I think that misses one of the biggest aims of WS (and whatever S). WS teaches you to ask questions in a productive manner, and provides resources for thinking about the structures of society in alternative ways. I think that people with multidisciplinary backgrounds bring those resources with them. If they get a fairly standard job, they’ll be aware of the power structures of employment that other people might not be. And I definitely think departments like WS make it easier to get involved in activist work, or seek out alternative employment, or effect other changes in society that do get people thinking about feminism.

I’m an artist, Sally. Of course I don’t believe that.

I don’t really care what you are. If you don’t believe it, don’t argue like you do.

My point is, WS has different aspirations than other fields. You can’t deny that a big part of WS is to get students to reconsider how they view society, and hopefully change it for the better. That is what makes WS different than studying history.

Look, you can repeat yourself as many times as you want. It’s not going to make you right. I don’t believe that women’s studies does have different aspirations from other fields. You believe that. I believe that the point of a liberal arts undergraduate education is to learn to think seriously about important topics. It’s to challenge your assumptions and learn to view the world critically. That’s political in a sense: thinking critically is a political act. In that sense, teaching history is political, too. But it’s not the same as indoctrinating people into a particular political program.

To some degree, WS aspires to be a conversion program, even if it’s politically incorrect to say so.

If you say so. But I’m curious about where you get your vast expertise about this. And I’m not even convinced that WS is as unified an entity as you make it out to be. Surely people who teach and study women’s studies have different motives.

But even if it’s not, you still have the problem of figuring out why it is that this generation understands less about feminism than the generation before it.

Actually, you have the problem of proving that this is true in the first place. And as I’ve said now several times, even if it is true, it’s hardly the fault of women’s studies.

Why did all those who took WS in the last few decades raise kids who don’t understand feminism?

Do you have any evidence that the people who took WS classes did raise kids who don’t understand feminism? Since a tiny minority of college students ever took a women’s studies class, and since many parents never went to college, the children of people who took WS are a miniscule minority of kids. Maybe they’re the ones who do understand feminism.

But these “new ways of thinking”? aren’t being translated off-campus.If they were, then these “new ways of thinking”? would have more sway in the average American’s view of women. And you wouldn’t have young people who don’t know what feminists believe.

First of all, I’m not convinced that it’s the job of WS to translate the ideas off campus. That’s the job of the political feminist movement. But also, I suspect a lot of the new ways of thinking are being translated off campus. The whole point of “I’m not a feminist but…” is that the women who say that agree with many principles of feminism while rejecting the label and the activism that comes with it.

At any rate, this is a problem with academia in general. The average person on the street has no idea what academic history looks like. I bet the average person on the street couldn’t name a single serious academic historian.

Earlier, you stated that WS can be measured as successful based on-the ability of its students learn to think critically, women’s greater representation across the curriculum, and its scholars’ work.

Are people today able to think more critically than past generations? I think the opposite is true.

No offense, but how exactly are you in a position to judge that? Because I spend 8 to 10 hours a day reading political debates from the early 20th century, and I see a lot of fuzzy logic and terrible writing. I suspect that the less you actually know about the past, the more likely you are to romanticize it.

At any rate, you still seem to think that women’s studies has failed if it hasn’t changed the world in spectacularly unrealistic ways. And I can’t help but think that it’s because you *want* women’s studies to have failed.

Btw, your point about women’s representation in the cirriculum proves that WS has at least some political aspirations.

Sure. The mere act of deeming something worthy of study is political. But that’s a far cry from saying that the goal of WS is to indoctrinate students. And it’s a far cry from saying that WS has failed because it hasn’t lived up to your self-evidently ridiculous expectations.

“What I’m getting at is a bit different, though. Women’s Studies clearly has an ambitious goal beyond, say, the goals of philosophy or civil war studies. The people involved would like to see society respect and embrace their views. The hope is that the more people take women’s studies classes, the more society will embrace feminism and its tenets, and the more feminist or culture and our laws will become. ”

But you’re okay with modern medicine doing exactly this, right down to political and legislative control of what we, the common people, consider to be true or legitimate medicine? What about fields of study like land management, water management, forestry. Do you begrudge the very real political influece these fields exert and the very real political influences that shape the course of these fields?

You don’t think that history, as taught and as socially ingested as “fact”, isn’t political? What say you about the purpose and intentions of theology? One could go on endlessly about politics and academia — if it were so rare as to be confined to Women’s Studies, we wouldn’t have the need for ethics committees.

We could also look at how schooling in society is not so much about knowledge and much more about socialization, which is of course political.

Piny was responding to your suggestion that “even the most bigoted Christians”? reach out to gay people in positive terms. He rightly pointed out that this is bullshit and that the overwhelming majority of gay people recognize it as bullshit.

Then what about all the born-again gays who say it’s not bullshit?

I think that our differences on women’s studies come down to two things. You have a brutally instrumental view of the aims of education, in which a subject is only worth studying if it has some very immediate and obvious benefit.

I’m an artist, Sally. Of course I don’t believe that.

Therefore, it makes sense to study accounting or “communications”?, since they are clearly pre-professional degrees, but it’s difficult to justify studying history or classics, which have no tangible benefit.

I’ve never said that, nor have I implied it.

My point is, WS has different aspirations than other fields. You can’t deny that a big part of WS is to get students to reconsider how they view society, and hopefully change it for the better. That is what makes WS different than studying history.

Therefore, you can only conceive of women’s studies as a conversion program or a waste of time.

To some degree, WS aspires to be a conversion program, even if it’s politically incorrect to say so. But even if it’s not, you still have the problem of figuring out why it is that this generation understands less about feminism than the generation before it. Why did all those who took WS in the last few decades raise kids who don’t understand feminism?

I believe that society benefits when we expand knowledge and come up with new ways of thinking about important topics

I agree. But these “new ways of thinking” aren’t being translated off-campus. If they were, then these “new ways of thinking” would have more sway in the average American’s view of women. And you wouldn’t have young people who don’t know what feminists believe.

Secondly, although you claim not to, you blame women’s studies for the (supposed) decline of feminism.

WS is just one small part of the equation.

Earlier, you stated that WS can be measured as successful based on-the ability of its students learn to think critically, women’s greater representation across the curriculum, and its scholars’ work.

Are people today able to think more critically than past generations? I think the opposite is true.

Do people read scholar’s work more now, or less? Given that most people today know feminists by name only (if even that), I highly doubt it. (The point is, WS grads aren’t passing on these scholars or their views onto their kids.)

Btw, your point about women’s representation in the cirriculum proves that WS has at least some political aspirations.

I think that our differences on women’s studies come down to two things. You have a brutally instrumental view of the aims of education, in which a subject is only worth studying if it has some very immediate and obvious benefit. Therefore, it makes sense to study accounting or “communications”, since they are clearly pre-professional degrees, but it’s difficult to justify studying history or classics, which have no tangible benefit. Therefore, you can only conceive of women’s studies as a conversion program or a waste of time. I believe that society benefits when we expand knowledge and come up with new ways of thinking about important topics, so I’ve never conceived of women’s studies (or history, my own discipline) as some sort of evangelical outreach program to the misogynistic.

Secondly, although you claim not to, you blame women’s studies for the (supposed) decline of feminism. You claimed I was overstating the case, but then you proceded to do it again. And as I said, I think that’s incredibly silly.

Do you know any gay people?

Yup. Given my areas of interest, I know a lot of them.

Have you spoken with gay people about their feelings about evangelical Christians who attempt to argue them out of homosexuality?

I have.

It doesn’t work at all. We don’t listen. We utterly reject that rhetoric, and we think that people who talk like that are sanctimonious assholes.

Not all of you do. I’ve met

a lot

of gay Christians. I’ve met quite a few gays who’s embraced the very same flavor of Christianity that is most critical of gays. The success rate of Christians trying to convert gays may be low overall, but it’s far higher than the success rate of feminists trying to convert chauvinists.

Invoking a higher authority”“of any kind”“only works if the listener believes in that higher authority and agrees with the speaker’s conception of it.

That’s not true. Invoking God is more likely to get people to react to your beliefs, even if they thoroughly reject it. BTW, every day, people cast aside their old beliefs to become born again. Often it happens quite suddenly, after much resistance.

Gay people have had horrible experiences with evangelical fundamentalism, because evangelical fundamentalism is overwhelmingly hostile to homosexuality.

For what it’s worth, Christianity isn’t the same as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is merely a faction of Christianity.

A good analogy would be that a former chauvinist who converts to Naomi Wolf’s brand of feminism is a “win” for feminism as much as a chauvinist who converts to a more extreme brand of feminism. Either way, feminists gain an advocate. So whether a gay person converts to Catholicism or fundamentalism, Christians are gaining an advocate.

Many gay people are atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian, so they do not recognize God as a higher authority. Gay people who are Christian tend to belong to churches that don’t say horrible things about gay people. They have their own strong beliefs about what God thinks, and they don’t tend to jibe with evangelical fundamentalism.

We also read the papers. We know what Falwell and Robertson think of us, and we know that the fundies are not our friends. Gay people have had a lot of experience with hatred masquerading as faith.

That’s very true. There’s a lot of hate out there, and those two certainly exhibit it. But there’s also the flipside - the Christians who use the positive approach, and yield much better results. You might be surprised to know that most of the anti-gay Christians don’t agree with Falwell’s tactics. This can especially be seen on a one on one basis.

And as far as this, “We loooove you, we only want to heeeelp you….”? asshattery: being gay, we know that being gay is not deadly, soul-destroying, or conducive to abuse of hard drugs. We are not impressed by any argument based on the premise that homosexuality is a horrible fate from which we need to be saved.

I agree with you that homosexuality is not a sin on its own. But the some of the environmental issues (i.e. the general religious beliefs you say gays tend to embrace) are. And whether or not homosexuality is itself the problem, every day, gays decide that it is.

Feminists don’t even try to communicate with those who are most diametrically opposed to their beliefs. They’ve resigned themselves to the section of the populace that is open to considering their ideas. Even if Christians often do awful things to gays, there’s still a faction of them that try to reach them with compassion. And often, they succeed.

For two, even the most bigoted Christians frame their bigotry in positive terms, i.e. they only want to help gays, they offer a better way for them, they love them, etc.>>

Do you know any gay people? Have you spoken with gay people about their feelings about evangelical Christians who attempt to argue them out of homosexuality? Because no, no, no, it doesn’t. It doesn’t work at all. We don’t listen. We utterly reject that rhetoric, and we think that people who talk like that are sanctimonious assholes.

Invoking a higher authority–of any kind–only works if the listener believes in that higher authority and agrees with the speaker’s conception of it.

Gay people have had horrible experiences with evangelical fundamentalism, because evangelical fundamentalism is overwhelmingly hostile to homosexuality. Many gay people are atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian, so they do not recognize God as a higher authority. Gay people who are Christian tend to belong to churches that don’t say horrible things about gay people. They have their own strong beliefs about what God thinks, and they don’t tend to jibe with evangelical fundamentalism.

We also read the papers. We know what Falwell and Robertson think of us, and we know that the fundies are not our friends. Gay people have had a lot of experience with hatred masquerading as faith. We know when a speaker is using religion as an excuse for bigotry, and it only makes the bigotry more repulsive.

And as far as this, “We loooove you, we only want to heeeelp you….” asshattery: being gay, we know that being gay is not deadly, soul-destroying, or conducive to abuse of hard drugs. We are not impressed by any argument based on the premise that homosexuality is a horrible fate from which we need to be saved. We think that people who believe that are idiots. Sometimes they’re idiots who mean well, but they still aren’t terribly convincing.

We know better than to accept any argument, no matter how sweetly phrased, that works out to, “You don’t deserve rights, recognition, or protection, and your love is sinful, dangerous, and wrong.” That kind of thinking is not good for us. Those philosophies, and the people who promulgate them, do not help us. They get gay people fired, disowned, and murdered. Sticking, “God says,” in front of antigay screeds, or, “…and I’d feel just awful knowing you were roasting in the fiery pits of hell,” on the end doesn’t make them less anti-gay, and it doesn’t make us more likely to accept them.

You seem to assume that if advocates of women’s studies had just done it right, had just assigned the right reading and taken the right approach, that they could have single-handedly arrested America’s move to the right over the past twenty-five years.

You’re overstating my point. Of course they couldn’t have “single-handedly arrested” America’s rightward shift. But that shift was not inevitable, nor was it unstoppable.

But clearly, something is not sinking in. A field of study should expand its reach and impact as time goes on, not fade back to the point where the average person is unaware of its basic tenets.

As I see it, there are at least four reasons why WS has failed to do this:

A. WS has failed to sell its value as a field to the world beyond the campus.

Ask yourself these questions: how has your WS education benefitted those around you? How has your family or your coworkers benefitted from your knowledge in this field?

The fields which have thrived can easily answer this. A Psych major can say that they understand human relationships better, and that allows them to be a better person, and more sensitive to others’ needs. A journalism major can extoll the value of the ways they are now able to either gather information and present it to the masses, or the aesthetic pleasure people get in reading their writing.

But I’ve found that WS has trouble anwering this.

B. WS has failed to define itself in positive terms.

Here’s something to think about: can you define the issues WS addresses without complaining about the disrespect women get, the oppression they suffer, or the unfair advantage men have?

I’m not saying that none of the above are untrue. But a field that can only focus on negatives is doomed to have a limited reach. People don’t like feeling bad about themselves, or the world. Even if society is unjust, most people are content to simply have a vague sense that there’s a lot of injustice that they can’t do anything about.

C. WS needs to take a more upbeat, evangelical approach to society.

I think WS (and liberalism in general) errs by assuming that facts are all one needs to convince the public and their students of the need for change. Facts aren’t enough - we live in a relativistic society where all facts are open for debate. People buy into vision. WS needs to sell itself as something that can bring about exciting change that will make people happier, and society better.

I’m not just talking about the political front, btw. I’m talking about all the areas it covers- be it the merits of women fiction writers or whatever. It seems to me as though too often, admirable women are presented with a heavy dose of grumbling , i.e. “here’s a great female inventor or writer who nobody seems to remember.” The trouble with that is that people both inside and outside WS remember the grumbling more than they recall the women that’s supposed to be acknowledged.

D. WS needs to reach everybody.

By setting aside certain segments of the population as unworthy of respect, WS limits its reach. It might seem unlikely that a feminist could “convert” a serial womanizer or a chauvinist from rural Alabama, but cutting those people off as being unworthy of attention or acceptance dooms WS to preach to the converted. People won’t take WS courses unless they’re already leaning towards the arguments WS writers embrace.

Obviously one could replace “WS” with “feminists” or “liberals” in much of what I’ve said here, and that’s true. Conservatives don’t limit their list of people they want to win over. Feminists and WS do. That set up puts them at a serious disadvantage. If people sense that you don’t like them or respect them, they won’t listen to what you have to say.

I’m betting that now people are wondering about whether I’ve overlooked the tension between gays and conservative Christians. I don’t think that parallels the tension between feminists and your average Maxim-buying, objectifying white male.

For one, Christians argue their standpoint from the context of a bigger authority: God. That unto itself is bound to get more gays to listen than if one argues simply from one’s personal opinion.

For two, even the most bigoted Christians frame their bigotry in positive terms, i.e. they only want to help gays, they offer a better way for them, they love them, etc. Feminists don’t do that with unsympathetic white males (or females).

And I think that’s kind of silly. Academia doesn’t have that kind of power. Tiny, under-funded, institutionally-neglected humanities departments in academia certainly don’t have that kind of power.

If you think small, you will never accomplish anything. I know of a lot of small, underfunded Bible Colleges that don’t have many alumni, but those alumni they do have enthusiastically tell their neighbors and coworkers about all they’ve learned, and most of them frame what they’ve learned positively. The underfunded colleges have a big impact.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that college professors should be in the business of indoctrinating their undergrads.

You have to ask yourself then why WS exists. If it is not to get more people to read and acknowledge women’s accomplishments and merits, then what are they doing?

But to expect the discipline to change the world seems to me to be a bit unrealistic.

Science majors can change the world. Philosophy majors can change the world. Journalism majors can change the world. Why not WS?

Of course, I *did* take my share of flak for going for a “dead white guys” major….

Not to mention that whole “but what’s it FOR?” question, which always made my skin crawl and which tends to get my back up when it’s applied to Women’s Studies as well. I tend to agree with Ted here. The purpose of higher education is primarily to teach one to think. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the actual subject matter to which this skill is applied is irrelevant, precisely, but I do ascribe far less importance to it than I do to the ways in which students are taught to approach whatever material they select as their primary focus of attention.

Although, I do at times get flak for my strong interest in foundational mathematics (most mathematicians seem to hate that stuff) but then I’m also interested enough in stuff like topology and algebra to get by.

I was a classics major. You know. Classics? The interdisciplinary study of the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East?

Yeah. Both interdisciplinary (”too broad!”) and restricted to a very specific group identity (”too narrow!”) And yet, strangely enough, I can’t off-hand remember ever hearing the same sorts of objections being applied to the classics departments.

Gee. I wonder why.

Which is to say, daffodil, that the value Women’s Studies may pop up in areas you’re not expecting.

In the 80’s and early 90’s, most students were quick to identify themselves as feminists, be they male or female. Even those students who didn’t take WS courses already held many pro-WS beliefs, anyway.

Now, I’ve noticed most students refuse to identify themselves as feminists. They will say things like, “I’m for equal rights, but I’m not a feminist,”? or they’ll say that they see no point in feminism, or that it’s antiquated and obsolete.

You know, people have ALWAYS been saying this sort of thing. In the 90s, when you say most students were feminists, Christina Hoff Sommers published her book Who Stole Feminism, which explained (in a sort of gloating way) why so few students wanted to call themselves feminists anymore. I remember similar critiques being made in the 80s. And the “I’m not a feminist, but…” problem has been with us for decades.

I do think that feminism isn’t as strong now, in some ways, as it was pre-Carter-administration. But I don’t see any reason to beleive that feminism is any weaker now than it was in 1980, or 1990.

One measure of the success of women’s studies is the one Amanda raised: women are now vastly better represented across the curriculum. Another way to evaluate women’s studies would be to look at the work that scholars in the field are producing. But to expect the discipline to change the world seems to me to be a bit unrealistic.

At any rate, you seem to have something in mind, so I’m curious. How do you think Women’s Studies should change it’s approach?

Daffodil, most of your questions seem to assume that pursuit of knowlege can’t be a reasonable goal in and of itself, and that there must be some greater result or goal hoped for.

Why? I was a WS student because I wanted to learn more about that subject. Isn’t that enough?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m an artist, so of course, I value the pursuit of knowledge as its own goal.

What I’m getting at is a bit different, though. Women’s Studies clearly has an ambitious goal beyond, say, the goals of philosophy or civil war studies. The people involved would like to see society respect and embrace their views. The hope is that the more people take women’s studies classes, the more society will embrace feminism and its tenets, and the more feminist or culture and our laws will become.

But the opposite has happened. For eighteen years, I’ve lived right by one of the largest universities in the USA, and I’ve seen feminism and Women’s Studies go from something that students were quick to embrace on some level, to something the average student was either embarrassed about or scoffed at.

In the 80’s and early 90’s, most students were quick to identify themselves as feminists, be they male or female. Even those students who didn’t take WS courses already held many pro-WS beliefs, anyway.

Now, I’ve noticed most students refuse to identify themselves as feminists. They will say things like, “I’m for equal rights, but I’m not a feminist,” or they’ll say that they see no point in feminism, or that it’s antiquated and obsolete. I’ve noticed that people who take WS courses - especially women -treat it like its something they’re embarrassed about. They’ll lie to people and say that they’re studying something different, for fear that people get the “wrong idea” about them.

Look at demographic studies. The modern student is more conservative than those of generations past. My point is, whether you found WS to be enriching or not, something is going horribly awry. The fact that the average student knows less about what feminism is, and is more likely to reject its tenets just shows that the message is not being communicated effectively. Somehow, WS and its advocates have to change their approach.

Why? I was a WS student because I wanted to learn more about that subject. Isn’t that enough?

Besides, it’s not as if all professors think with a single groupmind. No doubt if you asked your questions of 10 different professors who teach WS, you’d get ten different answers.

But do countering views, i.e. Phyllis Schafly or Ann Coulter get on the reading list?

I never read Schafly (although I read admiring accounts of her political skills and innovations) or Coulter for class. I did read people who were anti-feminists or republicans, though; Katie Roiphe was assigned reading, and so was a prominant Republican economist (whose name I’m blanking on right now, sorry) who has made a career out of denying that discrimination exists. In my “men and gender” class, our reading included some anti-feminist men’s righters. Other classes didn’t include anti-feminist views; it depended on the class and the professor.

And of course, there are tons of “countering” views within feminism, as well. It’s not as if all feminists agree on everything.

Ths is a standard, by the way, which never seems to be applied to other academic fields. It’s easy for a economics major to get through college without ever being assigned writings by Marxists or critics of free markets in an econ class, for example, and no one raises an eyebrow at that.

I would be surprised if Gloria Steinem were on the reading list, since she’s really more of a popular than an academic figure. And it’s important to remember that academic politics don’t exactly mirror the politics of the rest of the society. If you’re going for diverse viewpoints, the left/right distinction may be less important than the distinction between people who think that “woman” is a useful category of analysis and those who don’t.