Customer Reviews

Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Professing Feminism, Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women's Studies; is without doubt one of the most honest and forthright evaluations of the "discipline" Women's Studies ever written. Like "Who Stole Feminism" by Christina Hoff Sommers, it is a rather chilling tale of a noble endeavor transformed in to a totalitarian nightmare of ideological thought policing.

It is not written not by opponents of feminism but rather by strong and committed supporters, who are dismayed at the ever increasing radicalization and identity chauvinism of feminist activists in the Academy. Using "feminist" techniques of investigation (eg. experiential sharing ), as well as juxtaposition against the methodology of more conventional academic disciplines, this book exposes some of the serious and possibly crippling shortcomings of what "Women's Studies" has become.

The two female authors come from different perspectives and lifestyles, and yet found the courage to face facts about the ideological intolerance and thought policing increasingly common to this field. Their approach was to try and help fix what was wrong, rather than deliver negative information into the hands of the (ever growing) enemies of radical feminism. Unfortunately, their book has been mainly shunned by the very institutions and individuals it sought to reach, and in some cases stolen from libraries and destroyed as heresy.

Given the increasing polarization of "Women's Studies" from the rest of mainstream academia, and the burn down the meeting house approach of ever more radical activists, who would see the whole academy converted to their ideology -- or else, it is no surprise this book was so quickly suppressed. For those who can still find a copy, you will be impressed by the candor and honesty of the authors, who feel that the best way to preserve the valid and worthwhile facets of feminism is to honestly look at the attempts to subvert and control the agenda by radicals, who in turn have treated the authors in a manner similar to Christina Hoff Sommers, as Traitors to their Gender deserving only of shunning.

If you can find a copy, reading it will open up whole new perspectives on what Women's studies purported to be, and what the academic gravy train of financial empowerment through intimidation has allowed it to become.

Truly, a Cautionary Tale. Sadly, one that it is actively being suppressed by the radicals it seeks to expose and debunk.

5 Stars

The 1960s seemed like a good decade. The Vietnam war gave at least those of us of "the affluent society" something to fight against; many people, black and white, fought for the successes of the civil rights movement; "women's lib," which had its conspicuous beginnings in earlier centuries, gained strength with women's education and consciousness of inequities.

But something went wrong. The later 20th century reinterpretation of the benefits of the 60s contradicted the gains. Persons once sought equality. Now we find identity politics in which the allegedly downtrodden--often the more privileged segments of oppressed (sometimes really oppressed and sometimes self-designated as such) classes--depend on their status as victims to claim a new identity distinct--segregated--from AND morally superior to the rest of us. This book is an analysis of one sample of that segregation.

As earlier reviews have noted, the authors are not right-wing, "religious right," or other activists from whom one would expect a refutation of anything feminist. On the contrary, they are feminists themselves, and scholars. (Dr. Koertge has edited at least two other books in my libary on dimensions of critical thinking, of which she is an advocate. Such thinking is a rarity among the feminists the authors interviewed to write the book). They interviewed women, many of whom had enough faith in their movement to start women's studies programs. Yet some even of those pioneers left that movement quite disillusioned. After all the intellectual effort that went into creating such programs, various lesbian organizations claimed that a woman could not be feminist "enough" unless also lesbian, i.e., rejecting all that is ostensibly male; women not inclined to "true" or particularly zealous feminism were rejected by their women's studies classmates and faculty as, in effect, incomplete women; opinions differing from those of the zealots were seen as virtually seditious. So the "left" became the mirror image of the oppressive "right" it claimed to oppose on the historical day before.

Each chapter covers something else about this "movement" that, when not comical, is a sample of near fascism. From language perversions and interpretations used by the zealots to ensure their status as oppressed, to "social construction" amounting to no more than revisionist pseudo-science. I appreciate too the authors' perception that much of the feminist (and other!) rhetoric of the academy is more trendy than substantial. (No, I'm not making an anti-academic commentary. Rather, I'm corroborating that what I often hear from the "academic left" whose ideology one must buy to make heads or tails out of their balderdash!) And all too many of the women's studies faculty the authors talked with reject conventional scholarly practice. The authors plead for a return to that practice. (Portions of the book reminded me of a neighbor of mine, a Ph.D. who works for the government. She's a bright woman who "left academia" because those on the "academic left," despite their pathetically weak or nonexistene arguments, would even allow her to disagree with them!)

A chapter points out too that, while many of us would like to believe that the sort of "feminists" to whom the authors refer are a tiny minority of extremists, they are actually the rule rather than the exception. (And, as I work with many a "left" organization, feminist and in other dimensions "political," I corroborate that too; anti-racists, for example--nearly always white--who define racism to include anything they choose to disagree with, thereby excluding nearly everyone from their social and moral status).

The book is out of print at this point. One of the authors e-mailed me that they are working on a second edition. Hoping I could help them with a little critical advice, I suggested they consider eliminating some acronyms they created, e.g., "IDPOL" for "identity politics" and, coincidentally, "ideological policing," "TOTALREJ," and "WORDMAGIC." I felt, when I was about half way through the book, that these little word plays may minimize the impact of what the authors were saying. After completing the book I don't feel as strongly that way. If it's even possible that those "words" can evoke discussion of the issues, then the book has served a great political purpose: pursuit of the truth.

Needless to say, I recommend the book. My hope is that it's not just read by "the choir," but develops a following of its own. While some feminists reading this review will label me anti-feminist, I stress that I am far from that. I do, however, challenge any group that segregates itself based on false reasoning or pretentious morality, especially a group that claims it's fighting segregation and inequality.

What do I mean? Read the book, the original, or the revised edition. Then we can talk.

I wish to god this book had been available when I was an undergrad at a university that was a nightmare of PC. Deserves to be kept in print until the current generation of posturing wackos have faded away.

This book is a quite devastating criticism of academic feminism, written by well documented and articulate insiders who seem familiar with the philosophy, theory and practice of academic feminism. The criticism hits on all these levels. If we are to take the book at face value, academic feminism is an intellectual disaster comparable maybe with Stalinism, Scientology or the Inquisition: its method is anti-intellectual, critical thinking is discouraged, dissenters are ostracized. No redeeming qualities are found to mitigate its defects. The whole enterprise is deemed a failure and an embarrassment to its noble origins. Ultimately, feminism as taught and practiced today is presented as a danger to civilized society.

The authors are convincing and the various points are illustrated with interesting anecdotes. Particularly funny was the story of a women's studies lesbian professor announcing the heterosexual students that, if the course works as supposed, all students will be lesbians by the end of the term. One student, a married women with children, was persecuted by the professor by being given substantial extra assignments because she was deemed to be 'stubborn' regarding her (hetero)sexuality.

My qualm is a methodological one. The authors start by saying that they will apply "feminist methodology" in their study. Only later in the book it is explained that feminist methodology prefers anecdotes and testimonials ('connected thinking', which is good) to the "patriarchal" statistics ('compartimentalized thinking' which is bad). But the context of their description of this methodolgy is, again, one of scathing, devastating criticism. Feminist methodology is exposed as pseudo-intellectual. So I can't help but wonder why the authors use the very same methodolgy which their book dismisses as unsound. The effect is that, with a lack of statistical figures, it is impossible to say how pervasive are the problems they mention. Some problems, the ideological ones, are universal by definition. But they are not the most striking. The more striking are the ones regarding the practice of feminism, especially the instances where dissent is supressed and dissenters are punished. But the feminist methodology used by the authors gives us no clue how wide-spread this very important problem is.

"Professing Feminism" professes nothing but sensationalist backlash against feminism within the academy. The anecdotes illustrate extreme positions in an extraordinarily narrow view. As a women's studies major, the continual attacks on "anti-intellectualism" and indoctrination reflected nothing of my experience in WS programs. As WS programs are mostly inter/cross-disciplinary (and the most popularly enrolled cross-listed courses), the authors blatantly omitted the wide material covered within a major's academic career, as well as the fact that the primary thing that WS teaches in critical thinking. You learn to question everything, even that which is taught in a WS course. The often cited "indoctrination of feminism" is an oxymoron. Cultural critique IS scholastic and academically worthy. If you look at the writings from WITHIN the academy, such as academic journals, newsletters, and recent WS publications on feminism and pedagogy, WS is far from static and continually seeks to improve, integrate, and shift their programs as needed. (Good luck on convincing the sciences to alter THEIR pedagogy.) The ivory tower needs WS in order to maintain the integrity of other disciplines as well as to provide intellectual space for those subjects commonly marginalized in the academy, such as ethnic studies and sexuality. The authors condesceningly stereotype and deride the complexities of both of subjects. Those within WS vouch for its profound influence in increasing student engagement with the material. As a student, I work harder in my WS courses and I find I can apply the skills of analysis that I develop to other disciplines, from economics to literature.

Yes, WS must continually be self-critical, but what Patai and Koertge conveniently gloss over is the fact that WS paradoxically seeks to subvert the hierarchies/structures of the academy while simultaneously working within them. Shifting the focus of knowledge from a male center shatters the system. Why would colleges and universities want their "objective" knowledges undermined by a bunch of women? Of course WS isn't welcome!

A far more explanatory and better documented history and description of the debates within WS is Marilyn Boxer's "When Women Ask the Questions." Nonetheless, I read "Professing Feminism" in its entirety, appalled that it claimed to describe my educational experience - and worse, distort WS to other readers outside of WS the reality of the programs. WS has permanently changed "higher" education by including the view, knowledge, and experience of over half of the world's population. To claim THAT as an "embarrassment" or a "massive failure" that lacks "integllectual rigor" simply reinforces the not-quite-gone idea that women belong on the periphery of the world of knowledge. But that's what (conservative) backlash is, right? Divide and conquer. But Women's Studies is here to stay. Perhaps we could make a bit more headway if we didn't have to continually stop and justify our position - our existence - in academia. But the progress WS has made in 30 years is unmatched by any other discipline.

The only thing "anti-intellectual" about women's studies is Patai and Koertge's depiction of it. But go ahead. See if they can indoctrinate YOU. After all, that's what WS is all about, right?