“By the way, I do understand that is why the “name” matters to gay-marriage advocates. That’s what makes this battle difficult to compromise. But all I ask, of the intellectual class at least, is they stop saying therefore that the defintion of marriage in law (which matters so much to Adam and Steve) won’t matter at all to anyone else.”

I get the feeling that her spirits are down, – dose anyone have her E-mail, or that to IMAPP??

How can I get in touch with her & her organization.

To say Carl Marx has been an extremely influential thinker

Don’t assume so much. My point from the beginning was that WS is biased toward the Marxist approach of power dynamics as the predominate lens to see gender relations. It’s not important to my argument that every feminist espouse this position. Simply that the majority of WS professors, courses and text are rooted in this lens. Is this a stereotype..? Of coarse it is…, my point was that it was a justified one.

Engels – I never said that Marxists believe that “top management positions” are… the measure of fully achieving your human potential?” Classical Marxists would not. Reducing human endeavor to simply a question of power dynamics however is well within the Marxist paradigm.

To say Carl Marx has been an extremely influential thinker and has had a profound and obvious influence on feminist theory is not (typically) a controversial statement.
It only tends to be when the person asserting it is right of center and/or attempts to defend Horowitz/Bauerlein.

Fitz, in the wierd world of academia, we like to back up our arguments by something called evidence. You back up your argument by saying ‘Horowitz says so’ or ‘Bauerlain says so’ or ‘Tom Wolfe says’ or ‘it’s a commonly held opinion’. The argument from authority only works when you start with authorities with some, well, actual authority. I’ve tried to give you some contrary evidence and so have other posters on the blog, but you just don’t seem to want to provide any evidence yourself.

Feminism is rooted in a Marxist paradigm of the oppressor/oppressed Hegelian dialectic.

I could point out to you the long tradition of feminist writing that exists before Marx (and indeed Hegel), the significant role of Christianity in some strands of feminism, the enthusiastic support for Obama and Clinton (neither actually very Marxist) on many feminist blogs I’ve been reading, etc, etc, but it’s increasingly clear that you don’t want to hear from a liberal feminist like myself, because I don’t fit into your stereotypes. And also that you haven’t worked out that you can talk about power and inequality without being a Marxist.

Also, do you really think that Marxists believe that “top management positions” are… the measure of fully achieving your human potential? If you do then you really need to read some Marx.

“WS isn’t very Marxist, but you repeatedly say that it is. That’s goonish and simple-minded. You don’t have to like WS or major in it, but the stuff you’re saying here is crap.”

Feminism is rooted in a Marxist paradigm of the oppressor/oppressed Hegelian dialectic. WS departments are almost exclusively feminist enterprises of this variety. Not every Feminist is an express Marxist feminist. But the majority of feminism is still rooted in this Marxist dialectic. (as I apparently have to prove using 5 yada.. yada..)

Having said that…some feminists & WS produce worthwhile scholarship. Hell…even some Marxist feminism (express or not) is worthwhile scholarship. None of this is to undermine the point that the field is bias toward leftist and Marxist dialectics.

I find you to be “goonish and simple-minded” in your dismissal of Horowitz, Bauerlein and myself. (having said that… this is a blog post – and no one should expect a doctorial thesis)

magistra

YES: (to say) “as a field of study, Women’s Studies analyzes the unequal distribution of power and resources by gender.” Is to presuppose that power & resources are unequally divided…and “by gender” – no less, on that basis alone.

It also strongly suggests that this distribution is inhuman or exploitative.
Now – many agree, (as I do, now & again) – However, it remains the case that this orthodoxy should not be expressly (much less actually) a litmus test for inquiry in the “field”.

In Short: Contemporary academe owes more to Boss Tweed than Antonio Gramsci.
It’s a naked patronage system…

“Then explain to me how the claim that power is unequally distributed by gender is not a factually based statement”

I never claimed that the straw man you just set up wasn’t factually based (how could I -you just set it up!)

What I would claim…is that “top management positions” are not the measure of fully achieving your human potential. That all human dynamics are not reducible to power dynamics. That the divisions of labor within a society reflected in gender are not and have not been necessarily inhuman or exploitative towards women….and so forth.

This very reduction of human history, contemporary norms and gender relations to a dialectic of power relationships – is itself evidence of the very bias within feminism that WS is so famous for.

Let’s go back to the original comment on Penn State’s website, to which you objected so much: as a field of study, Women’s Studies analyzes the unequal distribution of power and resources by gender. Here’s a brief experiment. Take 100 relatively prestigious or powerful organisations at random in the US: say big businesses, law firms, universities, trade unions, legislatures, professional organisations etc. Count how many of these have a majority of women in the top management positions. Then count have many of these have a majority of men in the top management positions (you could possibly stop after you get to the first 80). Then explain to me how the claim that power is unequally distributed by gender is not a factually based statement.

As for pointing to dead male soldiers: women’s studies doesn’t claim that men everywhere have had their full potential achieved and women haven’t. What they have usually claimed is that women have been disadvantaged (and therefore less able to achieve their full humanity) relative to men from the same social circumstances. Fewer women than men get well-paid jobs and more have to do unpaid caring work, just to give two basic examples. Until recently in the West (and still today in many parts of the world) there have been harsher penalties for heterosexual women who ‘misbehave’ sexually than heterosexual men who do so. There are a lot of other basic inequalities like this, which it takes hard work to ignore.