 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
But enter the world of women's studies and you'll find a whole different reality. Its goal is to "transform knowledge." And there's nothing harmless about it. In a study published by the Independent Women's Forum, "Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students," Christine Stolba, a senior fellow with IWF, peeks into the classrooms — and primary texts — of the revolution. Stolba's treatment is not a worst-of list of outrages. It's something far more disturbing. Stolba analyzes five core women's studies textbooks. You might expect that the texts of women's studies professionals might be a little more inventive — even, say, more reasonable — than the average feminist's talking points. Think again. After all, where else would they get the talking points? The wage gap. The glass ceiling. Ailing women's health. Poor grade-school girls ignored in the classroom. You name it, it's probably there. There's not one serious look at the extant body of work that debunks most of their reigning mythology. In other words, it's an entire discipline with its facts fundamentally wrong. You might think it would be considered a good thing for women to be independent thinkers, especially among the college-educated sisters. Nah. As Stolba tells NRO, "What surprised me the most about the textbooks was the nearly universal absence of points of view (and often facts) that might undermine the theme that women remain victims of patriarchal societies." Here's a sampling of from one of the texts, as Stolba documents in her study:
Though it's nothing new for feminists to downplay the role of women's familial choices in consideration of their career realities, these texts fail to note the prominent female critics of their claims. June O'Neill, recent head of the Congressional Budget Office, is only one of many who have long since debunked the "wage gap" whining. Nor do the women's studies cadres care that "equal pay for equal work" is the law of the land, thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But then, of course — as Stolba notes — "equal pay for equal work" is not good enough. They want "comparable worth," that is, "centralized wage-setting based on categories of comparable skill levels." One wonders how these scholars propose to engage in a successful public-policy debate when they are incapable even of recognizing that they have legitimate opponents, with data and arguments of their own. Wonder what the next generation of professional feminists are learning about men? In a section decrying the supposed lack of funding for women's health (you guessed it, filled with junk facts), one of the textbooks weasels out of acknowledging the disparities suffered by men, instead noting what's really sick: masculinity itself. Mortality differences between men and women are determined by men's greater risk of death by accident… [but this is] itself a function of men's engagement in risky behavior, violent activity, and alcohol consumption. Men — those damn uncontrollable drunk brutes! There are students getting degrees in this stuff. All the subjective drama and lies that are fit to print go into making up some of these women's studies textbooks. How's this for an intro to coursework, from Thinking About Women:
And there's lots more drama where that came from. Try describing women in America today as slaves. From Issues in Feminism, another one of the texts:
Coming from a loudmouth feminist talk-show host, this wouldn't be a big deal. It can even be expected from the typical "national organization of women" type lobbyist now guaranteed a seat at virtually every negotiation table in Washington. But this is the foundation of a serious academic discipline? It is now. Stolba found many more myths — and downright lies — while educating herself about the science of womenhood: concerning homosexuality, domestic violence, daughters and fathers (dad= a "foreign male element" who comes between you and fellow sister mom), and more. And, unless the realities of motherhood manage to change them, as has happened with some of their foremothers, this could very well be an endless cycle. Talk about a cycle of violence — against reality. According to Stolba, when it comes to our most important institutions — marriage and motherhood — the former is viewed "with unwarranted suspicion and the latter as a burden to be overcome." These women's studies textbooks ignore a body of work that has highlighted the ways women benefit from marriage — physically as well as mentally. But then, these books are also written by women who clearly must simply hate the concept. Yet another example of Stolba's findings, from Women's Realities, Women's Choices:
"Remember that revolutions often wind up devouring their own children," Stolba warns. Seeing what the children of this revolution believe and what they're feeding their ideological daughters, perhaps that might be best. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
aybe
you have a daughter who has decided to major in "women's studies"
in college. Or it's your neighbor's kid, your roommate, whoever. You might
figure it's a fairly benign discipline — "the study of women's
contributions to and involvement in culture, politics, and literature
throughout history," as one woman told me when I asked for a quick
definition. 
