In so far as this slogan declares a beautiful and simple truth, it does not prompt me to go and read James Lileks. But that’s because I already do read James Lileks. Avidly and regularly (doesn’t everyone?).
All the more reason, then, for a particular phrase or position in his column to stand out for me and ignite a bonfire of ideas in my head. This time, the great man says:
“…make a crack about “Women’s Studies” departments, as I did in yesterday’s screed, and people think you’re opposed to women’s studies. I’m not.”
It is taken from the screed that inspired the above-mentioned slogan and it is a view from which I beg to differ. I am opposed to ‘Women’s Studies’. I am opposed to all ‘studies’ be they women’s, social, peace, gay, ethnic, media, vegan, enviro-mental or any other ‘studies’ one may care to mention.
‘Studies’ are not about studying. They are nothing whatsoever to do with pushing forth the frontiers of knowledge. It is not about learning, it is about anti-learning. ‘Studies’ are the colonies of the marxist academic imperium established to train future operatives in the principles and means of deconstruction and social engineering. They are the proving grounds of the middle-class kleptocrats that spend their lives absorbing wealth while serving in NGOs, committees and state bureaucracies, manipulating and publishing statistics and information in order to advance their naked political agendas.
‘Studies’ are a cancer, a rot. Cut open any ‘studies’ department of any university and a million saprophytic creepy-crawlies will pour out, scurrying frantically away from the light. ‘Studies’ are a leukemia attacking the healthy cells of a civil society. Cauterise them, remove them, incinerate them and let the body grow strong and healthy again.
Hear, hear. I’ve been busily proselytising for Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt’s wonderful ‘Higher Superstition’. The utter gibberish that oozes out of the ivory towers of the academic left is awful to behold. And pace Lileks, but many of the blithering cretins that spout this drivel are tenured cretins, highly regarded (and remunerated) within their circles (and roundly ignored by everyone else, it must be admitted).
If I were interviewing candidates for a job, anyone with the word ‘studies’ in his degree title would have his CV filed in the circular filing cabinet. Such qualifications quite literally are not worth the paper they are written on. I have never known anyone to come out of a so-called ‘studies’ course with any knowledge or skills that in any way benfited either them or society. These ‘degrees’ fit one for nothing more intellectually demanding than stacking shelves in Waitrose (I have anecdotal evidence in the form of a close relative, now tragically under-employed as a result of wasting three years and thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money at Littlewoods Unviersity – John Moore’s – on a ‘Media Studies’ degree. No doubt the poor dear had visions of instantly landing a job as a production assistant at the BBC. Nope, sorry).
Didn’t Dr Chris R. Tame graduate in “American Studies” from the “University” of Hull?
I guess Michael Blowhard was right about blogging being better than college.
Well, surely some of this post is hyperbole, to make a point. At least to some degree, right?
I mean, the title of a course of study is not so damning as all that. If I had a degree in “Chemistry Studies”, as opposed to just plain “Chemistry” then it wouldn’t necessarily implicate my course of study as self-regarding claptrap. On the other hand, maybe the “Studies” moniker has become a signature, a message, sent to society to suggest just that.
I’m not certain, but I think Lileks was actually more in agreement with the theme of Carr’s post than not. That is, it seems to me he was saying that studying women, and the impact thereof and thereon, in society is a good thing. It is only when it is separated from the context and elevated to a separate field of study that it becomes self-regarding claptrap. Divorced from context, any study runs this risk. I’d tend to agree.
Feminism and victimism may be the reasons why women qua women are a field of study. But I think that it is more reasonable and, frankly, more edifying to women and men to consider what Lileks was suggesting. That is, study women in art history, study women in biology, study women in science. But don’t strip them away from the contexts that make human existence meaningful and then imagine that you are studying anything but your own navel.
That was my read, anyway.
And another “hear here” here!
JR
Not to detract from the point you are making here, David. But, while profound on many occassions, I also find Lileks maddeningly rambling.
I’ve come to believe that ‘studies’ are to ensure that ‘correct’ (PC) thinking is handed on to the next generation. It’s a form of brain-washing.
I come from a long line of working women. There is no woman I can recall, going back to both my grandmothers (I’m ~45 now) who did not work in my family. The women had to work to help keep food on the table and a roof over the heads.
I never assumed I’d sit home and be a housewife, I assumed I’d work outside the home because that’s what was expected of me. I was never taught that there was “women’s work” or “men’s work”. It never dawned on me that I was a ‘victim’ of ‘whatever’ because I was a woman. I passed these values on to my daughters.
Of course, all my relatives were extremely supportive of “Women’s Equality” which was equal treatment and equal pay. The women never denied that you had to fight (pre “Women’s Movement”) for what you wanted. My female relatives were fighters for what they believed they were due.
Flash forward to the 90’s, when one daughter enters college. One of the classes she is *required* to take for her degree is a “Women’s Study” class.
In the first week of this class, the instructor (professor?) asks the class to ‘share’ experiences they’ve had when they’ve felt ‘intimidated’ or ‘inferior’ because they were female. My daughter can’t think of any situation she’s ever been in that she felt either intimidated or inferior due to her gender. The intructor doesn’t accept this as a ‘correct’ response.
It seemed the whole point of this class was to convince young women that they are engaged in some struggle with the male dominated society. If you didn’t feel that you were being dominated by men, there was something wrong with you.
The instructor tried to convince my daughter that she was in denial and wasn’t dealing with the ‘truth’ of her situation. My daughter, being the product of many generations of assertive women, argued with the intsructor and didn’t allow the intsructor tell her how she ‘should’ feel.
My daughter did all the assignments, etc.. and did get a passing grade (barely). However, I think she would have gotten a much better grade had she gone along with the intructor’s world view.
My daughter had friends in the class who felt the same way as my daughter, and they suggested she just shut up .. so she’d get a better grade.
I couldn’t understand why the intsructor was not happy that a female student felt very confident about herself and never gave a thought as to her gender holding her back. Isn’t one of the points of “Women’s Studies” to empower women? (Apparently not.)
I was disgusted with what they were trying to get my daughter to believe and very angry when I realized they would not take my daughter’s word regarding how she really felt. They were trying to brain-wash my daughter to think ‘correctly’. (Women are constantly put down by our male dominated culture and females must eternally struggle against that culture.)
Regards,
Chris J. (Boston, MA.)
anon,
Yes my good friend Chris Tame did take ‘American Studies’ at University. However, this was an umbrella title which covered American history, geography, law and government – all real subjects worthy of learning and taught as such.
I maintain my position.
I lump the “X-studies” label along with “wellness” and “alternative medicine” and encourage their use by those inclined to use them. It helps to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.