Heterosexual Male Students in Women's Studies

[gr8pumpkin]

Racism works both ways. 

 

The debatability of this is exactly what is at issue here.

[gr8pumpkin]

I've never fully understood the desire to "carve out a space" for minority/oppressed groups to speak exclusively. Which is not to say that I don't understand the need or desire to seek out a safe space to express opinions which are otherwise marginalized. But if the only way I can share my voice is by creating a space where I refuse to let those from the dominant group participate at all, then what is the point? I've created a cute little echo chamber where the only thing I hear is my own voice bouncing off the walls.  

 

I believe that any dominant group member who wants to participate in the discussion should be constantly cognizant of their privilege and through practice can start to learn when it is best to silence themselves (although I think the same about anyone in any discipline). But having your voice shut down from an outside force doesn't help you learn anything. It just leads to a cycle of (structural) violence. I understand how it may be beneficial as an exercise in understanding how it feels to have your voice silenced, but as a general practice institutionalized by the entire discipline? I can't agree with that. 

 

As a woman of color, I don't want my own space to have a discussion. I want to participate in the dominant culture and engage in that discussion. And I also believe that means allowing people from the dominant culture to contribute. Anyone who genuinely cares about the subject should be generating relevant theory which is beneficial to the discipline anyway. How else would they get themselves recognized/hired by people within the same field?

 

I hear you; I would only point out that participation in 'safe spaces' and participation in the dominant culture are not mutually exclusive.

[mxaveryeverhart]

yeah so like...there are indeed already white heterosexual men in women's studies. and half the time the ones that are "accepted" so to speak in my experience are trans guys who ID as straight. And like...I have a LOT of feelings about trans men in women's studies spaces (just like I have a lot of feels about cis straight white men in women's studies spaces). But honestly like this should be a non-issue. I think that the gender studies, the women's studies, the feminist studies, the whatever the hell studies should operate under the assumption that anyone who enrolls in the class is 1) interested and 2) willing to learn and 3) willing to UNLEARN (just as important). If anyone, regardless of who the person is via identity politics, does not do one or more of those three things...why are they there?

 

also i really need all my wonderbread cousins in here to stop getting so riled up about ~*slurs*~ like whitey and cracker. you're aware that whitey was created in direct response to terms like darkie and that cracker LITERALLY means the one who cracks the whip...a reference to being the MASTER in the context of chattel slavery...so...even if it is insulting what it calls you out on is your white guilt, not whatever parallel negative presuppositions there might be about BEING white. just saying y'all. just sayin. so calm it down.

[mxaveryeverhart]

also the entire conversation that came up about whether or not slang terms with derogatory connotations count as slurs against white folks is further evidence that women's studies is STILL dominated by anglo-feminist ideals...which means that women's studies has such an overarching tendency to serve the needs of the project that is whiteness more than it really serves the needs of those who would consider themselves involved in a social, political struggle connected to feminism.

 

basically...to me and in my experience...women's studies can get hella white washed hella quick and it just makes me so nervous when white cis het men are in women's studies classrooms, but aren't reading works by women of color, or queer and trans people of color, or you know aren't even interacting with actuall WoC and QTPoC ya know in like...real life. </rant>

[Kamisha]

 

 

also i really need all my wonderbread cousins in here to stop getting so riled up about ~*slurs*~ like whitey and cracker. you're aware that whitey was created in direct response to terms like darkie and that cracker LITERALLY means the one who cracks the whip...a reference to being the MASTER in the context of chattel slavery...so...even if it is insulting what it calls you out on is your white guilt, not whatever parallel negative presuppositions there might be about BEING white. just saying y'all. just sayin. so calm it down.

 

I find it horribly tragic that educated individuals pursuing graduate study can study discrimination for a living in an effort to stop it, all the while preaching that it is okay to use derogatory language. If you ever want the world to change, you need to treat everyone with respect and stop justifying hate speech.  The ideological mindset you preach toward your “wonderbread cousins” is what perpetuates racism and pejorative behaviors. Your diction is divisive and serves to reinforce racial divides.  

 

In short: You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

[mxaveryeverhart]

I find it horribly tragic that educated individuals pursuing graduate study can study discrimination for a living in an effort to stop it, all the while preaching that it is okay to use derogatory language. If you ever want the world to change, you need to treat everyone with respect and stop justifying hate speech.  The ideological mindset you preach toward your “wonderbread cousins” is what perpetuates racism and pejorative behaviors. Your diction is divisive and serves to reinforce racial divides.  

 

In short: You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

There are so many subtle and overt things in what you said that just don't sit well with me. First off, touting one's education isn't useful to ending "discrimination" and it especially isn't useful to ending class-based oppression (which is always already complicated along racialized and gendered lines). Secondly, if you cannot recognize the very real material differences between a black person being called the n-word and a white person being called a cracker, then we will just have to stop the discussion now because I cannot abide that. Thirdly, I do not want to be part of your solution if it is characterized by a praxis of supposedly equity in which everyone always already deserves respect. Do people of color, queer folks, trans people, disabled folks, the poor and the ill get respect already? I am just not here for anyone centering white people's feelings or coddling us in order to talk about respect, or about ending discrimination, or anything at all really. We've always been coddled, why would it be useful to continue to do so if we were trying to imagine a world in which everyone is ~*equal*~?

[Kamisha]

There are so many subtle and overt things in what you said that just don't sit well with me. First off, touting one's education isn't useful to ending "discrimination" and it especially isn't useful to ending class-based oppression (which is always already complicated along racialized and gendered lines). Secondly, if you cannot recognize the very real material differences between a black person being called the n-word and a white person being called a cracker, then we will just have to stop the discussion now because I cannot abide that. Thirdly, I do not want to be part of your solution if it is characterized by a praxis of supposedly equity in which everyone always already deserves respect. Do people of color, queer folks, trans people, disabled folks, the poor and the ill get respect already? I am just not here for anyone centering white people's feelings or coddling us in order to talk about respect, or about ending discrimination, or anything at all really. We've always been coddled, why would it be useful to continue to do so if we were trying to imagine a world in which everyone is ~*equal*~?

 

Very little of what you’ve attempted to articulate here makes sense and what does is riddled with inherent contradiction and hypocrisy. Based on your comments thus far, it is evident that you and I represent two different mindsets about discrimination and how it should be handled and thus this conversation is largely fruitless. As you didn’t seem to understand my comments, let me clarify:

• My comment about education was purely to point out that you should know better than to dismiss pejorative language. I wasn’t touting that education is an inherent end to discrimination. Those of us who are educated, though, should recognize the harmful nature of using divisive language and strive to eliminate it.
• There are absolutely material differences between the N-word and being called a cracker, however I reject your implication that the use of the latter term is somehow acceptable. I’ve said it multiple times and I’ll say it again: discrimination and slurs toward any group is harmful to society. 
• Everyone does deserve respect. Your implication that people don’t is very telling about your character. 
• "Thirdly, I do not want to be part of your solution if it is characterized by a praxis of supposedly equity in which everyone always already deserves respect. Do people of color, queer folks, trans people, disabled folks, the poor and the ill get respect already? I am just not here for anyone centering white people's feelings or coddling us in order to talk about respect, or about ending discrimination, or anything at all really.” This passage is so poorly constructed that it’s hard to find your meaning, but the implication seems to be that the only people who deserve respect are minorities, which is simply untrue. Everyone deserves respect. Your assertion that people don’t is very telling about your character and exposes the mindset behind your ideological standpoint that racial slurs toward majority groups are acceptable. 
• We've always been coddled, why would it be useful to continue to do so if we were trying to imagine a world in which everyone is ~*equal*~? Again, the message of your sentence is lost in the poor quality of its construction. (By the way, your term “we’ve” implies that you and I are of the same majority group. The fact of the matter is that I’m of a minority group that is regularly marginalized in American society.) You seem to be arguing that not uttering racial slurs against a majority group is the equivalent of “coddling.” Sorry, but no. It’s possible to promote equality for all groups in a way that isn’t destructive to one.

Based on your previous posts, I have a feeling that this discussion is going to do little to change your mind and I don’t care to engage in further conversation with you. Best of luck in your future aspirations.  

[Extexan562]

yeah so like...there are indeed already white heterosexual men in women's studies. and half the time the ones that are "accepted" so to speak in my experience are trans guys who ID as straight. And like...I have a LOT of feelings about trans men in women's studies spaces (just like I have a lot of feels about cis straight white men in women's studies spaces). But honestly like this should be a non-issue. I think that the gender studies, the women's studies, the feminist studies, the whatever the hell studies should operate under the assumption that anyone who enrolls in the class is 1) interested and 2) willing to learn and 3) willing to UNLEARN (just as important). If anyone, regardless of who the person is via identity politics, does not do one or more of those three things...why are they there?

 

also i really need all my wonderbread cousins in here to stop getting so riled up about ~*slurs*~ like whitey and cracker. you're aware that whitey was created in direct response to terms like darkie and that cracker LITERALLY means the one who cracks the whip...a reference to being the MASTER in the context of chattel slavery...so...even if it is insulting what it calls you out on is your white guilt, not whatever parallel negative presuppositions there might be about BEING white. just saying y'all. just sayin. so calm it down.

Another, on point post!

[mxaveryeverhart]

Very little of what you’ve attempted to articulate here makes sense and what does is riddled with inherent contradiction and hypocrisy. Based on your comments thus far, it is evident that you and I represent two different mindsets about discrimination and how it should be handled and thus this conversation is largely fruitless. As you didn’t seem to understand my comments, let me clarify:

• My comment about education was purely to point out that you should know better than to dismiss pejorative language. I wasn’t touting that education is an inherent end to discrimination. Those of us who are educated, though, should recognize the harmful nature of using divisive language and strive to eliminate it.
• There are absolutely material differences between the N-word and being called a cracker, however I reject your implication that the use of the latter term is somehow acceptable. I’ve said it multiple times and I’ll say it again: discrimination and slurs toward any group is harmful to society. 
• Everyone does deserve respect. Your implication that people don’t is very telling about your character. 
• "Thirdly, I do not want to be part of your solution if it is characterized by a praxis of supposedly equity in which everyone always already deserves respect. Do people of color, queer folks, trans people, disabled folks, the poor and the ill get respect already? I am just not here for anyone centering white people's feelings or coddling us in order to talk about respect, or about ending discrimination, or anything at all really.” This passage is so poorly constructed that it’s hard to find your meaning, but the implication seems to be that the only people who deserve respect are minorities, which is simply untrue. Everyone deserves respect. Your assertion that people don’t is very telling about your character and exposes the mindset behind your ideological standpoint that racial slurs toward majority groups are acceptable. 
• We've always been coddled, why would it be useful to continue to do so if we were trying to imagine a world in which everyone is ~*equal*~? Again, the message of your sentence is lost in the poor quality of its construction. (By the way, your term “we’ve” implies that you and I are of the same majority group. The fact of the matter is that I’m of a minority group that is regularly marginalized in American society.) You seem to be arguing that not uttering racial slurs against a majority group is the equivalent of “coddling.” Sorry, but no. It’s possible to promote equality for all groups in a way that isn’t destructive to one.

Based on your previous posts, I have a feeling that this discussion is going to do little to change your mind and I don’t care to engage in further conversation with you. Best of luck in your future aspirations.  

I didn't know we were going to resort to a purely rhetorical analysis. I said we because I'm white and have therefore been coddled and catered to. I wasn't using we to imply I knew anything about your race.

 

Also what you've called implications are probably more so inferences. You read what you wanted out of what I said. I didn't say not everyone deserves respect. I said that there are lots of people who don't get it. I misunderstood and thought you meant that there was no difference between perjorative language directed at different groups. Since we agree there is, we perhaps merely disagree on the proper response to them. I really just don't care at all when people make derogatory statements about white people or whiteness. It makes sense. Whiteness as a project in America is insidious and often invisible and incredibly dangerous to a lot of people.

 

I disagree the most with your last bullet point (which by the way the bullet points were so incredibly condescending that it was immediately apparent you had no intention of entertaining my point of view...which is what you've accused me of). There is no way to reach this goal of equality (which what does that look to you? or is it just a buzz word that you're using to mean everyone should be treated with dignity and respect? because dignity and respect via cultural change does not change systemic racism, the crushing nature of capitalism or the material affects of ciscentric heteropatriarchy...) without the destruction of whiteness. Not the destruction of all white people, but the obliteration of the grab bag of privileges and life chances that we (and by we I mean ME and white folks generally) get just for a lower melanin content in our skin.

 

I appreciate the well wishes. I do wish the same to you. I apologize if my rhetoric took the form of rambling and ranting and it wasn't to your liking. That form of communication has gotten me published twice before the age of 21 and got me presentation spots at national and regional conferences before I've even completed my undergraduate degree. But I can see how someone in English would feel the need to point out my rhetorical flaws.

[gr8pumpkin]

The debatability of this is exactly what is at issue here.

 

Hm.  I notice that my absolutely correct observation has -2 points.  But I stand by the point.  A lot of people in academia believe racism does not work both ways.  White heterosexual males want to be able to cling to that belief "well, blacks (or whoever) can be racist tooooooooo," and "well, women can be sexist tooooooooo" and, what, I guess, "gays can hate straight people toooooooooo."  But these points undermine the much broader and more salient point that white heterosexual males still have the privilege of power.

 

Black people can be prejudiced.  But it is indeed debatable whether they can be racist in any sociopolitical paradigm where they are not in power.

 

Anyone with the impulse to downvote this observation just because it offends their "but, but, they can be tooooooooooooo" white male privilege-threatened whiny sensibilities needs to stop and think first.

Edited March 21, 2014 by gr8pumpkin

[hashslinger]

Hm.  I notice that my absolutely correct observation has -2 points.  But I stand by the point.  A lot of people in academia believe racism does not work both ways.  White heterosexual males want to be able to cling to that belief "well, blacks (or whoever) can be racist tooooooooo," and "well, women can be sexist tooooooooo" and, what, I guess, "gays can hate straight people toooooooooo."  But these points undermine the much broader and more salient point that white heterosexual males still have the privilege of power.

 

Black people can be prejudiced.  But it is indeed debatable whether they can be racist in any sociopolitical paradigm where they are not in power.

 

Anyone with the impulse to downvote this observation just because it offends their "but, but, they can be tooooooooooooo" white male privilege-threatened whiny sensibilities needs to stop and think first.

Agree completely. I'm a little surprised that so many people have their hackles up because someone pointed out that structural racism, privilege, and oppression are not akin to isolated acts of discrimination.

 

Interesting article about the way this whole debate has (sadly) played out in academia:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2013/12/minneapolis_professor_shannon_gibney_reprimanded_for_talking_about_racism.html 

Edited March 22, 2014 by hashslinger

[mxaveryeverhart]

yeah i didn't know what those negative signs mean. but apparently people keep voting my shit down? sorry that like i don't want to my being white to continue the insidious project of whiteness in ascension...i'm fine with other white people (and even apologist poc) voting me down for pointing out what i pointed out.

 

also if you come for me on grammar and rhetoric then i'm immediately going to be on the defensive and expect that you don't have ANY valid points. because coming for grammar just means you didn't attend first and foremost to content rather than form. and we just clearly have different priorities.

[junotwest]

-The voices in safe spaces aren't homogeneous, folks with similar subject positions can and invariably do express different opinions.

 

-OP, do your work, stay in your lane, write compelling and serious scholarship, be generous to those who've come before you, don't worry about it.  If the work you're doing is important, folks'll let you know.

[Extexan562]

Unless the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, takes on feminist praxis regarding methods, research, and theory, it's kind of pointless to be in women studies. Without an implicit dedication to feminist praxis, the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, is a voyeur.

[hashslinger]

Unless the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, takes on feminist praxis regarding methods, research, and theory, it's kind of pointless to be in women studies. Without an implicit dedication to feminist praxis, the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, is a voyeur.

It's a little difficult to disagree with this post, but apparently some people did.

 

Again, I can't believe that institutional racism/sexism and privilege are concepts that are really coming as a surprise to people here. I mean ... really? No one said it was okay to discriminate or call white people/men derogatory terms, and I think that most people here agree that no one should make a man feel unwelcome in women's studies. Certain posters have pointed out only that the use of derogatory terms against those who have been systematically denied power serve to dehumanize those people in ways not experienced by the dominant culture.  

 

Furthermore, in terms of language itself ... I'm not even sure that there *are* any derogatory terms aimed exclusively at heterosexual men--at least not any that function like cunt or slut or cooze. We operate within a language that privileges heterosexual maleness at every turn. The only way, in fact, to really insult a heterosexual male is to simply imply that he is not a heterosexual male (fag, pussy, girl, etc). So even if a woman wanted to use language to alienate and dehumanize men, she couldn't. So the entire discussion of using language to oppress the dominant group ... seems all hypothetical and immaterial to me.

[ldoone]

Agree completely. I'm a little surprised that so many people have their hackles up because someone pointed out that structural racism, privilege, and oppression are not akin to isolated acts of discrimination.

 

Interesting article about the way this whole debate has (sadly) played out in academia:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2013/12/minneapolis_professor_shannon_gibney_reprimanded_for_talking_about_racism.html 

Totally agree. Suggesting that a context of structural racism/sexism significantly influences the relative power of individual race- or gender-related slurs isn't exactly revolutionary. I'm not sure why it's generating defensiveness. 

 

Also the Shannon Gibney situ is so absurd I almost thought it was a parody... 

Edited March 25, 2014 by ldoone

[m-ttl]

I study intersectionality. What I reject is your notion that we should downplay any discrimination just because it’s happening to a majority group.

 

So do you realize then that intersectionality was a term coined by black women to discuss black feminism and the intersection of RACE and other issues which effects black women and women of color differently than white women ooooorrrrr are you just erasing them like other white scholars....? 

 

 

Unless the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, takes on feminist praxis regarding methods, research, and theory, it's kind of pointless to be in women studies. Without an implicit dedication to feminist praxis, the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, is a voyeur.

 

Exactly. Not even implicit -- but explicit dedication. This happens in Art History courses as well regarding the Male Gaze. 

 

 

2520 is slang, not a slur. The fact that you are comparing a WOC calling someone "whitey" to white supremacy or nazis, what?

 

My new hero. As if it isn't already hard enough to deal with privileged people in academic spaces -- they even permeate and dominate the fields which seek to explore the minority space. 

 

 

Totally agree. Suggesting that a context of structural racism/sexism significantly influences the relative power of individual race- or gender-related slurs isn't exactly revolutionary. I'm not sure why it's generating defensiveness. 

 

Also the Shannon Gibney situ is so absurd I almost thought it was a parody...  

 

being confronted with your complicity in structural racism and sexism is scaaaarryyy i guess. 

Edited March 25, 2014 by m-ttl

[aarch]

Going further, is there a place for heterosexual males in the field of Women's Studies? Academically (grad. student/professor) but also as far as 'meaningful' contribution to the field itself. I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.

Responding to this question rather late...but yes, obviously there's a place for them. Why on earth wouldn't there be? People of all stripes study things like history, religion, and philosophy. You don't have to be Chinese to study Chinese history, you don't have to be Jewish to study Judaism, and you don't have to be female to study women's studies.   A friend of mine recently TAed for an introductory LGBT studies course at our university, and most people in the class didn't identify as LGBT; they were just interested in the subject. Good. Props to them for getting out of their comfort zones. Academia should be a free exchange of ideas, and there is no need whatsoever for the zealous guarding of an academic domain and the marking of territory. 

 

The comfort level may well depend on the philosophy of the department. The split between Women's Studies and Gender Studies can be rather noticeable between departments or universities, and the political/activist bent of a department can vary wildly. If one is interested in gender as a component of a larger topic (say, psychology, sociology, or anthropology), one should consider getting a degree in that field and completing the requirements for a women's/gender studies certificate, which are increasingly common. A PhD in women's studies certainly isn't the only option and often isn't the best. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by aarch

[m-ttl]

Yes but the fact of the matter is, as an academic who is a cis heterosexual man in women's studies, you simply have to be prepared to check your privilege constantly. It's not about whether there is space -- of course there is. That's what privilege IS, to always have space accorded to you, your voice heard, etc. So it's not about that: it's about this person respecting the fact that they are always accorded that space in society to be heard, and they are interacting in a realm of academia which by very nature, questions that privilege, and is about the marginalization of women because of that space. 

 

The question is NOT: can a man succeed in women's studies, but rather: can a cishetero man in women's studies understand that he is being allowed into a space where he should never expect to be the dominant force, or viewpoint. The fact that this is said:

 

 

 I would compain about constantly being tested and doubted until I proved otherwise, but I know many of my female friends went through the same in science programs.

 

Is proof to me that this guy has absolutely no understanding of his privilege, of rape culture, of schrodinger's rapist (look it up), of systemic misogyny, racism, and sexism in society where it IS safer for all involved (and any woman) to expect the worst of someone, especially when they walk into a space traditionally about already being marginalized by someone who is literally afforded most of society's privileges to begin with. 

 

This is nowhere near the same level as women in STEM being "Tested" as a result of sexism, and comparing the two is, quite frankly, a poor understanding of how sexism works. 

 

Can they readily admit and understand they are part of a system which favors them as a heterosexual man? 

Edited March 26, 2014 by m-ttl

[lyonessrampant]

I just don't have time to link all the research I've done and care about to the above (knowing 'exclusion' whatever that means in this regard as a 'white' woman), but if you intend to go to a progressive, critically oriented program, I'd recommend reading a bit more bell hooks (et al) before starting.  For the people I work with, it's about deconstructing what "privilege" means in layers. . . and let's fact it white folks, there are a hell of a lot more layers if we're isolating to the US, and beyond that gender.

[lyonessrampant]

To add, sorry, I passed several of those STEM tests because in undergrad I could do "shock" calc, higher level stats, and upper level chem experiments.  It isn't about capability.  It's about impression of merit.  Seriously, I've published work in the business field on perception, and just add all the work by people like Linda Bancock.  It isn't the baseline that's the problem, but it is competence and willingness to negotiate (as is expected by men).

[hashslinger]

 

 

 

Is proof to me that this guy has absolutely no understanding of his privilege, of rape culture, of schrodinger's rapist (look it up), of systemic misogyny, racism, and sexism in society where it IS safer for all involved (and any woman) to expect the worst of someone, especially when they walk into a space traditionally about already being marginalized by someone who is literally afforded most of society's privileges to begin with. 

 

This is nowhere near the same level as women in STEM being "Tested" as a result of sexism, and comparing the two is, quite frankly, a poor understanding of how sexism works. 

 

 

Yes, this exactly. I was a little taken aback that the OP was putting his feelings of alienation in a women's studies class on the same plane as the systematic exclusion of women from the sciences (and all kinds of other careers) for decades and centuries. It came off as totally privileged and clueless about the long history of sexism and misogyny in education and the work force.

 

Having said that, I would never condone excluding any person from whatever studies they wanted to take. More education in various areas can benefit everyone in society. But yeah, examine your privilege. Constantly.

[Quantum Buckyball]

I know a few premed students who are heterosexual white male took a Women Studies course as part of their liberal art pre-req. I would have taken a Men Studies course if it was offered at my UG 

 

You can get a degree in Men's Studies too...

 

http://www.hws.edu/academics/mens/faculty.aspx

Edited March 31, 2014 by Quantum Buckyball

[Guillaume]

yeah so like...there are indeed already white heterosexual men in women's studies. and half the time the ones that are "accepted" so to speak in my experience are trans guys who ID as straight. And like...I have a LOT of feelings about trans men in women's studies spaces (just like I have a lot of feels about cis straight white men in women's studies spaces). But honestly like this should be a non-issue. I think that the gender studies, the women's studies, the feminist studies, the whatever the hell studies should operate under the assumption that anyone who enrolls in the class is 1) interested and 2) willing to learn and 3) willing to UNLEARN (just as important). If anyone, regardless of who the person is via identity politics, does not do one or more of those three things...why are they there?

 

also i really need all my wonderbread cousins in here to stop getting so riled up about ~*slurs*~ like whitey and cracker. you're aware that whitey was created in direct response to terms like darkie and that cracker LITERALLY means the one who cracks the whip...a reference to being the MASTER in the context of chattel slavery...so...even if it is insulting what it calls you out on is your white guilt, not whatever parallel negative presuppositions there might be about BEING white. just saying y'all. just sayin. so calm it down.

 

 

also the entire conversation that came up about whether or not slang terms with derogatory connotations count as slurs against white folks is further evidence that women's studies is STILL dominated by anglo-feminist ideals...which means that women's studies has such an overarching tendency to serve the needs of the project that is whiteness more than it really serves the needs of those who would consider themselves involved in a social, political struggle connected to feminism.

 

basically...to me and in my experience...women's studies can get hella white washed hella quick and it just makes me so nervous when white cis het men are in women's studies classrooms, but aren't reading works by women of color, or queer and trans people of color, or you know aren't even interacting with actuall WoC and QTPoC ya know in like...real life. </rant>

 

Out of upvotes. +1

[Guillaume]

Yes, this exactly. I was a little taken aback that the OP was putting his feelings of alienation in a women's studies class on the same plane as the systematic exclusion of women from the sciences (and all kinds of other careers) for decades and centuries. It came off as totally privileged and clueless about the long history of sexism and misogyny in education and the work force.

 

Having said that, I would never condone excluding any person from whatever studies they wanted to take. More education in various areas can benefit everyone in society. But yeah, examine your privilege. Constantly.

 

Out of upvotes. +1