Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this a degree? When you get that shiny new diploma how do you use it to make money?
Been answered. No one is going to repeat 10 pages of posts. In short, it's an undergrad for someone going onto law school, advanced degrees in social work or PhD level sociology for people who want to be researchers in these fields, those are some of the ways students would use this degree. I am betting 99.9% of people who would take this major have known for years what career they wanted, they don't just decide to major in it for no good reason when they are applying to school, that's plain silly IMO.
It's not intended to be a stand-alone career degree. It's in the same camp as majoring in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, it's a foundation course for someone planning to continue in academics, but this is the one that gets attacked, gee I wonder why?
These types of questions always perplex me and when they are broken down to the root they are usually disingenuous at best. It's similar to how some people get really offended at the thought of HBCUs. Most people know that HBCUs started as a way for African Americans to receive an education at a time where other schools would not accept them. I have found that when people make these kind of generalizations that they usually, admittedly, know very little about the subject that they are questioning. I have come across people who actually believe that HBCUs do not allow white people to be accepted. This is completely false.
I think that there is a similar thing happening here in regards to 'women's studies'. Anyone with any knowledge of history and current events would be flat out lying if they said that women were never subjected to less than ideal treatment. This has been true in our country and around the world. How can you look at a group of people who were denied voting and housing rights, regardless of how long ago, and say "I just don't see it"? I have taken a women's studies course and very little of the curriculum even mentions men. Like many have posted here, it is literally used as a way to help women around the world as well as a way to learn about a history that has not been as championed as some of the other accomplishments of individuals in this country.
The question that I always find myself having in these types of conversations is "Why does this bother you?" In what way does a women's studies class affect you? It doesn't. If it is the simple fact of "its not fair" then just say that. Say that you don't believe its fair. However, to belittle something just because it doesn't apply to you or because you don't understand it is ignorant. The people who have suggested to me that HBCUs don't allow non black students had no idea that they were completely wrong. Why is that? It is because they never had any intention of attending a HBCU so they never sought to gain any knowledge about them. I suspect that something similar is happening here. You don't dislike women's studies because you want a men's studies course. You just dislike the idea of it, for whatever reason. Also, I am a man. I'm not quite sure how you can say "I really don't know a lot about this subject but I have a strong opinion on it" with a straight face but that is what is being done. If it doesn't apply, let it fly.
back in the late 70s when I was in college there was a women's studies class and I decided as a man, to enroll, thinking, it's discriminatory to allow only women and, I thought it would be an easy3 credits. They let me in the class and I have to say, I was shocked and enlightened. It was an evening class so many of the women were older housewives looking for a degree later in life. They all talked about how they wished that they had never married and had children! As a 19 year old guy, I was blown away by this. I remember them saying, that yes, they loved their children, and some loved their husbands but, that they felt their lives that been prescribed by their parents and society and, if they had it to do over again, they would never have married. That was the first class. I learned a lot more in that class and was surprised there was no hostility about me being in there. Their attitude was, if you chose to be in this class, be prepared for honest men bashing. There was a lot of it. But that class did give me a new perspective on how women felt about our culture.
Nowadays, I would be afraid of a Men's Studies course. I fear it would be focused on masculinity being obsolete and "binary" gender roles as the future. Maybe I'm too old to be open minded but I'll pass.
I'm Gen X, not terribly far behind you in terms of when I went to college.
My mom would have loved "women's studies," she was militant and fought gender roles her whole life. Fortunately her mom was a strong personality, wish I'd met her (died about the time I was born). Her dad, my gramps, was too mellow for his own good. I can only imagine my gramma's life being a living hell, as a suffragette-type back in the early decades of the 20th Century. They had a lot of courage, and paid for it too.
But yes, the pressure to conform as a woman in the 1950s (when my mom was a young lady) were overwhelming. Girls in college not for purposes of teaching were whores or husband hunters or lesbians. My mom would get so steamed talking about this, in later decades when I was young, I stopped asking. I wish she'd have been born just twenty years later, her whole life would have been drastically different in terms of career opportunity, marriage, children, and typical gender roles. Alas, it was what it was and she kick-started a law career in her late 40s, not late 20s, and paid for it in lack of experience. She grew up in an era when intelligence took a definite back seat to good looks and compliance above all else.
Women's Studies seems like a great historical subject, for those reasons if not many others. Perhaps sociology as well as history. I'm a practical guy and want to monetize college degrees, the counsel I give to my friend's kids entering college today, but the world needs dreamers and crusaders to fight the social battles, too.
Thanks mostly to my mom, I did get to see where women definitely had it tougher than men. They still do, in my opinion, and still have the insane and crushing social burden to "get married" or "have a steady fella" or "have children." And there are still some Neanderthal husbands and boyfriends out there, believe it. Women's studies will remain relevant for some time to come.
Is it worth studying? Absolutely. I'm not ashamed of being a man, but if you want men's studies just pop into most ROTC courses these days, watch the testosterone at work, because war is for warriors and most of those...by no means all...are still men. Armed conflict started mostly...not always...by men has solved the vast majority of history's great questions, and in some form or another will probably continue until further notice.
Why is this a degree? When you get that shiny new diploma how do you use it to make money?
A lot of jobs only require a generic BA. Why would Sociology be a degree, or anthropology? What jobs can you get with a BA in anthropology? Or music, or Art History or Linguistics? And btw, specific examples were given earlier in the thread, so it's pretty clear you didn't read the thread.
we have male studies it's called history, where 90% of the leaders are men
I don't get the women's studies major though, never sat in on a class, what do they talk about?
Exactly. It's like listening to right-wingers whine about "no white history month." Have any of them SEEN a history book? I mean, sure - based on the most recent election results, I guess not - but you know what I mean. 90% of the people in there are white males! The only time that's not true if you're studying the specific history of a nation where whites are a minority or not at all present through most of history.
It's nothing but right-wing BS anyway. Why should a white guy care if there's a black history month? Does that somehow invalidate white history? Does that marginalize the accomplishments of whites throughout history? Do Irish people get ticked off that Little Italy or Chinatown exists in a city? Of course not - that would be stupid! But the real reason is obvious - they'd prefer not to be reminded of any facts that could contaminate their notion of being extremely superior in race and sex. It's childish, but that's what you get these days.
If you want a real laugh, watch them whine about strong women in movie roles. One right-winger I know was mouthing off about how "terrible" Rogue One was because it had a female lead. Oh, the horror... and I guess he ignored the fact that everybody else in the movie was male, and nearly all of them white. But to have even a single reminder - a single month of the year or a single strong actress in a movie - that their race and sex is not the only "right" one, is enough to set them off. Pathetic, really.
This is such a funny topic. What does the OP propose for a "men's studies" course, I wonder. How would it be different from the history books and current events and political analyses we already see?
Maybe if they were actually included as more than just a footnote in history classes, then we wouldn't need Women's Studies classes.
And there are no shortage of knuckle-draggers out there, even today, and even in supposedly "advanced" nations, that would prevent that. They have too much of their ego and sense of self-worth tied up in stupid things they can't control - but which cannot be taken away, like their sex and race, to ever allow women and various minorities the same level of respect and recognition as they receive - unearned - by virtue of random genetics. The very fact we're having this conversation proves my point - just look at some of the ignorant, conspiracy riddled responses, and you'll see what I mean.
And there are no shortage of knuckle-draggers out there, even today, and even in supposedly "advanced" nations, that would prevent that. They have too much of their ego and sense of self-worth tied up in stupid things they can't control - but which cannot be taken away, like their sex and race, to ever allow women and various minorities the same level of respect and recognition as they receive - unearned - by virtue of random genetics. The very fact we're having this conversation proves my point - just look at some of the ignorant, conspiracy riddled responses, and you'll see what I mean.
I think a lot of it is insecurity.
I'm a straight white male. Not only am I not in the least bothered by things like Women's (or African-American or LBGTQ) Studies, it really takes only a little bit of understanding and imagination to realize that while I look at Western history and see that most people are, like me, straight and white and male, for the majority of the population (and straight white males are slightly less than 1/3rd of the U.S. populace) there is a dearth of representative figures.
The presence of strong women and minorities and non-straights is not threatening to me. But obviously, it is to a lot of people, who apparently think they cannot compete in the modern world without lots of built-in advantages based on accidents of their birth.
I'm a straight white male. Not only am I not in the least bothered by things like Women's (or African-American or LBGTQ) Studies, it really takes only a little bit of understanding and imagination to realize that while I look at Western history and see that most people are, like me, straight and white and male, for the majority of the population (and straight white males are slightly less than 1/3rd of the U.S. populace) there is a dearth of representative figures.
The presence of strong women and minorities and non-straights is not threatening to me. But obviously, it is to a lot of people, who apparently think they cannot compete in the modern world without lots of built-in advantages based on accidents of their birth.
Agreed - and the vast majority of people I've run into who rage about women and non-whites being portrayed positively or having any real influence or future are angry because they think their "birth-right" of an easy life just for showing up and being a white male has been "taken from them." We'll try to ignore the irony of how they are the first to mouth off about how "lazy" everyone else is, and how bad "entitlements" are, when they are the ones who want to be lazy and get things handed to them - entitlements - just because of their skin color and gender. Oh, and no surprise - many of them are dim-witted, poorly educated, and all around troublesome slobs.
The worst part is that every single one of them I've encountered has screwed up their life completely through their own actions. They whine about "everyone else" getting "free stuff," and yet the only reason they are not in worse shape than they are today is STILL because of the unearned privileges they get by being white males. The irony and hypocrisy is staggering!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's called history, where 90% of the leaders are men
