Does feminist scholarship contains hard-to-kill falsehoods?
Because reasonable, evidence-backed criticism is regarded as a personal attack?
So says this writer:
What do you think?
"Feminist misinformation is pervasive. In their eye-opening book, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (Lexington Books, 2003), the professors Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge describe the "sea of propaganda" that overwhelms the contemporary feminist classroom. The formidable Christine Rosen (formerly Stolba), in her 2002 report on the five leading women's-studies textbooks, found them rife with falsehoods, half-truths, and "deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries.""
"Why are they supporting it if it's proven to be false? Berkeley is in the Top 10 law schools in the US, isn't it? No wonder people are believing what's in the textbooks. I'm not arguing that if they're including it that it *must* be true, I'm sincerely asking why you believe they'd just overlook this, considering they seem to be a pretty well respected university. "
AM1432, Fair question. I try to avoid ascribing motivation to others because I don't know for sure what's in their minds. But I do know that many in academia and the media (on the left and right) have certain favorite political causes that they put before the search for objective truth. Berkley is known as a liberal bastion, even in California, which is not known for its conservatism.
"The entire article just begs the question *why* if this is all laden with BS is it still being published, for one, and more importantly why are these already critiqued texts *still* included in WS courses? "
Again, a good question. Let me ask you one in return: If our universities and media were shown to continue to propagate anti-woman falsehoods year in and year out, even after they were clearly proven incorrect, would you be angry?
Because I am.
Thanks to all for the excellent answers.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
There really is a serious problem of lies being taken as facts (e.g. the rule of thumb myth, the 1 in 4 rape victim myth, the sexist wage gap myth etc etc). You have to work doubly hard to get people to see the truth because you have to get around things like
1/ people don't like to think they got their facts wrong
2/ people don't like to shift from a conventional view to a non-conventional view, even if the latter is the truth,
3/ people have to work hard cognitively to replace the old info with the new.
Its much easier for people to believe the BS we have been getting from feminism for 40 years than to open their eyes and have to face the facts that we get sold a sack of this stuff every day from all directions.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
"The University of California at Berkeley's online faculty profile of Lemon hails it as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors."
Why are they supporting it if it's proven to be false? Berkeley is in the Top 10 law schools in the US, isn't it? No wonder people are believing what's in the textbooks.
I'm not arguing that if they're including it that it *must* be true, I'm sincerely asking why you believe they'd just overlook this, considering they seem to be a pretty well respected university.
As for the numbers, again, not claiming this must just be BS, but maybe these were studies conducted to better gauge how many would openly admit to being victims of DV vs. what the numbers showed in the medical records/reports themselves. It's common knowledge that although many will falsely accuse their partner of DV out of spite/revenge, many who *do* suffer the abuse will do all they can to cover the asses of their abusers. This is just a guess, obviously, I'm not making any claims to have any proof here.
The entire article just begs the question *why* if this is all laden with BS is it still being published, for one, and more importantly why are these already critiqued texts *still* included in WS courses?
Maybe it's just too soon, and this is only recently 'coming out',s o the accusations haven't been substantiated enough yet to actually pull the books from the classes? I see the date of the article, but it seems like this has been a fight that's been ongoing for a while. The book itself says published in '05, that's quite a while ago.
Is this supposed to fall in line with political feminists directing funding and making payoffs to keep this BS as part of the courses?
I ask too many questions, yes? =o/ Sorry dude.
- teeleeceeLv 61 decade ago
I'm very familiar with the book and its authors. They, along with Camille Paglia, were expressing the feminist version of millennial angst in the late nineties. While all embraced feminism, all were also calling for a re-examination of Women's Studies as a discipline to that point in time. It was their perspective that political correctness was destroying the feminist movement and that Women's Studies had become irrelevant. They also suggested that what passed for scholarship, wasn't, and, as a result, there was an abundance of "hard-to-kill falsehoods" in the social sciences, particularly in Women's Studies. They were right.
- 1 decade ago
NEO libs own US education and they own feminism, neo libs favour socialist/communist dictatorships for us.
That might go some way to explain why feminist propaganda, PC and liberalism is shamelessly promoted on campus in the us. The pigs four legs good, two legs bad in Animal Farm describes the same politically correct indoctrination and propaganda being used in communist Russia, it was taught in the schoos there too.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- regjoeschmoLv 41 decade ago
Why do these myths persist?? The almighty dollar.... Funding from groups promoting these beliefs and enrollment of their members......
History is often forgotten to promote a specific societal attitude.....
- ʄaçadeLv 71 decade ago
(a) Academia is sadly not immune to political bias.
(b) Vampires are not all that hard to kill.