Thursday, 5/15/97 Critique of program unfounded STUDIES: Women’s
studies students claim major fights oppression, empowers
females
By Ginny Tal As students in the Women’s Studies Program, we
would like to respond to Jennifer Nelson’s article, "Women’s
Studies major fails to give competitive edge." (Daily Bruin, May 9)
We feel that Nelson’s views about the program are not only
ill-informed and destructive, but take on a tone of arrogance that
has no basis in discussing a subject she obviously knows little
about. At a time when the modest gains of women and people of color
have come under attack, we need to build coalitions to battle
against our oppressions, not to undermine other women’s efforts
toward empowerment. Although we vehemently disagree with Nelson’s
position, we would never suggest that she not have the forum to
voice her opinions. If she does not want to major in women’s
studies, fine, but to challenge the program’s right to exist is
beyond offensive, especially when she has clearly never taken a
class in women’s studies at all! Nelson argues that the women’s
studies curriculum "… lacks the academic content of other
majors." This statement clearly illustrates her unfamiliarity with
the program. The Women’s Studies Program offers its students a
"practical and rigorous education" on a par with other programs at
UCLA. The women’s studies major is an interdepartmental program,
and as such, compiles courses from many different departments. The
interdisciplinary nature of the program not only allows students
exposure to different theoretical backgrounds but also leads to a
critical analysis of society from women’s perspectives. If
anything, we do not deal with issues that "make a person feel warm
and fuzzy;" instead, we deal with real issues affecting women’s and
men’s live such as rape, discrimination, racism, sexism, incest,
lack of women’s representation in science, history, art,
literature, medicine, law and other fields. There is absolutely
nothing "warm and fuzzy" about these issues. In addition, many
women’s studies students double-major in disciplines such as
biology, English, history, art, anthropology, sociology, political
science and many more, which has allowed us to have a different
perspective of academia. Nelson states that women’s studies "is a
curriculum reminiscent of the oppressive education women received
in the Victorian era, because it is tailored specifically for
females." Women’s studies program does not specifically gear itself
toward females any more than African-American studies gears itself
toward just African Americans, or any other ethnic studies major
for that matter. What she fails to comprehend is that women’s
studies is not merely about women; it is concerned with gender
relationships as a critique of power structures and
institutionalized oppression in society. For that matter, Nelson
does not actually comprehend prior or post-Victorian era feminist
writing, and as a result it appears that Nelson’s education, not
ours, has been horribly inadequate. She certainly does not
understand one of the basic tenets of contemporary feminist
discourse; that gender cannot be viewed in isolation from race,
class and sexual orientation. Of course, education for men and
women is important, but we urge Nelson to realize that there are
varying kinds of knowledge, and the type of education she refers to
is the kind that speaks directly to a framework that negates issues
like race and class. The assumption inherent in her argument – that
women as a collective group will only advance if they obtain the
skills necessary to economically advance in a capitalist
marketplace, an argument supporting the status quo – suggests that
she is not cognizant of the complex ways in which race, class and
sexual orientation interact in our society and clearly demonstrates
her dominant cultural bias. Nelson argues that "the most effective
way of elevating the status of the (women’s) gender is through the
acquisition of career and financial independence." Moreover, she
argues that the women’s studies program promotes the stereotypes of
the "Victorian-era female," in other words, domesticity. Explicit
in her argument is the judgment that cooking, cleaning, child
rearing and so on constitute nonproductive and insignificant work.
That domestic labor is unpaid and devalued speaks to the fact that
capitalistic economy exploits women’s labor. Rather than critique
this exploitation by reconceptualizing the nature of domestic
labor, Nelson uncritically dismisses its significance. A feminist
analysis of this power play reveals that unpaid and devalued
reproductive labor is beneficial for the functioning of capitalism
and patriarchy, and serves to subordinate women. Nelson does not
understand this; instead, she buys into this system of oppression.
If anything, Nelson’s entire article has helped the feminist
movement to retreat, not the women’s studies as she proposes.
Nelson states that "the goal of women’s studies course work has
been to indoctrinate, not to educate." To us, she speaks from a
position of complete ignorance, so we feel the need to enlighten
Nelson on the pedagogical approaches that many professors in the
program take. Their teaching styles are informed by the philosophy
that nothing in this world is objective or universal, as we all
have been taught from kindergarten up to college. Therefore, all
knowledge, all modes of education try in some way to
"indoctrinate." Many women’s studies professors "indoctrinate" by
educating for liberation, not domination. This kind of education
liberates students to learn and critically think about issues
unwelcome by dominant society – women’s studies does not force
anyone to adopt its philosophies, but rather gives students an
opportunity to learn things not traditionally taught. Since Nelson
double majors in English and biology, let’s consider what she
thinks is an "objective" approach to teaching. Has Nelson ever sat
in an English class and examined her syllabus to look for works by
women only to find, perhaps one female author out of a reading list
of eight? Does that not speak to the insufficient representation of
women authors? Does that not suggest the professors’ biases toward
what they consider the (male) canon of the British and American
literature? How many times has Nelson heard a biology professor
state that the practice of science does not have anything to do
with social issues, while instances of forced female sterilization
on Latinas, African American and American Indian women have proved
that science has at times been an agent of racism and sexism? After
all this, can she honestly say that the education we usually
receive at UCLA is socially and politically unbiased? If Nelson
correctly uses the analytical skills provided by her education as
an English student, she ultimately cannot deny that all kinds of
education have political undertones. The difference with the
women’s studies program is that we choose to vocalize and embrace
our pedagogical techniques, and not disguise them as "objective."
After reading Nelson’s article, we understand where she positioned
herself in the feminist debate. It does not bother us that she
disagrees with our views, but what does anger us is that she speaks
with no clear evidence of any knowledge of the women’s studies
program. The danger in her article does not lie in her ignorance,
but rather in the fact that she disseminates her gross stereotypes
of the program without any check. That, perhaps, is the most
insidious part of Nelson’s views. We urge her to please investigate
the facts before writing an article on any subject matter she so
casually feels like investigating, so her words don’t come back to
bite her. Tal is a third-year women’s studies and sociology
student, as well as an Honors Collegium student. This submission
was co-signed by Cathleen Norton, Naomi Lempert, Tarry Kang, Van
Luu and Dana Edlis. Related Links: UCLA Women’s Studies Program