Comments on: Research dismisses the validity of gender studies

By: Deva Ariza

Deva Ariza — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:27:20 +0000

What research methodology did she use? “Critical reassessment” is not a research methodology, but it does imply that the material was approached “critically” (looking for — and expecting to find — problems within the material being studied). As a researcher, last time I checked the scientific method, one was to approach research in as unbiased a way as possible. Obviously the researcher is not claiming to do hypothesis testing, so demanding that such rigor be followed is a bit unrealistic. I just find it very interesting that a researcher would conduct research without any methodology, and with such a clearly stated bias. I suppose that is what a good scholar does though, lay their cards face up?

I disagree, however, that one can reasonably expect feminisms to be internally coherent when the system that they critique is not, itself, coherent. For example: Men are rational; women are emotional, BUT men are more violent (because of testosterone, tradition, etc. ad nauseum) and more often angry than women, therefore anger must not be an emotion because men are rational, etc…

Very few philosophical frameworks have ever achieved the internal coherence required by mathematics. Your own philosophy is far from coherent: Why men rule, patriarchy does not/did not exist, etc. Not all research requires a mathematically derived theory to be considered “valid” — (i.e. to fit the observed reality well). In fact, there are many mathematically derived theories which are invalid in fields claiming to be science. I’m thinking of neo-liberal theory in economics as one example. In any case, one study, by one doctoral candidate, with a clearly stated bias and no research methodology does not “truth” make.

By: Pelle Billing

Pelle Billing — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:25:42 +0000

The reviewed feminist schools of thought are not obscure… Radical feminism talks about the structural oppression of women, and queer feminism talks about gender as a social construct. These ideas are at the core of feminist gender studies.

“As far as I know, gender studies and feminist schools of thought are not the same… ”

They are not exactly the same, but feminist theory is the major foundation that gender studies rest on. Other tools have been added, but nothing has been taken away from the feminist foundation.

“Actually, gender studies have been on the forefront of claiming what you believe in: that men and women are both oppressed by their gender roles and that men’s voices are important if anything is to change.”

The so called masculinist studies that are done in the field of gender studies, are done from the perspective of men being oppressive. So it’s all done within the context of feminist thinking.

If gender studies actually did what you say, then I would be applauding them, not criticizing them.

Thank you for your comment.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:17:40 +0000

Are you saying that studying the differences in social roles and behaviour between women and men is not important? Then what is it you are attempting with this blog?
As far as I know, gender studies and feminist schools of thought are not the same… Gender studies is about looking at the socially constructed roles appointed to men and women, and also to different forms of sexuality, in a specific time and space. Although feminist schools of thought, including the rather obscure ones reviewed by the PhD you quote, often focus on these roles, they are not by any means the only theories used.
Actually, gender studies have been on the forefront of claiming what you believe in: that men and women are both oppressed by their gender roles and that men’s voices are important if anything is to change. This is what prompted the shift from Women’s studies to Gender studies. I agree that not all scholars have made that shift simultaneously, but it seems to me you want to throw out the good with the bad here…