Why Do Colleges Still Have Women’s Studies Departments?

Posted by Enrique on 08.21.2008

Playing the vict-him card



Gentlemen – As you are no doubt aware, the Battle of the Sexes has gone about as well as the War on Drugs. For the last several decades, women have succeeded in stripping many of our rights away. Domestic abuse laws, child/spousal support laws, restraining order laws, and post-divorce custody arrangements overwhelmingly favor women. The vast majority of incarcerated Americans are male. Female teachers who have sexual contact with teenage boys might serve a few months in jail, while men who sleep with teenage girls face long prison sentences, sex offender registries, and a future of unemployment and homelessness.

One of the slightly less insidious ways women infringe on male rights are these preposterous "women's studies" departments, which are now firmly embedded within liberal arts university culture. On Monday, a Manhattan lawyer named Roy Den Hollander sued Columbia University for discrimination against men. Den Hollander argues that Columbia violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution by offering a women's studies program, but not men's studies. For our story this week, let's have a look at the merits of Den Hollander's lawsuit, examine Columbia's women's studies curriculum, and start taking back the night.

The story so far…

Den Hollander is a self-described anti-feminist. It may not surprise you to know that he went through a bitter divorce in 2001. Since then, he has dedicated his legal practice to representing men who have been the victims of discrimination. In addition to this Columbia case, Den Hollander currently has a lawsuit pending against the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which he argues is unconstitutional. Den Hollander also has a pending class-action complaint against nightclubs that hold ladies nights, offering female patrons discounted admission and/or drinks.

I've written before about how many domestic violence laws violate a man's presumption of innocence, so I'm sympathetic to Den Hollander's VAWA lawsuit. On the other hand, his ladies night case doesn't quite pass the laugh test. Private nightclubs and bars are perfectly entitled to offer drink specials to women. Most men don't mind paying extra to patronize a nightclub where women are drinking discounted booze – it's a feature, not a bug. There are lots of bars out there, and no man has to go to ladies night if he doesn't want to. (Den Hollander's divorce must have been very bitter indeed.)

That said, this Columbia lawsuit is intriguing. I've always been suspicious of anything that gives the women the upper hand, so I examined the Fall 2008 courses available from the Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWG) (which I pronounce "earwig"). Here are a few highlights, with course descriptions directly from Columbia's web site:

Studies in US Imperialism (Oh, for Christ's sake) – Historical and comparative study of cultural effects and social experiences of U.S. Imperialism (They even capitalize "imperialism," like it's a brand name), with an attention to the making of race, gender and sexuality through practices of political, economic and cultural domination, exchange and struggle. (That sentence barely makes sense. Aren't women supposed to be superior communicators?) Examples drawn from studies of U.S. imperialism in the contexts of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, and Cuba, and on U.S. foreign involvements in the developing world since World War II. (They forgot to capitalize "imperialism" that time. Women and their mixed signals…)

Gender and Applied Economics (I'm guessing this isn't about how to land a rich husband) – This course studies gender gaps -- their extent, determinants and consequences. We will focus on the allocation of rights in different cultures and over time, why women's rights have typically been more limited and why most societies have traditionally favored males in the allocation of resources. (There's a popular myth that American women earn less than men for the same amount of labor. That's certainly true in many countries, but not in the U.S. American female workers earn less on average because of their own choices, not institutionalized patriarchy. See John Stossel for details.)

Sexuality and the Law – Explores how sexuality is defined and contested in various domains of law (Constitutional, Federal, State), how scientific theories intersect with legal discourse, and takes up considerations of these issues in family law, the military, questions of speech, citizenship rights, and at the workplace. (This sounds like it would be a terrific class in law school. Maybe that's where it belongs.)

The IRWG curriculum also includes various women's literature classes. It seems to me that almost all of these women's studies courses would be at home in the history department, or the English department, or the business department – so why does women's studies need its own department?

IRWG even offers a Graduate Certification in Feminist Scholarship. Pray tell, what's a person with a Feminist Scholarship certification trained to do? It can't possibly qualify anyone for useful employment. Is the employment market clamoring for MA feminists? The most likely job a person with graduate credits in feminism is going to get is working for another university women's studies department. It's an insulated, self-perpetuating discipline.

It's become common knowledge that there are more women attending college than men. In July, the unemployment rate of adult women was 4.6%, compared to 5.3% for men. The institutional discrimination against women that existed at one time in America has been abolished. There's no sensible reason for a university in the U.S. to have a women's studies department in 2008.

Still, if Den Hollander is successful in his lawsuit, it may lead to the institution of men's studies departments. If so, it will be a victory for gender equality. I look forward to the opportunity to earn graduate credits in Grand Theft Auto Mastery.