- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
Yeah, I think it is totally legitimate for an academic to focus on gender issues; lord knows that stuff is publishable.I'd agree with this on the basis that while gender studies does have a certain degree of usefulness for those of us in academia (especially in interdisciplinary fields like cultural history, musicology or other humanities), it isn't by itself particularly useful. It's something that a lot of humanities scholars will dabble in but until recently it was relatively rare for somebody to make it their primary area of research.
My issue with Gender Studies, as a stand alone discipline, is that it ironically enough doesn't add anything to the scholarly discussion of gender. There are lots of very intelligent folks in fields as diverse as biology, ethics, sociology, literature, cultural history, anthropology, epistemology, neuroscience, and psychology all doing work on gender issues. And all of these folks in all these fields have their own specialization -- some unique, useful contribution to add -- while still being able to keep an eye on the broader discussion. Which, at the end of the day, is what good scholarship is all about.
Gender studies, by contrast, amounts to selectively reading a narrow slice of the literature in all these fields, mastering none of those fields, and thus not having the necessary expertise to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. I suppose the argument is that they study the "big picture" of gender, but I would hazard a guess that a cultural historian, or a philosopher, or a scientist who spends years of their life working on gender can see the big picture too. Which makes Gender Studies not just shitty from a pragmatic job-focused perspective, but also shitty from a purely academic one.
Last edited: