Talk:Women's studies/Archives/ 1

Can We Improve the Criticism Section?

The first point, of women's studies being more politicized than many other disciplines, is extremely valid. The quote is a good summary of a wide-spread criticism of women's studies that is theoretically relevant. I think this could still probably be beefed up a little, as many within academia have made similar complaints.

I don't want to make this point or the criticism section itself overly long, I just believe that good (concise) criticism - especially that which reflects self-criticism within the discipline - will serve to give an even better idea of the discipline itself.

The excerpt from the National Post article seems a little disproportionate in both its validity and its use. I know the fear of creating an overt gender binary between victims and abusers are common fears of what women's studies might represent, but the problem of essentialism is pretty Women's Studies 101. I think either rephrasing this point with sources pointing to academic concerns about the essentialism of gender (which would address the potential of viewing all women as victims), or else replacing it with one or two other points instead similar to the quality of the first one might be better suited to an accurate portrayal of the discipline. There are a lot of misrepresentations by this quote in particular, in addition to its being biased towards Canada. Radical Feminism refers to a specific era and body of feminists, and is usually defined in a different way, radical is not a simply synonym for extreme in the case of feminism, the meaning is more nuanced with history.

I want to open up discussion here for ideas for useful criticisms, partly because I've only had experiences with Institutes of Women's Studies at a few universities, and all in Canada, and the article should represent a more international survey than just Canadian disciplinary biases. Shellyquade (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)'

I, for one, would like to this section expanded significantly (though others will likely disagree.) There is a quote from Daphne Patai there from a news article, but she actually wrote, along with Noretta Koertge, a full scholarly book on the topic, "Professing Feminism" (now in its 2nd edition,) which was highly critical of how Women's Study's programs have been run; comparing them to religious cults, communes and cliques.. amongst many other well-sourced and compelling issues with the way these programs are run and, in many cases, subsidized by public tax dollars, and then used to promote a very political agenda ("the personal is political.") Many other respected authors, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Camille Paglia to name a couple have also published works that meet WP:RS. I actually started to make changes to this section some time ago but, when I submitted them, Wikimedia's server barfed and gobbled my long edit and I've never re-written it. In reference to your point on the word radical, I can appreciate the nuanced usage in the context of radical feminism vs. the more popular use of the word, but aside from that, relatively minor, issue the quote does speak well to the way the Women's Studies can, not-unaccurately, be called "Victim's Studies" and there are many accounts of students in these courses confronting heterophobia and misandry. Until it is replaced with something better, I think it is a worthwhile addition.--Cybermud (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sections devoted to criticism are a disfavored approach, as they tend to place undue weight on the criticism of a subject, and they do not appropriately contextualize the actual criticism. See WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:MOS. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lquilter, then why do so many articles have a criticism section? Or is it you're so personally and emotionally invested into this particular subject that you cannot keep neutral by allowing both sides to be heard in the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.234.236 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't rely heavily on what other articles have when policies and guidelines address an issue. Where a criticism is about what is in one section or paragraph, putting it in there provides needed context, as was done with Daphne Patai's critique. If a criticism is too wide-ranging for that, a separate criticism section may be appropriate, but we don't have that many separate sections as to make fitting a criticism into a context unwieldy.

Be careful about attributing motives to individual editors or engaging in unnecessary attacks. Representing a subject as sources do is neutral, because Wikipedia does not require that the subject in the outside world be neutral, just that the sourced article about the subject be neutral.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Article review

After over a year I came back to have a read here and look at this page's progress. First off there was a HUGE problem of lopp-sided sections: not only was there a POV forked criticism section but the Activism, curriculum and methodology sections were themselves POV-forks too. I have addressed this quickly by:
(a) deleting the methodology section (which would be more appropriate on the wikiversity project but was undue here)
(b) resolved the forking issues on the criticism and curriculum sections by reducing and tagging the curriculum material and merging the Patai quote into it
(c) the other criticism was of undue weight and thus was deleted.
(d) the history and activism sections have been tagged as requiring citations/verification.
Overall, the article requires and improvement of its referencing. Original research or unverified material will have to be removed from wikipedia, so please read WP:PROVEIT & WP:NPOV before adding any text to articles. Please also be aware that the issue of criticism has been addressed multiple times in this article's history: critical content should be integrated into relevant sections (history, curriculums and methodology, or activism) it should not be forked out into a section its own as this breaches NPOV--Cailil ^talk 08:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section?

People realize that this 'field' is full of charlatans, right? Does Wikipedia endorse such nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.157.68 (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides articles on a variety of topics, which does not constitute "endorsement". As for your personal opinions about the field of women's studies, if you read the article, you will find opinions and perspectives about the discipline appropriately embedded. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE which are wikipedia policies relating to topics that are "controversial" to some. --Lquilter (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of the field is far from "personal opinions". A well-referenced article called "Criticism of women's tudies" exists atleast in the Finnish Wikipedia what I edit (fi:Naistutkimuksen kritiikki). There is a lot of academic criticism for the ideological basis as normative science, their means of research and so on. I must say I'm not that well-informed on the English discourse, but I do know that the methods of women's studies have been discussed several times in academic maagazines, and I do know women's studies have become controversial in many countries. Norway stopped most funding for women's studies in 2011 due to scientific flaws and the Nordic Gender Institute was disbanded as a result of the controversy. This article does need a criticism/response section. --Pudeo' 11:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, there is criticism of the field, and luckily, we have guidance on how to handle topics that excite controversy or criticism. The preferred method is not to have a "criticism" section which tends to both accord undue weight to criticism and grow unbalanced over time, and instead to have (cited) criticism integrated within the article. ... Pudeo, it is clear in my response I am not saying there is no need for criticism; I am distinguishing between the IP address commenter's clearly expressed personal opinions ("charlatans", "nonsense"), and criticism which should be embedded in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP surely left a provocative comment. But I don't know, gender studies has a "Response" section that is pretty much like a criticism section. Either way, "academic debate" or similar could be made, or in just expand the article to cover the means of research for example and tell what those academics who criticize it think of that. --Pudeo' 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As a user, I find a criticism or controversy section a lot more useful than having it integrated into the midst of large paragraphs. It allows me to quickly absorb relevant information. --2001:980:A4CB:1:B415:144B:46CC:E6A (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not really good enough. A look over this page makes Women's Studies seem like an area of study like any other with good standing in academia, when it is a in fact a widely disputed school with a lot of academic criticism and very dubious reputability, a lot of papers published under Women's Studies are full of pseudoscience and are not taken seriously by non-feminists. It is also a field in which you really must be a feminist or agree with the feminist worldview in order to engage, submitting a paper that is disagreeable or hostile to feminist causes is not likely to gain the student any good marks. it is not a neutral or objective study and is quite widely repudiated by many academics for being an ideological programmes not suited for universities. Lacking a criticism section, and simply weaving in criticisms into other sections give an unbalanced view, this must be the most contentious subject within academia and the page layout does not reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:5AA:6C56:6BDC:94A9 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Buzzwords

The article contains a whole lot of buzzwords. I found everything but the history section to be minimally informative and laden with lists of buzzwords. Perhaps the entire article should be rewritten.

Consider, for instance, the whole first paragraph of the "methodologies and curricula" (including the term "methodologies and curricula"): Women's studies faculty practice a diverse array of pedagogies, though there are some common themes to the way many Women's Studies courses are taught. Women’s studies curricula often encourage students to engage in hands-on activities, including discussion and reflection upon course materials. The development of critical reading, writing, and oral expression are often key to these courses. The decentralization of the professor as the source of knowledge and wisdom is also common. Courses are often more egalitarian, stressing critical analysis of texts, and the development of critical writing. Some courses offer pedagogical methods of teaching which involves in-depth participation from both instructor and students of the course. Like gender studies, Women’s Studies employs feminist, queer, and critical theories.[citation needed] Since the 1970s, Women’s Studies has taken a post-modern approach to understanding gender and how it intersects with race, class, ethnicity, religion, age, and (dis)ability to produce and maintain power structures within society that ensure social inequality. With this, there has been a focus on language, subjectivity, and social hegemony, and how the lives of subjects, however they identify, are constituted. At the core of these theories is the notion that however one identifies, gender, sex, and sexuality are not intrinsic, but are socially constructed.[citation needed]

Consider also the "activism" section: Feminist activism not only focuses on women’s issues but has spread throughout many other movements including (but not limited to) environmental issues, body politics, feminist art, identity issues, reproductive rights, gender issues, animal rights, homosexual rights, and ethnic minority rights. These forms of activism can include letter writing, boycotting, protesting, the visual arts, bodily demonstrations, education, and leafleting. In current feminism, the focus has shifted to encompass an outlook and desire for equality for all—identifying oppressive systems and forces around the world that affect all types of beings. Feminist activism explores the intersections of social, political, and cultural histories (among various others denominators), their implications, and dedicates time and energy to the liberation of all people from injustices.[citation needed] Simply studying or being a student of women’s studies can be seen as activism in it of itself. Therefore, for most students of women’s studies, an activism status is already engaged. To foster the growth of the study body, one of the key aspects of women’s studies classes and programs is to connect the classroom to social change. Women’s studies classes and programs focus on power structures, oppression, inequality, and social suffering. Within these categories, women’s studies students learn through a humanistic/multicultural approach, questioning the world we live in and envisioning alternative realities. Learning is through educative experiences, linking the outside world to the classroom. Students are encouraged to bridge their learning and community involvement and take action in the world to foster positive social transformation. Students and feminist activists not only learn about oppression in society but also look at the possibility for a global unity in difference.[citation needed] --Nogburt (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific about the things within the paragraphs that you have cited that are troubling or strike you as jargon? You just quoted three paragraphs, so I'm not sure what's the problem within them. It is an academic program, so use of terms such as "pedagogies", methodologies, and curricula, and names of other academic ideas ("critical theories", "feminist theories") are hard to eliminate or find synonyms for. "Teaching methods" isn't quite the same thing as curriculum.
  

And, whoa -- you can't just delete the sections that we're working on. That's really not helpful. I'm putting them back in for now. --Lquilter (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

More specific? Almost every third or fourth word is jargon. Where's the content? That stuff needs to go, and a whole lot of it has been uncited for over a year.

Consider, for instance, the following buzzword sentences:

-The decentralization of the professor as the source of knowledge and wisdom is also common.

-Women’s studies curricula often encourage students to engage in hands-on activities, including discussion and reflection upon course materials. The development of critical reading, writing, and oral expression are often key to these courses.

-To foster the growth of the study body, one of the key aspects of women’s studies classes and programs is to connect the classroom to social change.

What's the content here?

Additionally, while some of the buzzwords/jargon might have some limited use, a lot of it sounds like its coming out of a brochure or advertisement. Every academic discipline lays claim to using lots of different teaching styles and to being comprehensive and multi-disciplinary. Such claims, however worded are generally promotional in nature and not informative or encyclopedic. --Nogburt (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• You have twice, now, deleted whole paragraphs while we are talking about them on the talk page (first time) -- one after I explicitly asked you not to do so (second removal). This is really unhelpful, since it makes it difficult for other editors to clean up the text that you labeled as filled with buzzwords. Please put the paragraphs back, so that we can discuss and edit the sections you have flagged as problematic. We don't need an edit war; we need collegiality, please. --Lquilter (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored what I removed minus three or four sentences that I found most exceedingly problematic. However, everything else there should be cleaned up or removed in the near future. First, the previously removed portions had been uncited for over a year, which seemed reason-enough to remove them. Second, they are so pervasively filled with buzzwords/promotional jargon that I cannot see how "cleaning up," editing, or revising them could make those sections encyclopedic. Perhaps this article should have activism and methodology and curricula sections, but that is no reason to keep those sections in their current forms. Promotional material which has remained uncited for over a year should not stay in as a placeholder until an editor gets around to rewriting those sections from scratch.

There seem to be other articles on related subjects (i.e. Feminist_economics, Feminist_theory) which are much more informative without using this kind of language as heavily, so I do not see how the use of promotional buzzwords in this article is needed for some special reason. Those articles show that there are ways of writing about subjects like this where things like "social change" and the "interdisciplinary" nature of the subject should be discussed without promoting the subject or relying on buzzwords (and using what would otherwise be "buzzwords" in contexts where they have actual meaning).

As noted above, every field lays claims to being interdisciplinary, to using multiple styles of teaching and learning, to being hands-on, and so on. Consider, for instance, this sentence "Courses are often more egalitarian, stressing critical analysis of texts, and the development of critical writing." What professor in what field of study would not say or want to say that "Courses in my field are 'often more egalitarian, stressing critical analysis of texts, and the development of critical writing'"? Sentences like these are fluff, not content. Take the sentence "The development of critical reading, writing, and oral expression are often key to these courses." Again, every academic would lay claim to this for his class or field of study, and every on of them is arguably right. This, again, has every indication of being promotional fluff; a way of a professor saying, in academic-speak, "my subject is good/cool/awesome/worthy of respect/one you should study". It is the same with the first sentence in methodologies and curricula: "Women's studies faculty practice a diverse array of pedagogies, though there are some common themes to the way many Women's Studies courses are taught." Look at this sentence in the Activism section: "To foster the growth of the study body, one of the key aspects of women’s studies classes and programs is to connect the classroom to social change." Here, perhaps there is a grain of content, but there are buzzwords, the whole sentence is vague, and it is uncited.

Including what generally amounts to promotional language which every academic discipline lays claim to without some particularly good reason for doing so is promoting the article's subject; and encyclopedias do not promote the subjects of their articles, directly, or indirectly using things such as buzzwords. Additionally, the article should be targeted towards the general reader, not current or potential students of the subject, or persons within other parts of academia. --Nogburt (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I understood the three passages lately challenged (and others), and I understood them as distinguishing women's studies pedagogy from that of other fields. A math course, for example, would study texts but less critically: if the math is wrong, it would be corrected or the text replaced. But a women's studies class might read, say, Charles Dickens' works critically, because it is taking an established body of work and reanalyzing it. In every field there is critical analysis; but there's more in some fields than in others. Another example: Decentralization has been a feature of some pedagogies more than of others; Socratic method comes to mind; not all subjects can be taught to all students Socratically. And other statements can be comparably explained.

Sourcing would help and I don't have it handy, which is why I'm not rewriting the passages. And writing for a more general audience is appropriate to Wikipedia, for which the solution may not be synonyms but expansion for clarity.

I favor retention of the texts while editing proceeds, as it apparently is.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If Women's Studies courses are, in fact, taught much differently (not just by one professor or at one institution, but generally from a community college to a large university) than other humanities and similar subjects (i.e. history, ethnic studies, sociology) that would need to be cited. Expansion probably would help. The other articles on similar subjects that I've looked to for comparison (i.e. Feminist_economics, Feminist_theory) hit some similar bases by discussing something which if just included on a list would not be informative. --Nogburt (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to clarify and cite some of the broad claims made in the Methodologies and Curricula section; I am considering ongoing debates about the use of "buzzwords" as motivation for expansion and clear citation. Please leave the text for further revision and specification. --User:TheIC2013On —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When you're in the middle of editing an article for a few hours, you can add the {{In use}} template to the top. For a longer period instead, the {{Under construction}} template may help. (Click on the template names here to find out more about them and to see examples.) Either one may be better than relying on Talk page notification to ask other editors to hesitate, since some editors won't look for the notification. Each of these tags should be removed when no longer needed. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the buzzwords tag, as it no longer seems applicable. There are still some instances of promotional wording that could be cleaned up. Specific terminology that readers might not understand is linked for the most part. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 05:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sections on Specific Schools

I removed the sections on specific programs for three reasons:

1) They violated Wiki:NPOV. The programs highlighted in the article were neither the top-ranked programs nationally or internationally, nor had any other clear criterion for inclusion.

2) They were unsourced. Phrases like "one of the most well-regarded" and "internationally recognized" did not have references; indeed, it's questionable whether references are even possible for most.

3) They were puff pieces. Each entry was uncritically enthusiastic about each program, linking only to informational brochures and promotional materials; indeed, they used language directly from said materials. 208.75.23.238 (talk)

You're a dick 172.56.12.22 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Feminist studies

I'm listening to a KERA Think! podcast from August 3, 2010. Prof. AnaLouise Keating from the Women's Studies PhD program at Texas Woman's University, asserts that women's studies is not part of the feminist movement. This might mean that saying "women's studies" and "feminist studies" are the same is controversial, and certainly saying that any participation in women's studies is a form of activism is. -- Beland (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether they're the same depends largely on the school, the curriculum, the instructors, and the students and there's probably sourcing on the distinction or sameness. If the podcast is verifiable, and it may well be, it can be cited for one view. Mary Daly, feminist ethicist and professor (I think associate professor), said something agreeing on the distinction but I don't remember in which of her books she said it or exactly what she said. Both sides of the controversy are reportable if sourcing is available. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Beland. I have carried on studies into women, including a longitudinal one over 10 years. I see myself as a Womens Studies researcher in opposition to Feminist Studies researchers. Womens Studies has researchers that see women as equals where as Feminist Studies still have their premises set in the 1930s that there are power structures in society that work in opposition to women. Feminists Studies takes a Marxist approach, where as Womens Studies focuses on seeing women as equals to men from the outset. Feminist Studies researchers focus on the battle of the sexes - men v women - whereas Womens Studies researchers also look at the differences between women - in my case I have looked at how women of three different generations have changed in the way they use technology since the 2000s and one study where I found women are more likely to defriend other women because of other women! Thus I think Beland is right and the articles need to be split. As a Womens Studies researcher I am a woman-liker, unlike many Feminists who are often man-haters! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the generalizations about "many Feminists" are helpful or accurate. Please, let's just stick with the discussion of similarities and differences in the pedagogical and theoretical disciplines, rather than the politicized responses to the word "feminist". --Lquilter (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Women's studies certainly began as part of third-wave feminism, but I think it's probably more the case that "feminist studies" would be a subset of "women's studies". "Feminist studies", as I see it, would be the study of the feminist movement; as such, it would involve a lot of overlap with "women's studies". As far as overlap with feminist practice, it's also true that, again, there's overlap; and some instructors of women's studies used feminist pedagogical techniques in their courses -- but not all. So -- in summary there's a more than theoretical distinction, with a lot of overlap in practice. If we create two articles they should each reflect the complicated and interrelated history, as well as the distinctions. --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kikischiciano (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Kiki Schiciano and Kikischiciano (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Allison Quayle Bibliography - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/07/gender-studies-anti-discrimination-case - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/education/29iht-riedgen.html?_r=0 - http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Womens_studies.aspx - http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/wstudies/theory.html

Explanation for revert

[1] Pretty odd addition. I can understand mentioning Womanist theology but an entire paragraph on Queer theology in such a short article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN. If you say "there are A, B, and C Theologies on this subject" you either need to talk about all three or none, not just single out B Theology. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Neil, I added Queer theology because we are doing this as a class project. We each chose to focus on a specific theology. I am focusing on Queer theology, my classmates are focusing on womanist and latina/chicana theology. Do you have any advice on how to make it better? Or explain why it is not relevant. Aaraiza1993 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Aaraiza1993Aaraiza1993 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aaraiza1993. As this is the Women's studies article, any content added should be in the specific context of Women's studies. An explanation of queer theology belongs in Queer theology. What belongs here is how sources see queer theology fitting in with Women's studies. There's none of that in your addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I messed up pinging. Hi Aaraiza1993 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the above assessments. While there's likely a link between queer theology and women's studies established in the literature, it isn't made out here. This content might perhaps be a better fit in Queer theology, as mentioned above, or in Queer studies? /wia /tlk 02:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that this advice has been taken, based on the recent edits to Queer theology. Case closed? Primefac (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead section, lead sentence

Fellow Editors, The lead section's first sentence is currently Women's studies links gender to race, sexuality, class, and nation in order to define identity as a complex social phenomenon.[2], sourced to a self published source on Weebly.
This does not seem particularly informative to the general, uninitiated, reader.
Looking at a few University Women's Studies websites, I found:

• Castleton Uni - Women’s and Gender Studies is an interdisciplinary field that examines gender as a social and cultural construction. Drawing upon academic areas such as history, psychology, popular culture, literary criticism, and anthropology, the major crosses and blends the boundaries of traditional disciplines.[3]

from some dictionaries, we have:

• Merriam Webster - the study of subjects relating to women, their roles in history, and their contributions to society & the multidisciplinary study of the social status and societal contributions of women and the relationship between power and gender[4]

It seems like something based on these might provide a better introduction to readers unfamiliar with the field. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next few days, I will add the following either as a sentence in front of the current lead section: Women's Studies is an interdisciplinary field of academic study that examines gender as a social & cultural construct, the social status and contributions of women, and the relationships between power & gender.
Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • • You need a citation in the Methodology of women's studies end of first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lermiller (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead section, lead sentence

Fellow Editors, The lead section's first sentence is currently Women's studies links gender to race, sexuality, class, and nation in order to define identity as a complex social phenomenon.[5], sourced to a self published source on Weebly.
This does not seem particularly informative to the general, uninitiated, reader.
Looking at a few University Women's Studies websites, I found:

• Castleton Uni - Women’s and Gender Studies is an interdisciplinary field that examines gender as a social and cultural construction. Drawing upon academic areas such as history, psychology, popular culture, literary criticism, and anthropology, the major crosses and blends the boundaries of traditional disciplines.[6]

from some dictionaries, we have:

• Merriam Webster - the study of subjects relating to women, their roles in history, and their contributions to society & the multidisciplinary study of the social status and societal contributions of women and the relationship between power and gender[7]

It seems like something based on these might provide a better introduction to readers unfamiliar with the field. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next few days, I will add the following either as a sentence in front of the current lead section: Women's Studies is an interdisciplinary field of academic study that examines gender as a social & cultural construct, the social status and contributions of women, and the relationships between power & gender.
Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • • You need a citation in the Methodology of women's studies end of first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lermiller (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)