Romania Passes Law Banning Gender Studies, Following Hungary and Poland

submitted by useless_aether from nationalfile.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]comments 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I don't think this is the right model either. I think a lot of this stuff may be an attack on white westerners but I really bristle at the gov't regulating what universities can and can't teach, whether through law or financial incentives/disincentives.

And there probably is room for discussing gender, honestly. Things have changed somewhat, recently, with women able to work, with birth control and abortion, with cosmetic and less cosmetic procedures available for people to alter themselves, with fertility treatments and artificial insemination. With self-determination available in the US -- the possibilities of which are vast. There was a time when all of this stuff was less militant and was just tumblr kids ideating among themselves about what they want to be. It is futurist in a way. Innovative. It's a topic worth discussing, or at least ok to discuss, and fairly relevant right now. The way it's become dogmatic and about forcing people to accept whatever, that's what I don't like.

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]twosheds 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't have a problem with gender studies within the context of sociology (or psychiatry or biology). The topic of gender is certainly worth discussing and thinking about. But current year gender studies and the other identity studies disciplines are not science, they aren't even really disciplines, they are pure dogma. I think we as a society need to stop subsidizing that sort of thing.

[–]comments 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, there's certainly a case to be made to hold universities accountable in actually teaching academic subjects... how did this stuff get in there in the first place?

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]twosheds 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't really know. I know that 60s radicals have been moving in this direction for a long time and have slowly accumulated institutional power, but that doesn't really explain why we let them get away with it. There was nothing inevitable about the capture and corruption of higher education in the US.

[–]comments 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

why we let them get away with it

we spent the whole time making fun of them and doing the equivalent of posting on /s/cringeanarchy instead of actually taking care of things like we were supposed to. "ooooh don't worry they're not a real threat".

Also we genuinely value the freedom of speech and exploration. How exactly do you say something "isn't real academics?" Somebody chose those people to be faculty, does that mean people have to admit they did something wrong? Is it really not academic when compared to other humanities stuff? Did people just get obsessed with uplifting people because they thought they had too much and wanted to share? Did people get duped? Did people get arrogant? Did people get too novelty-seeking?

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]twosheds 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd say identity studies aren't real academics by virtue of lacking rigor, lacking consistent models, and being unable to do studies that produce reproducible results. At best identity studies is a laundry list of gripes, with associated labels. Even soft sciences and humanities try to be something other than pure opinion, they do more than create mere labels and pretend it is useful knowledge.

Your point about us not taking the radicals seriously is a valid critique of American culture. We thought radicalized students would grow out of it because that was what used to happen.

[–]comments 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd say identity studies aren't real academics by virtue of lacking rigor, lacking consistent models, and being unable to do studies that produce reproducible results. At best identity studies is a laundry list of gripes, with associated labels. Even soft sciences and humanities try to be something other than pure opinion, they do more than create mere labels and pretend it is useful knowledge.

well, idk about rigor, there have been some studies done about transgender stuff... though honestly this transgender stuff is what made me kinda start to question science more because it really just doesn't seem right to me even if the numbers are there. and there has afaik been anthropological work done in other cultures and in western subcultures, that's just descriptive and can be plenty rigorous.

I never really took the identity stuff for humanities (though one humanities class I took I later remembered when reading lists of subversive frankfurt school authors.) so I don't really know what's in there and how it compares to other humanities stuff.

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree the government shouldn't be allowed to decide what is and isn't taught. However,

whether through law or financial incentives/disincentives.

this cat is already out of the bag. The government is already picking the winners and losers as far as academia is concerned, and has been for a long time. We're merely talking about an adjustment to how big that umbrella is.

[–]comments 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The government is already picking the winners and losers as far as academia is concerned, and has been for a long time.

What has the gov't been doing in this regard?

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They fund basically the entirety of academia... the whole of academia, and most non-corporate research, is focused almost entirely around qualifying for government grants. It's where all the funding comes from, for most research institutes and colleges

[–]comments 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, interesting. For private institutions too, via grants?

How is it decided who gets what grants?

you know science and research is something there's a lot of room for work in, and something that is going to be difficult to completely automate away. Maybe this sector can expand more in the future in the private sector.

eta: I was censored here on SaidIt without explanation

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hm I guess apparently that trend is happening... I've been out of research for quite a few years now, but it looks like maybe that sort of thing is changing: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50

But for specifically gender studies, here are for example UCLA's gender studies funding list: https://gender.ucla.edu/resources/graduate-students-resources/funding/

And here is Rutger's University gender studies funders list: https://womens-studies.rutgers.edu/resources/funding-resources

Some look to be government funds, some look to be private foundations. It'd be interesting to find lists like this from all the major universities regarding this subject, and cross-reference them to find the shared investors between all schools. I wonder where that money comes from

[–]Big_Brass_Balls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sunlight is a good disinfectant. Let everyone see how crazy this shit is. Censorship only serves to keep it in the shadows.