Undeducated Verdict on Education

It was so great to be back with everyone on Monday and so neat to learn more about where everyone is going!! I certainly didn't used to know anything about funny superstitions in Ukraine or that one Buganda, is a Muganda who lives in Uganda. I'm going to have so much fun following your adventures this summer.

Also, thanks so much for all the great book suggestions last week! :) The sneaking suspicion that I have had all week that my mom bought me Three Cups of Tea for Valentine’s Day is now confirmed and I can't wait to get started!


So for this week I had an entirely different post planned and even drafted but I found this online today, linked to one of the webpage of a lawyer, and I was so annoyed that I had to share it with the rest of you.
National Post editorial board: Women's Studies is still with us - Full Comment

This editorial was posted on the National Post’s Full Comment Website on January 26, 2010. It goes perfectly with my discussion of Women’s Studies from last week, and stands in stark contrast to Lady Doak’s take on Women’s Studies.

The author has proposed that society in general, but more specifically the legal system, takes some sort of affirmative action in favour of women over men. And he blames this apparent disparity on Women’s Studies courses. The author (identified only as “NP Editor”) outlines all the ways he feels Women’s Studies has ruined society and the family court system.

There are too many things wrong with this article to address in one sitting, but as a legal studies student I want to make sure I cover the legal inaccuracies and the misleading comments that this author makes.

Working in a family law office I see numerous clients a day who are going through separations and divorces. First hand I know that there are tedious and painstaking calculations that take place when determining what each party brings to a marriage and a predetermined table of support that outlines, based on income who is entitled to what. Women don’t just pick numbers out of thin air and get a judge to sign off, it is a computerized calculation and it doesn’t get much fairer than that. If the man makes less money and has custody of the children then he is just as entitled to support as a woman would be. I admit that I see a higher proportion of women with custody than men but we have worked successfully for multiple fathers and won custody. It’s all circumstantial! I also need to mention that in today’s legal system children can have access to their own lawyer called an OCL that will listen to the children and present their position in custody battles.

I won’t say that women’s rights issues didn’t affect the legal system, because if I did I would be as blind to the truth as the author of this article. But the scale is hardly tipped in anyone’s favour. “NP Editor” claims that women as a whole are considered a “disadvantaged” group. This is twisting the wording. The court is not directed to “give preferential treatment” to traditionally disadvantaged groups, but to give special consideration how their circumstances affect the case. Take for example a woman who forgoes education to start a family and raise the couple’s children while her husband works. If there is a breakdown in the marriage then the woman – and here comes that controversial word – is at a disadvantage because she has no formal education and can’t get a high paying job to support her family. According to the legislation a judge has to consider this in his decisions, consider but not necessarily account for or agree with.

So yes, what the author is saying is based somewhere in the truth but it has been so diluted with anti-feminist ranting, and the terminology so twisted to support it that it is being used to mislead people. I would chalk this article up to a disgruntled ex who is unhappy paying support. He or she obviously doesn’t have any background in law or in women’s studies and yet feels justified in commenting on it.

I encourage you all to read the comments of others that are posted below the article. There are comments that blame the feminist movement for the number of children in the ghetto, and that a feminist can’t be a scholar, and so on. This proves exactly the point that I was trying to make last week – here are people who have obviously never been educated in women’s studies – or legal studies for that matter – and look what it has lead to; to a stereotype of all women as radical feminists, to name calling, to misquoting, to blaming feminists for everything thing from poverty to corrupting children. Maybe if these people had taken some women’s studies courses they would see things a little more objectively, or at the very least have firsthand experience to justify the claims they are making. In the same breathe that these people complain about feminists generalizing all men as victimizers, they are generalizing about all Women’s Studies courses and profs. Yes there are radical feminists but that does not extend to every woman who chooses to call herself a feminist, chooses to take a Women’s Studies course, or chooses to work in a male dominated field. If anything this article, though it is intended to disparage Women’s Studies, is exactly why we need Women’s Studies and need to educate people.