His effort to defend them isn't a bad one - hell, I think gender studies classes could be incredibly illuminating and interesting, in theory. My ideal gender studies course would incorporate fields of inquiry ranging from economics to history to biology to anthropology, all to bring some rhyme and reason to why the two main genders behave and situate themselves differently in society, and how "shades of gray" (androgyny, intersexed, asexual folk, etc.) fit into the mix. The problem is that in reality, they're worthless exercises in postmodern circle-jerking.

Siddique's first probem is with his notion of what makes a "balanced course". He trots out the misguided analogy to economics departments that we've seen in a few separate posts of his, and writes:

First, the whole idea that "Balance is something most women's studies classes sorely lack" is very unconvincing and very stupid as a reason against taking it. Economics classes at universities across the country are not balanced, including at Princeton. They privilege capitalist viewpoints exclusively over Marxist and socialist ones.

This conception of balance is hamstrung by its own limitations. It's not what we generally think of when we use the term "balanced", and were we to accept Siddique's definition, the term would almost be worthless.

First off, I'd disagree that economics classes are "balanced in favor of capitalism" - they tend to be excercises in fact (econometrics) and theory, but they present theories of trade and finance as being just that - and they often go into a critical examination of just how accurate such theories are in the real world.

Marxist economic theories aren't brought up in econ classes for the same reason most survey philosophy courses skip over the Neo-Platonists; both avenues of inquiry have been so far discredited by the real world that they can no longer be held by any responsible scientist to have any serious theoretical merit.

Implicit within any useful definition of "balance" is a threshhold of empirical reasonableness below which an idea/theory cannot be considered relevant.

Just as psychiatry classes can be balanced without including scientology's perspective, so too can economics courses, and so too can women's studies courses.

The problem is that by that reasonable standard, most women's studies courses still aren't balanced, but economics courses generally are.

As for the article he's responding to...

Siddique writes that he doesn't take anything written by someone from the Independent Women's Forum seriously. Fair enough - for the most part, neither do I. The op-ed he linked to, however, is one of their less egregious works - in fact, it's more true than not. It paints with overly broad strokes, sure, but it matches up pretty well with the reality of most Women's Studies courses.

Even so, I was willing to give Siddique the benefit of the doubt; he was writing about women's studies courses at Princeton. Perhaps at Princeton, which isn't half bad as an undergrad institution for most majors, things are different than at your run of the mill liberal arts school?

Not so. As Siddique tells us:

Look at the syllabi of any random women's studies course at Princeton. It will include many theoretical heavyweights like Judith Butler, Foucault, Millet, possibly Gramsci, with an implied prerequisite that you've read and thoroughly understood Hegel and Kant.

The problem here is that Foucalt, Millet, Butler, and Gramsci are not intellectual heavyweight in any meaningful sense of the term. He's popular, sure, but N'Sync can sell millions of albums without becoming "musical heavyweights". None of them have made any lasting contributions of real importance to the world. Foucalt might come the closest to a respectable thinker, but his support of Iran's hardline fundamentalist revolution shot pretty much any credibility he held as being a man able to reconcile the world of theory with the world of reality.

If that's what they're passing off as serious intellectual inquiry at Princeton, it can only go downhill from there at second-string institutions.

One of Siddique's closing thoughts jumps out at me:

In fact, the whole purpose of the humanities has always been to instil doubts in students about the students' own self-images and about the society they live in.

I've rarely heard a better case made against taking humanities courses.

Some of us are in college to actually learn useful and applicable skills and information to affect change in the real world. On the one hand, it'd be a sweet, sweet dream to have a sign on the front door of the ivory tower that reads "Navel Gazers Need Not Apply". Nonetheless, I have to applaud any institution that can fleece your parents out of tens of thousands of dollars that easily.

Long story short: There are roughly 150,000 Katrina evacuees in Houston, and the city is experiencing serious frictions as a result.

Nearly all are currently living in some form of government subsidized housing.

The crime rate has risen a staggering 18% in the past year. Currently, 20% of all homocides in Houston involve a Katrina refugee as either the killer, the victim, or both.

Of these refugees, three fourths are not working at present.


I know the easy response from our side to news like this is "This just shows how George Bush bungled up the response to the blah blah blah blah...".

I'm not interested in that. It's too easy, and it doesn't make the problem go away.

How do we solve this problem?

Make it pithy or make it complex - your choice. I just want to hear some forward-looking ideas.

..Or at least, they do if the bloggers dare to question the effects that radical Islamic fascists are having on European society.

Stanley Kurtz has a interesting post up about this over at National Review's The Corner.

Nobody is as anti-racist as I, or against bigotry toward religion as I. But Europe's easily abusable laws against anti-racist speech and blasphemy against religions threaten to turn it into a veritable police state.

Can you imagine the police showing up at your door based on the opinions you write on this blog, and asking you to come down to the station to be interviewed? That, apparently, is the reality in Belgium.

Also check out the Weekly Standard article Illiberal Europe, which brings further evidence to bear.

Progressives need to be at the forefront of defending freedom of speech and religion in the West by condemning Europe's slide toward illiberal authoritarianism.

This is not "a minor issue". This is one front in the battle for the soul of the West and the continued existence of liberal governance. If America remains relatively free but Europe caves in to extremist Islamists, we still lose.

Enough said.

Hell, my father was lamenting my deprived upbringing here in California; walking around my high school, he couldn't believe how puritanical the fashions had gotten compared to the sixties and seventies.

It's terrible what they subject their kids to in Texas.

"It's gotten bad enough that, unfortunately, our young males are looking at more than their English book, their speech book, their science book," says school board president Sherri Wade.

In previous generations, that was referred to as "being male". First we take away their childhood with ritalin, then we take away their eye candy when they're in their youth.

Goddamn puritans.

Everyone else gets a law. Godwin, Murphy, whoever else. So, I'd like a law of my own.

Superduperficial's Law: As populist rhetoric becomes more effective in winning elections, the probability that a populist politician will eventually do something to really screw up the nation's economy approaches 1.

True? False? Contrary evidence? Debate please.

Matt Yglesias makes the case.

As you all probably know already, I entirely agree with this point of view.

I believe that the idea of "justice" as an ideal for interactions between states (as opposed to between a state and its people, or between individual citizens) is a relatively outmoded concept that is responsible for much of the current violence in the Middle East.

One commenter over at TPM Cafe made the excellent point that if you take any proposed peace settlement to the Palestinians and/or Israelis and ask them if it's fair, 90% will say it's unfair to themselves. But if you ask them "Would you accept it?", you get a much better number to work with.

True issues of fairness can only be resolved once the violence stops. The violence can only stop once the Palestinians set aside their notion of "justice" - which they and the Israelis will never see eye to eye on - and only focus on "What's the best I can get?".

And for that, they need a Gandhi.

The problem? There were not organized groups of South Asians in India that benefited from continuing oppression there; nor were there organized groups of blacks who benefited from the continuing subjugation of blacks in this country.

In the Middle East, Hamas and Hezbollah's power is directly tied to the continued plight of the Palestinians. They just so happen to be the ones with all the guns.