In my opinion, your best point is that Women's Studies as an academic discipline is an emerging discipline, if I understand you correctly. I can certainly agree with that, because I know the development -- if not of Harvard's medical school -- Harvard's English department, of which I am an alumna and for which I have a profound respect (when I'm not grouching off).

If you think I am one of the feminists who never say ill about a sister, however, do please think again. Given the level of the misogyny here, however, I go into "I and my sister against my cousins; I and my cousins against the world" mode. I don't consider this "vitriol" in an environment that aims at silencing, ridiculing, psychologically attacking or (in one person's case, I kid you not) rendering the XXs of the world obsolete. I consider it a survival reaction. At the same time, after more than 30 years in the Movement, I have been known to say that if you haven't been trashed by a sister, you haven't been trashed.

I have a major problem when privileged persons who do not acknowledge their privilege turn the subject of privilege into denunciation. I have a major problem when it is larded, by Americans, with anti-Americanism. Hell, I have a major problem with fools and, by academic discipline, go into polemic mode: I was an Arthurian scholar, not a Franciscan, so it's logical. I made the transition from English scholar to finance, too -- you know the one the Gradgrinds here say can't be done? and it's left me little patience for people who gaze into their navels and lift their heads with insults. They would do better to remember how they came by their navels.

And I truly do not approve of people who pat themselves on the back (NOT you) for their good deeds.

Because I am out of the university environment, I don't know which are the good programs, as I used to with English departments. But I do know that this discussion has convinced me that they have a relevance and a necessity I might not have gone along with before, so I'd call that educational for me and, if the programs want an ally that volatile, useful for you. After all, Socially Responsible Investments (SRIs) can be structured to avoid products/companies/countries where women and children are treated poorly.

Arthurians -- chivalric romances. So you can expect a certain amount of smashing and bashing. Medieval history is rather full of violence, and so its scholars learn military history and tactics along with the languages. The Spiritual Franciscans -- although they cause trouble that leads to violence -- are not in themselves violent.

This means that while we tend to be a convivial group when things are going well, we aren't really good on the warm fuzzies around people who haven't done the assigned reading, won't THINK, or remind us of mindsets we haven't read since the Crusades. Those things make us cross.

What college up at Oxford? I had a good time there.

My Dad was Army. WWII.

He never talked much about it.

Absent friends.

Two summers via UMass in Trinity College, so I wasn't a member of the university. St. Hilda's accepted me for an M.Phil., but I needed nearly 100% fellowship, so I fell back on Harvard.

Great place, though I can't remember flirting with the dons. DRINKING with them, now...

Good grief, you're making assumptions.

I see you're still using your family as a status symbol.

If you must commoditize, stick to Porsches, not people.

The rest is beneath contempt, as are you.

Well, at least we know that now, rather than that self-gratulatory little circle jerk you were in, the first 10 or so messages of this thread.

Save your pity for people who need it. You're acting like a third-grader.

I just wish I had Katherine Kurtz's royalties. Not DD, but you are getting closer. Try SMS.

Note to trolls: I report anyone to Amazon for the cute troll-trick of writing crap reviews without having read my stuff.

Note: I assume you couldn't get through it.

Especially Grumpus. Vonnegut survived the Dresden Firestorm. As far as I'm concerned, living through that to write about it gets him a free pass, and I'm not even crazy about a lot of his fiction.

If Grumpus is going to conquer malaria, I hope his scientific method is better than his logic.

His disposition, as evidenced by his name, is past praying for.

I've been on the Internet almost 20 years now, and I've been part of Internet communities precisely that long. In fact, I've maintained my own newsgroup that's migrated from board to board and has retained many of the same people: we've seen them educated, traveled, published, retired from the service, married, divorced, out of work, back in work, and the baby and grandbaby pictures are awfully cute. We've also seen some of them buried. One was the Marine Colonel I spoke of.

One reason that the part of the group that's stayed together has stayed together is that we've had enough respect for each other to be honest: what we present ourselves as is what we are. Jokes are fine: dishonesty is destructive. Emotional and intellectual reactions are fine. Passive aggression and tricks are not.

Here, I use a netname because I'm among strangers. The use of netnames makes honesty even more necessary.

"Winding people up" is a way of attempting to get them mad dishonestly. I assure you, Grumpus, you can tick me off simply by being yourself with your double standard. You would -not- have acknowledged the privilege under which you benefit if you hadn't been hammered into doing so.

See a movie. You can use the escape, even an aspiring engineer like you. After all, as Tolkien said, there is a difference between the escape of the prisoner and the flight of the deserter. Or, shed the shell, disclose, and be a Mensch. Life's a whole lot easier that way.