I read this book years ago and once again more recently. It is hilarious, just flat out funny -- especially so for any woman who survived the uptight politcally correct stages that feminism and lesbian feminism went through. Those happy days when feminists didn't want to associate with lesbians, when lesbians picketed drag queens and every body spent way too much energy criticizing everyone else's lack of activism. Not only does Valley of the Amazons shine a spotlight on the (in hindsight) ludicrous PC wars, it makes room for a tentative romantic entanglement that takes a shy lesbian through all the stages of coming out. The sequel, Who Was That Masked Woman? is worth a read, but not nearly as good as this one.

This is a good collection of useful material. There is an opening section concentrating on Sokal's Hoax, with Sokal and others commenting on the affair. Gross and Levit, of Higher Superstition fame, log in with contributions that are well worth reading. There are essays addressing the Strong Programme, and discussions of Hobbes and the Airpump. Only three papers become very technical. A couple more are somewhat difficult. Meera Nanda's account of how radical science critique is playing out in the third world is excellent and chilling. The postmodernists have strengthened the hand of repressive regimes who reject science as western rationalism, and then set out to fashion an Islamic science or a Hindu arithmetic, etc. Nanda has case studies to back her up. Koertge contributed a nice paper on scientific literacy. Levit's attack on the central dogmas of science studies is quite a punch. I enjoyed every minute of this collection and we need more essays like these.

This book is a collection of essays, and as is usual in such an anthology, the quality of the writing and of the arguments is variable. However, the editor did a terrific job of selecting writers who understand their topics, are not too terribly polemical, and write well enough to articulate their viewpoints.

The book ranges over a variety of responses to the post-modernist attack on science. I found the book quite informative on the content of the anti-science arguments, and while I have not read all of them, the ones I have read are reported fairly in this book. Then they are demolished.

Ini a similar way, I am only competent to judge about half of the science that is presented in the book, but again, what I do know independently is described accurately and articulately in this volume. This book shows that it is possible to write coherently about science and about social issues at the same time. I found the book useful in my attempt to understand the anti-science attacks more clearly than I had been able to do on my own, and I enjoyed the elegant, spirited rebuttals. Read this book, and then think for yourself. You should enjoy the process, no matter which side of the argument you end up on.

Another wonderful book in the so-called "science wars" which demonstrates that many of the critics of science, rationality, objectivity, etc. don't have a leg to stand on intellectually.

"Professing Feminism" professes nothing but sensationalist backlash against feminism within the academy. The anecdotes illustrate extreme positions in an extraordinarily narrow view. As a women's studies major, the continual attacks on "anti-intellectualism" and indoctrination reflected nothing of my experience in WS programs. As WS programs are mostly inter/cross-disciplinary (and the most popularly enrolled cross-listed courses), the authors blatantly omitted the wide material covered within a major's academic career, as well as the fact that the primary thing that WS teaches in critical thinking. You learn to question everything, even that which is taught in a WS course. The often cited "indoctrination of feminism" is an oxymoron. Cultural critique IS scholastic and academically worthy. If you look at the writings from WITHIN the academy, such as academic journals, newsletters, and recent WS publications on feminism and pedagogy, WS is far from static and continually seeks to improve, integrate, and shift their programs as needed. (Good luck on convincing the sciences to alter THEIR pedagogy.) The ivory tower needs WS in order to maintain the integrity of other disciplines as well as to provide intellectual space for those subjects commonly marginalized in the academy, such as ethnic studies and sexuality. The authors condesceningly stereotype and deride the complexities of both of subjects. Those within WS vouch for its profound influence in increasing student engagement with the material. As a student, I work harder in my WS courses and I find I can apply the skills of analysis that I develop to other disciplines, from economics to literature.

Yes, WS must continually be self-critical, but what Patai and Koertge conveniently gloss over is the fact that WS paradoxically seeks to subvert the hierarchies/structures of the academy while simultaneously working within them. Shifting the focus of knowledge from a male center shatters the system. Why would colleges and universities want their "objective" knowledges undermined by a bunch of women? Of course WS isn't welcome!

A far more explanatory and better documented history and description of the debates within WS is Marilyn Boxer's "When Women Ask the Questions." Nonetheless, I read "Professing Feminism" in its entirety, appalled that it claimed to describe my educational experience - and worse, distort WS to other readers outside of WS the reality of the programs. WS has permanently changed "higher" education by including the view, knowledge, and experience of over half of the world's population. To claim THAT as an "embarrassment" or a "massive failure" that lacks "integllectual rigor" simply reinforces the not-quite-gone idea that women belong on the periphery of the world of knowledge. But that's what (conservative) backlash is, right? Divide and conquer. But Women's Studies is here to stay. Perhaps we could make a bit more headway if we didn't have to continually stop and justify our position - our existence - in academia. But the progress WS has made in 30 years is unmatched by any other discipline.

The only thing "anti-intellectual" about women's studies is Patai and Koertge's depiction of it. But go ahead. See if they can indoctrinate YOU. After all, that's what WS is all about, right?

This book is a quite devastating criticism of academic feminism, written by well documented and articulate insiders who seem familiar with the philosophy, theory and practice of academic feminism. The criticism hits on all these levels. If we are to take the book at face value, academic feminism is an intellectual disaster comparable maybe with Stalinism, Scientology or the Inquisition: its method is anti-intellectual, critical thinking is discouraged, dissenters are ostracized. No redeeming qualities are found to mitigate its defects. The whole enterprise is deemed a failure and an embarrassment to its noble origins. Ultimately, feminism as taught and practiced today is presented as a danger to civilized society.

The authors are convincing and the various points are illustrated with interesting anecdotes. Particularly funny was the story of a women's studies lesbian professor announcing the heterosexual students that, if the course works as supposed, all students will be lesbians by the end of the term. One student, a married women with children, was persecuted by the professor by being given substantial extra assignments because she was deemed to be 'stubborn' regarding her (hetero)sexuality.

My qualm is a methodological one. The authors start by saying that they will apply "feminist methodology" in their study. Only later in the book it is explained that feminist methodology prefers anecdotes and testimonials ('connected thinking', which is good) to the "patriarchal" statistics ('compartimentalized thinking' which is bad). But the context of their description of this methodolgy is, again, one of scathing, devastating criticism. Feminist methodology is exposed as pseudo-intellectual. So I can't help but wonder why the authors use the very same methodolgy which their book dismisses as unsound. The effect is that, with a lack of statistical figures, it is impossible to say how pervasive are the problems they mention. Some problems, the ideological ones, are universal by definition. But they are not the most striking. The more striking are the ones regarding the practice of feminism, especially the instances where dissent is supressed and dissenters are punished. But the feminist methodology used by the authors gives us no clue how wide-spread this very important problem is.

I wish to god this book had been available when I was an undergrad at a university that was a nightmare of PC. Deserves to be kept in print until the current generation of posturing wackos have faded away.

Patai and Koertage have studied the hate training program called "Women's Studies" from a sociological perspective. They go into detail on how a badly flawed political training program masquerading as "studies" is now being promoted and taught at virtually every college. Instead of education, young women get dogma. Instead of intellectual challenges, young feminists are taught to accept the party line without question. The authors include reviews of government agency promotion of the dis-education now accepted on college campuses. Where "knowing" replaces scholarship, where victimology replaces competency, where hate replaces wisdom, that is today's "Women's Studies" program. Title IX is mentioned in passing, but the question of an equal education required by law is not asked. With over 700 colleges in the US now funding misandrist propaganda classes called "Women's Studies" why aren't any of them required to also teach equivalent classes for men under Title IX? Even as bad as Women's Studies comes off in this book there is other, and perhaps equally valid and more damning criticism left out.

The book needs to be widely read by every college administrator and by every legislator who has to vote on college budgets. The authors mince a few words, probably to keep from being stoned, but the message is clearly stated. Prejudicial agenda conformity and hate on campus is not education. Buy the book. Give one to your college age student. Donate another one to your favorite library and college.