No, no it's not. It doesn't in any shape or form help the technological or cultural progress of humanity. Those who have convinced you otherwise have done an enormous disservice to you as an individual and the cause you claim to advance.
I think a gender studies degree is just as
valid as any other. Gender studies isn't a synonym for women's rights or feminism, I think there are some genuinely interesting areas of research that can be studied by someone qualified in gender studies (or a similar social/cultural field). Naturally, history, as a research field, has a lot to benefit from a gender approach as gender is such a huge part of society and always has been.
While I think you may have a hard time finding a job if your degree is in Women's Studies, it's also still a legitimate degree and field of research. I believe there is also a Men's Studies (a field of research, not sure about a degree) but much of history is about men from a man's point of view so I imagine there's a lot of overlap with other fields and a lack of demand for people qualified in Men's Studies. That only reinforces Gender Studies as a legitimate field as it takes a male or female approach (or both).
I know it sounds boring and trivial, but some people are genuinely interested in how gender roles influenced the history of certain societies and things like that. If Gender Studies is used to ask new questions, answer old questions, or used to conduct research in a novel way, whilst maintaining academic integrity (historical, cultural, or scientific), then I'm perfectly happy for such a degree to be considered as valid.
I would say that Gender Studies could be a subfield of history, as I'm more familiar with its use in a historical application, but I believe it is also used in other disciplines (psychology, politics, sociology, anthropology, etc). In that way, it is similar to anthropology in the sense that it is so interdisciplinary, and focuses on a (relatively) specific area of research, that it is more useful to learn about all the different aspects of the field than just a particular subfield from a single Faculty.
edit: That second picture is a bit frustrating, I'd be pissed if I ended up in court because I misunderstood "yes" for meaning "yes".
edit 2:
You can say that about almost anything though - and in this case, it's going to come back to bite them.
Not sure if the rest of your post follows on from this or is separate but I think the feminists in those photos are not quite the same as the Tumblr feminists I mentioned. The latter are more
Separatists, from what I can see, while the former are mixed up with Radical feminists and Equity feminists. As I've said before, you can't lump 'em all together and that's why I attack the views of one group of feminists yet defend the views of another. It's unfortunate that they're all termed under the umbrella of 'feminism' as that deters a lot of people (me included, since RadFems are probably the majority on the internet and among younger (<30yo) people).