Women's Studies vs. Gender Studies

"Women's Studies" vs. "Gender Studies," round 3 (October 1998 and
January 2002)

PART 3 OF 8

 
Dear Women's Studies List:
 
What's the latest on the co-optation of feminist Women's Studies into a
"non feminist" Gender Studies?  Has anyone done a systematic study?
Personally, I wish we'd call it Feminist Studies.  I'm disturbed that
at some universities, they have to call it "gender" instead of women.
Yes, I know that men have gender, too.  But since universities are
patriarchal institutions, I remain suspicious.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net

 
I share your suspicion.  While I have no answers, I would suggest that it
is probably related to the mechanism that has resulted in sexuality
studies derailing gay studies.
 
Linda Yanney
lyanney   AT   blue.weeg.uiowa.edu

 
Re re-naming of Women's Studies as Gender Studies.  Yes, this is an
increasing trend in Australia as well.  The namechange has happened at the
University of Sydney and one of the main Adelaide universities, no doubt
elsewhere in Australia as well.  It reflects a conservative ideological shift
in women's studies towards pomo and queer theory.
I know of no statistical study but the anthology Radically Speaking (ed
Renate Klein and Diane Bell) contains a whole section with critiques of queer
studies, gender studies and so on.  There is also a wonderful song around,
sung at the book's launch in Adelaide in 1996, called "The Professor of
Gender".  It is sung to the tune of "The Great Pretender" and is extremely
funny.  If listmembers are interested I'll retrieve my copy of the words and
post it.
Bronwyn Winter
University of Sydney (NB I'm *not* in the Gender Studies Dept!)

 
At 08:41 AM 10/15/98 U, you wrote:
>Several requests came in for Jalna Hamner's satire "I'm not a professor of
gender" and I look forward to seeing the entire song, since I was there when
she sang it.  I added a verse which you might like:
 
I'm NOT a professor of gender
My thinking is much more complex
They show you the way
That you can be gay
But I'm FEMALE
Cause that is my sex.
 
When I say gay I am referring to the obliteration of lesbians in the gay
lesbian bi trans movement included in Gender Studies, as Gender Studies
deletes women, or as I've put it recently, Women's Studies is dissolved not
coopted.  First the ambitious women were coopted.  Then they dissolved what
was left.
 
USC first changed Study of Women and Men in Society into Gender Studies.
Then there came an edict not to allow courses  that were titled "Women and...."
with friends like that who needs enemies.
Pauline

 
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand the significance of the
semantics involved with renaming women's studies to gender studies. Why has this
been done? What does it mean to those who support the new label, gender studies?
What are the implications? Thanks in advance...
 
Carrie Lybecker

 
What has also happened is that the word "gender" is being used as a
synonym for the word "sex,"
when that is not the case.  Ruby Rohrlich
rohrlich   AT   gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

 
>Re re-naming of Women's Studies as Gender Studies.
 
This also happened at UC Davis in 1996.  When I and many members of the
Women's Studies program approached the head of the department for a
reason for this change, the response given represented financial reasons.
Specifically, more money would become available if Women's Studies were
represented as Gender Studies.  Almost every student in the Women's
Studies Department at that time requested their degree represent Women's
Studies and not Gender Studies, but this change was only granted for that
specific quarter of graduation from what I understand.  We were also told
not to worry about it, as this was just a way to be included under the
umbrella that represented African-American, Latin-American,
Asian-American and American Studies in one department.  I objected then,
and I object now to this assimilation for all involved.  Seems to be just
another way to re-produce another  "less than" paradigm.
 
I would also like the words to that song Bromwyn!
 
Diane Frechin
dfrechin   AT   juno.com

 
Re: the below responses (among others), I'm curious about where these
"edicts" come from, since most of the narratives posted to this list so far
have suggested that Women's Studies "becomes" Gender Studies without any
discussion, debate, faculty or student input, etc. What are the governance
structures that enable this kind of change--eg, I wonder how, at a state
school like UCDavis, the chair was somehow permitted to change the dept's
name on her own--or are we missing some steps in the histories?
 
Laura Stempel Mumford
Lsmumfrd   AT   mailbag.com
 
 
At 07:38 PM 10/14/98 -0700, Pauline Bart wrote:
 
>USC first changed Study of Women and Men in Society into Gender Studies.
>Then there came an edict not to allow courses  that were titled "Women
and...."
>with friends like that who needs enemies.
 
and At 11:37 PM 10/14/98 EDT, Diane J Frechin wrote:
 
>This also happened at UC Davis in 1996.  When I and many members of the
>Women's Studies program approached the head of the department for a
>reason for this change, the response given represented financial reasons.
>Specifically, more money would become available if Women's Studies were
>represented as Gender Studies.  Almost every student in the Women's
>Studies Department at that time requested their degree represent Women's
>Studies and not Gender Studies, but this change was only granted for that
>specific quarter of graduation from what I understand.  We were also told
>not to worry about it, as this was just a way to be included under the
>umbrella that represented African-American, Latin-American,
>Asian-American and American Studies in one department.  I objected then,
>and I object now to this assimilation for all involved.  Seems to be just
>another way to re-produce another  "less than" paradigm.

 
I wanted to share some thoughts on this issue since it has been on my mind
a lot recently.  It seems to me that there are several sets of questions
to consider:
 
*what is implied theoretically by "gender" v. "women's" studies
 
*the practical implications of these theoretical underpinnings (for
scholars, activists, students, etc.)
 
*the political context in which such a change is made
 
 
I want to say up front that I believe that such a shift *can* be useful
and doesn't necessarily have to undermine, co-opt, or dissolve the
political usefulnees of the category "women."  So let me explain my
reasons for this and invite responses and other perspectives.
 
Gender studies--as I understand it (and I realize that there may be
multiple uses of the term, some of which I do not subscribe to)--focuses
on the construction of masculinities and femininities.  Plural, of course,
because there is no one masculine or feminine subject position.  There are
only specific subjectivities which are the intersection of gender, race,
class, sexual orientation, etc.
 
The trend toward "gender" studies reflects the movement away from an
identity politics which has tended to set up a seemingly unified category
(namely "women"), and toward an acknowledgement of contingent/multiple
identities.  Focusing on the complex construction of gender in conjunction
with other aspects of identity actually allows for multiple alliances and
is more reflective and respectful of the reality of women's lives.
(Everyone on this list is aware--often in painful, personal ways--of how
an appeal to "women" ends up excluding, dismissing the experiences of, or
in some way denying the realities of some women.  No matter how good the
intentions of the speaker, the use of the category "women" inevitably
constructs operative norms.)  It also provides for a fuller acknowledgment
of systems of privilege.
 
Please do not misunderstand my argument here:  I am *not* in any way
saying that because identity is constructed or because the category
"women" sets up a false sense of uniformity, that therefore "real" women
don't exist, don't have real problems, etc.
 
Likewise, I am not necessarily suggesting that something called
"Women's Studies" couldn't adopt a perspective which acknowledged an
integrative approach to identity construction--for, of course, women's
studies scholars have already done this!
 
What I am arguing, however, is that a shift to gender studies provides
certain advantages.  The more I do violence prevention education, the more
I realize how critical it is to become aware of and explicitly address the
relationship between the construction of masculinities and violence
against "women."  Moreover, it is precisely the construction of
masculinities in opposition to the construction of femininities that needs
to be examined.  This is not about "making men the center of attention."
It's about dismantling masculinity in its various forms so as to put men's
violence against women at the center, so that, in turn, we can bring about
change.  This doesn't preclude the continuation of services to survivors,
services which are in fact women-centered.  But prevention work that
only addresses women can't ever be more than "attempted prevention for an
inevitable problem."  What I am interested in is challenging the
assumption that violence against women has to be inevitable.
 
I look forward to hearing from others, especially those who are engaged in
similar kinds of work.
 
 
Mary Goldschmidt
Director, The Women's Center
Ramapo College of New Jersey
505 Ramapo Valley Road
Mahwah, NJ 07430-1680
201/684-7462

 
Just as the word "feminist" has always been a dirty word, so has the word
"women" in "women's studies."   I remember students wanting to use the
word "lady" because they had difficulty using "woman."  The word "gender"
is being mis-used when it is used instead of "women."  It stems from the
desire to eclipse "woman". Ruby Rohrlich
rohrlich   AT   gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

Bronwyn Winter wrote:
 
> Re re-naming of Women's Studies as Gender Studies.  Yes, this is an
> increasing trend in Australia as well.  The namechange has happened at the
> University of Sydney and one of the main Adelaide universities, no doubt
> elsewhere in Australia as well.  It reflects a conservative ideological shift
> in women's studies towards pomo and queer theory.
 
Please explain how postmodern feminism and queer theory is conservative and
how this is reflected in the shift to "Gender Studies" nomenclature!
 
Lynne Alice
 
Women's Studies    AT    Te Kunenga ki Purehuroa (Massey University). Excellence
in teaching, flexible courses and a friendly environment. Private Bag
11-222 Palmerston North, New Zealand 5301. Tel. 06 350 4417.

I share Joanne Callahan's wish that we'd named our programs "Feminist Studies"
in the first place.  I'm sure most of us chose "Women's Studies" as the title
most acceptable to administrations at the time.  As for the trend toward
titling programs "Gender Studies," it may be an indication of
institutionalization/co-option, but it could also reflect a broadening of the
curriculum, or might even mean that our infiltration of the traditional
curriculum is becoming more successful (call me Pollyanna).
 
Even though I agree with much of Mary Goldschmidt's argument supporting
"Gender Studies,"  I still think "Feminist Studies" is the best and most
accurate title: it's inclusive of almost any topic imaginable and doesn't
allow easily for co-option.  After all, one of our constant concerns is that
non-feminist instructors or material can slip into our courses.
 
By the way in the NWSA list of programs I found only four that have "feminist"
in their titles:  Stanford, Burlington College (VT), Goddard College (VT), and
Hampshire College (MA).  What is it about "conservative" New England?
 
To Pamela Kemner:  Yes, I've been a "pain in the ass," too, as surely many
other women have been.  You know the old sayings -- "He's assertive, she's
aggressive;  he's ambitious, she's a ball-buster," etc.  Seems to me one must
try to tread a line between doing one's thing/ignoring the flack and playing
the game/stifling some natural expressions.  It helps to find mutually
supportive networks of other women (and maybe some men) who are similar and
sympathetic.
 
Kathleen Preston
Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA
KathKnight   AT   aol.com

I don't know if this could be considered a "trend" or not, but I have
noticed that the shift to Gender Studies seems to occur just prior to, or
while in the progress, of a Women's Studies Program petitioning to become
a Department.  Thus, I wonder if this is a general response to broaden the
*perceived* intellectual scope of Women's Studies.  I say perceived
because much of what is touted as "new" in Gender Studies has been
vigorously addressed in Women's Studies for quite some time.
 
With that said, I don't think that the shift itself is necessarily a bad
thing.  Many colleges and universities have poorly supported Women's
Studies Programs.  Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Studies
Programs also tend to be poorly supported.  Under some circumstances, it
thus makes sense for the two programs to merge under the new banner of
Gender Studies -- particularly if either or both programs are in jeopardy
of losing their funding.
 
It seems to me that the point of concern should not be the banner, but
that the program or department maintains its feminist center.  This
focuses the success and survival of the discipline where it should be:  on
the commitment of the participants rather than on a title.
 
Iana
ampatt02   AT   athena.louisville.edu

I am unalterably opposed to joing withwhat I call gay et al studies.  What
on earth makes you think it would have a feminist center?  UCLA has Women's
Studies and LBGT studies.  All the women they bring in as far as I can tell,
are women with whom most of the Women's Movement disagrees.  They represent
the pro pornography anti feminist wing of the Movement.  Their visitng
professor was Alice Echols.  Every radical feminist I know, including Jane
Mansbridge who was in Bread and Roses at the beginning of the women's
movement and now is a professor at the Kennedy School (Harvard) and Carole
Anne Douglas, who was in Cell 16,other early feminist group, and has been in
the Off Our Backs Collective as long as I can remember and does their
interviews and book reviews disagree with Echols analysis about how the
early  radical feminists became cultural feminists. I have been called a
cultural feminist , which is absurd, since I spend five hours a day
listening to and watching the daily news and read the NY Times from cover to
cover, as well as writing letters to editors and am about to work on the
BOxer campaign.  The term is mainly a pejorative.  Of course, since radical
feminists don't get much coverage, Echols work is uniformly cited.
I mention this to show that what LGBT thinks of feminism is not what most
people on this list do.  LGBT Studies brought in Gayle Rubin.  Gayle IS
brilliant and one of her articles is a classic, but she is an activist
promoting sado masochism. If we are are cultural feminists rather than
political how can she explain Catharine MacKinnon's work on making rape a
war crime when representing the Bosnian women.
 
The only woman I know who will say she is a cultural feminist is an ecofeminist.
 
I know this is an emotional note, but as I see women's studies being
dissolved into "humanist studies", and remembering what Adrienne Rich said
about humanism, I become enraged.  Names do mean something.  Probably the
best name would be feminist studies, so that people in the class can't
complain about our alleged bias. That happenned when I taught a course
called Gender and Society.
 
Pauline Bart
 

At 02:49 PM 10/18/98 +1300, you wrote:

>Please explain how postmodern feminism and queer theory is conservative and
>how this is reflected in the shift to "Gender Studies" nomenclature!
>
>Lynne Alice

Dear Lynne Alice,
Rather than "counting the ways" I suggest you examine Spinifex
Press'anthology Radically SPeaking:Feminism Reclaimed ed. Diane Bell and
Renate Klein. And note that the term "Queer Thoery" disappears women, as
does the term "Gender". What disappears women as a term is conservative.
And, as a researcher in violence against women, neither addresses the harm
men do to women in rape, incest, battery etc.  They focus on these as
"discourses".  The New Y ork Times had a great satire some time ago based on
someone's statement that no one knew what post modernism was.  The proponant
in the satire was going to sue the MLA.
Pauline Bart

I rather like the way the Russians do it:  they call it Feminology and
it's considered (as the label implies) a full-fledged social science
with lots of sub-disciplines etc.
 
Debbie <louis   AT   umbc.edu>

>At 01:29 PM 10/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I am unalterably opposed to joing withwhat I call gay et al studies.  What
>on earth makes you think it would have a feminist center?  UCLA has Women's
>Studies and LBGT studies.  All the women they bring in as far as I can tell,
>are women with whom most of the Women's Movement disagrees.  They represent
>the pro pornography anti feminist wing of the Movement.
 
"...are women with whom most of the Women's Movement disagrees?"

I was not aware that the Women's Movement was a monolithic whole that only
apporved of certain groups and that lesbians are not one of those groups!
And the last time I checked you could be pro pornograpy and still be feminist.
I find the point of view you've expressed very disturbing.
 
Fiona Young
fiona-young   AT   uiowa.edu 
 
2401 Hwy 6E, #4404,
Iowa City, IA 52240-6700.
Tel: 319-354-2634
 
"My mother said that I must always be intolerant of ignorance but
understanding of illiteracy. That some people, unable to go to school, were
more educated and more intelligent than college professors."
                        - Maya Angelou.

Dear Pauline,
 
I, too, find the sentiments expressed in your notes very troubling.  What
troubles me is that it not only appears that you are sounding a call to
arms to police the boundaries of feminism, but that you seem to be very
sure about where those boundaries are.  (How do you know what "most of the
Women's Movement" thinks about pornography?  And if a feminist is in the
"minority" in her views, or disagrees with one of your deeply held beliefs,
is she then automatically "anti-feminist"?)
 
I understand that it is painful to be labelled by others and that any label
(such as "cultural feminist" or "postmodern feminist") can be used as a
pejorative.   Having been so labelled does not give you the right to do the
same to others, which you do when you label people with whom you disagree
about pornography or specific sexual practices as "anti feminist," which is
also pejorative and painful to someone who considers herself a feminist.
 
On a personal note, I find your work to be very powerful and useful.  I
assign and reccommend your book "Stopping Rape" every chance I get,
including when teaching basic Research Methods, because I think the message
to women about the efficacy of fighting back and the challenge to
patriarchal advice to women about violence is so important.  However, I
disagree strongly with what is implied in many of yournotes to this list,
that violence against women and severe forms of discrimination are the
only, and certainly the most important, topics for feminism.  If we kick
out anyone from the movement who disagrees with this, who studies different
issues or takes a different approach, then we will become what the real
anti-feminists claim we are, just a movement of victims studying and
asserting our victimization.  That is not the feminist movement that I
became a part of and that inspires me.
 
sincerely and in a spirit of sisterhood,
Frances Montell
 
p.s. I find it ironic that you become "enraged" about the renaming of
Women's Studies and assert that "Names do mean something" yet in your next
note you completely dismiss the postmodern focus on "discourses" as if they
are not real or have no real effects.

Just to throw another element into the mix, I wanted to mention another
phenomenon I've observed lately. I know of two local, recently organized
women's centers, both of which have a rather ambivalent attitude
toward "feminism" as a word and a label. One of these centers is more
culturally oriented; the other is geared to provide mental/physical/
alternative health resources. I get the impression that they are aiming
for maximum outreach, which I see as a positive goal--but the cost is a
certain "don't rock the boat-ism." On the one hand, these organizations
take some (not all) basic feminist concepts for granted as common sense.
On the other hand, in their efforts to avoid controversy, they create an
impression that such common sense about female equality can triumph on its
own, without a movement or organized effort working to make it happen.
And that encourages passivity and historical ignorance, I think.
 
Here's an example of what I see as an ambivalent message: one of the
women's centers sent out a newsletter with a column on depression and low
self esteem in women. The column cited loving partnerships ( no sexual
orientation specified, which was nice), satisfying jobs and family
life as self-esteem boosters. All of this is true enough, but the
omissions were striking: assertiveness and self-determination, economic
security, female friendships, alternative families, working together with
others to change or improve conditions of life were not mentioned as
relevant to self esteem. (Nor were power imbalances or discrimination
mentioned as factors in depression/self esteem.)
 
Does anyone have any thoughts about contemporary "women's centers" and
feminism?
 
Leah Ulansey
leou   AT   jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

hi WMST-Lers: the women's studies program at my small liberal
arts college is contemplating the name change question: should we
change our program's name from women's studies to gender studies
or women and gender studies or feminist studies or whatever?
we're putting together a series of events (speakers, a panel
discussion, web discussion, and focus groups). more than
anything, this is a PR move to educate the campus community and
get them interested and involved in the program. my question for
you is: do you know of any short, accessible articles or other
readings that cover the pros/cons, what's at stake, history, etc.
of the naming issue? i know about the _differences_ ("women's
studies on the edge") special issue and robyn wiegman's recent
_signs_ article. as interesting and brilliant as they are, i
don't feel like i can ask my colleagues in other disciplines or
students not in my theory course to read such (wmst disciplinary
specific) articles before they enter into the discussion. but i
do want to ask that people come to the discussions with some
background. if such readings could be accessed via the web, all
the better. any help or other ideas you can offer would be
greatly appreciated. thanks!

catherine orrc AT  beloit.edu

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Catherine M. Orr
Assistant Professor and Co-Chair of Women's Studies
Beloit College
700 College St. #233
Beloit, WI 53511

In considering the question of a name change from women's studies to gender
studies, be sure to look at Marilyn J. Boxer's book When Women Ask the
Questions: Creating Women's Studies in America. When I asked this same
question (about women's studies vs. gender studies) last year on this
listserv, I received many generous responses, including information about
Marilyn Boxer's book. After I received the responses, I wrote a short
report for my college explaining my position on the name change.  [see 
next message]

A search of the WMST-L archives under women's studies or gender studies
will yield some responses.

All the best,
Pamela
Pamela den Ouden
English and Women's Studies
Northern Lights College
Fort St. John, BC, Canada

Hello!
Several people requested a copy of my report on naming women's studies so I
mounted it on a web site to make it easily available.

http://www.fsj.nlc.bc.ca/staffpages/pdenoudn/wmst/naming.htm

The report was originally written in November 2000.

I hope this helps you with your own discussions.

Pamela den Ouden
English and Women's Studies
Northern Lights College
Fort St. John, BC Canada
pdenoudn   AT   nlc.bc.ca