Women's Studies vs. Gender Studies

PART 5 OF 8

We are considering changing the name of our department from Department of
Women's Studies to Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies to
better reflect what it is we do.  I know some of you have gone through this
process.  Could you please contact me off list and let me know if your
department has undergone this change?  If you have you rationale statement
handy, that would be a great help, as there is involved paperwork we have to
submit. Thank you.

Wendy Griffin, Chair
Dept. of Women.s Studies
CSULB
wgriffin  AT  csulb.edu

University of London has Centre for Gender Studies.  I think it sounds less one
-sided and more comprehensive. Achamma Chandersekaranachandersekaran  AT 
hotmail.com

Hi,

I certainly am not after a "flamewar" on this issue, but I am not
quite familiar with this one argument -- one-sided about what?

Thanks,
Mehmet Ergun
mehmetaergun  AT  gmail.com

I think I wrote about this, when it was a different thread, awhile ago. Our
Women's Studies Council, that advises me as their head (once Director, now
Coordinator, because we lost our program autonomy), decided at a retreat a
few years back that if we ever got a major we would call it "Women's and
Gender Studies."  (I now think we should call it Women's, Gender, and
Sexuality Studies.)  However, we did not agree to change our program's name
before that.

The reason for the continued inclusion of WS is that the founding of WS has
a long, significant, political history - and attention to "women" as a
_heterogeneous_ "group" - one not based on some mythically uniform
biologically based concept of "women," but rather as a historically and
socially constructed entity, is still important to teach our students about
- even as we also teach about genders and transgender.  But we also
acknowledged that "gender" alone, can potentially leave out "women," and
transgendered people as groupings/categories; there can be "gender studies"
that is _not_ cutting edge, even if much of it is, just as there can be
queer studies without lesbians or bisexual "women" - however, we define
"women."

So, that is how we came out - with, I hope, some respect for past (and still
present) needs of our students, scholarship in our field(s), recognition of
the "varieties" of studies we include under the rubric of "Women's Studies."

I, just like Mehmut, in no way, wish to start any "flame war" about this all
- in fact, as I hope you all understand, the exact opposite.  A long time
ago I believe a number of these "controversies" - much like the
"autonomy"/integration debate - have been "reconciled" by WS practitioners.
And my program's conclusions and decisions are not only one's I continue to
agree with, but our students "get" them, too.

Best wishes, Barbara Scott Winkler, Women's Studies, Southern Oregon
University, winklerb  AT  sou.edu or winklerb  AT  charter.net

UCSB went through a name change when we had our PhD program approved. WE
debated Women, Gender, and Sexualities but settled on Feminist Studies to
move beyond the women vs. gender debate, to displace focus from bodies to
critical perspectives, to shift the discussion from who is included to what
constitutes feminism over time and place and to be more inclusive--for
gender does not include other categories of identity that we find crucial,
race, class, and nation, but feminists come in all sizes, shapes,
identities, genders, races, etc. Of course, there is peril in any of these
changes--to the extent that white middle class women claim feminism is only
about them, we can be misinterpreted; or, that students recoil from
Feminazi. But we are more than happy to contest those arenas of struggle.

Eileen Boris

******Please note that I have a new e-mail address as of July 1:
boris  AT  femst.ucsb.edu and we have a new Department Name: The
Department of Feminist Studies  Please note the change for future
correspondences.*******

Eileen Boris
Hull Professor and Chair
Department of Feminist Studies
Professor of History, Black Studies, and Law and Society
University of California, Santa Barbara
South Hall
Santa Barbara, California 93106
boris  AT  femst.ucsb.edu

I am overjoyed, at a time when not only feminism but also women are being
disappeared into the nebulous world of 'gender', which appears to be
alternately a euphemism for women, or feminism - or, increasingly 'men too'
- to see that some are taking the stand for feminist studies in the academy.
I have been very concerned at the disappearing not only of feminism but even
of women from women's studies.

the idea that 'gender studies' is more 'inclusive' is worrying.  inclusive
of whom or what?  

have not women been excluded just about everywhere, have not we railed for
decades against most studies being 'men's studies'?  (this is still the
case:  my students tell me it is not unusual, outside women's studies, to be
given only books by men to read, nothing by women - whatever the discipline.
the opposite - or even 50-50 - remains highly unusual).

we have had this conversation often on WMST-L and I am sure that joan will
soon refer us to the archive of such threads.

but once again I find myself thinking of the delightful 'oh yes, I'm the
professor of gender' (a satirical text written at the height of postmodern
preoccupation with psychoanalysis and so on, to be sung to the tune of 'the
great pretender').  it is such a funny satire that I can't help once again
drawing listmembers' attention to it.

bronwyn

*****************************************************************
Dr Bronwyn Winter 
Associate Dean, Undergraduate Matters
Program Director, International and Comparative Literary Studies
Faculty of Arts 

Senior Lecturer
Dept of French Studies
School of Languages and Cultures
University of Sydney
NSW  2006  Australia
Email: bronwyn.winter  AT  usyd.edu.au

I would consider Women's Studies as one-sided about gender.
 
Achamma Chandersekaran
 
achandersekaran  AT  hotmail.com

Barbara wrote:

"The reason for the continued inclusion of WS is that the founding of WS has
a long, significant, political history - and attention to "women" as a
_heterogeneous_ "group" - one not based on some mythically uniform
biologically based concept of "women," but rather as a historically and
socially constructed entity, is still important to teach our students
about - even as we also teach about genders and transgender."

Unfortunately, the "biologically-based concept" IS what unites all women. It
is far from "mythical."  There is such a thing as biological sexual
dimorphism, period. The social/historical construction of what it means to b
a woman is a separate issue, but the biology is very real.

Hard to believe one wants to teach one's students from a starting point that
is patently false.  As I've commented many times before on this list, the
existence of biological anomalies does not change the fundamental facts, and
I don't see it as a service to our students to attempt to deny those facts.
If we begin from such patently ideological denials of reality, those are
pretty good grounds for students to wonder about the validity of what we
teach them in general.

D. Patai 

As Bronwyn mentions, yes, there is a four-part archive of the discussion,
"Women's Studies v. Gender Studies," from conversations in June '93, September
'94, October '98/January '02, and October 2005. Part I can be found here (I'm
having some trouble locating Parts II-IV):
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/womvsgen.html

Jessica Nathanson List Co-Manager nathanso  AT  augsburg.edu

--On Friday, September 12, 2008 10:51 AM -0700 Jessica Nathanson
<janathanson  AT  YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> As Bronwyn mentions, yes, there is a four-part archive of the discussion,
> "Women's Studies v. Gender Studies," from conversations in June '93,
> September '94, October '98/January '02, and October 2005.  Part I can be
> found here (I'm having some trouble locating Parts II-IV):
> http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/womvsgen.html

Jessica's helpful message has called my attention to a possible source of
confusion.  The first page of the file she cites carries the notation "Part
1 of 4."  If you push the 'Next' button to move to the next page, you'll see
that that page is marked "Part 2 of 4."  Push 'Next' again and...yes, you've
guessed it: "Part 3 of 4."  Whereas it was clear to me when I created the
file, I now see how the wording could be confusing.  I'm not sure what if
anything I'll do about it, since there are almost 300 files, many of which
have that wording.  However, I at least wanted to clarify that all four
parts can be accessed from the URL Jessica provided.

	Joan

	Joan Korenman, WMST-L Co-Manager
	jskor AT umbc.edu
  http://www.umbc.edu/wmst/wmst-l_index.html

I am somewhat confused by the definition of ideology relied upon here. 
Apparently teaching critical thinking - among which I count instructing
students in thoughtful suspicion of anything taken to be "factual" - is here
construed as "ideological rejection of reality." 

My confusion at this strange reversal is offset only by my great relief in
finding out that there are, after all, unshakable facts upon which we can
unquestioningly rely.  Truth can be so comforting!

C. Heike Schotten
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Massachusetts-Boston
Boston, MA 02125-3393

Okay - I'll refine my statement: when I said "mythical" I meant "socially
constructed," rather than "biologically determined" and was also rejecting
the idea that all women, everywhere, at everytime, are "uniform" as a group
- with no differences in standpoint, group and individually defined needs,
political perspectives, etc.  For more work on this - an old discussion -
see the work of historian Joan Wallach Scott among others.

I have no problems with being "taken to task" for imprecise language -
especially since I am a big girl - a 58 year old tenured professor in
Women's Studies, although recently "demoted" at my school, a small regional
state comprehensive "university," from "Director" of WS to "Coordinator"
because our WS Program lost its autonomy in a period of fiscal exigency two
years ago.

However, I do think that we can be more respectful in even our criticisms of
each other's ideas - although, in my classroom, I confine my groundrules to
stating that we will criticize ideas, not people - so Daphne, you are within
your rights.  However, "biological sexual dimorphism" is a big can of worms,
which we have discussed at some time or other on this list.  I have no
desire to really go over that particular discussion again.  My point is
about "how we become women" as a group - a socially constructed grouping -
which differs over time and cultures and is something we "assert" or
struggle for in a political, social and historical sense.

Okay, I'm tired - it was a long and wonderfully collegial day at my
university, talking about the uses of community-based learning in the second
of a two-day workshop - but still tiring.

Yours in struggle, Barbara Scott Winkler, Southern Oregon University,
"Coordinator" of Women's Studies, winklerb  AT  sou.edu or winklerb  AT  charter.net

Daphne Patai says "There is such a thing as biological sexual dimorphism,
period."

She's right, of course, but only insofar as "dimorphism" is a sign, a
construct, with the same relationship between signifier and signified that any
sign possesses.  Does "dimorphism" exist "in nature"?  Well, sure, but so do
"anomalies," themselves "natural" and only defined as a "violation of the law"
(a-nomos) if one constructs them so culturally.  No culture, no dimorphism. 
Period.

dyb


Diana York Blaine, Ph.D.
Associate Teaching Professor
The Writing Program and Gender Studies
University of Southern California
dblaine  AT  usc.edu
http://www.dianablaine.com

"Serving the Moon Goddess since 1961"

I once worked for a student union of a university as their the Coordinator
of its' "Gender Issues Centre".  The women members of the union lost the
battle to keep the name of the centre "The Women's Centre" and backed down
because the male members of the union - the majority - bullied and shamed
them into it.  Of course, very few male students used the centre and those
who did, used it to attempt to bully ME into using my budget for
books/tapes/videos and so on to purchase material by and about the Father's
Right's Movement.  Any meeting held by women students to discuss rape and
harassment on campus were interrupted by male students who insisted that
they, as males, had a right to participate in each and every meeting held in
the "Gender Issues Centre" and it was a very difficult few years - I was as
uncomfortable with the name as were many of the women union members and
other students but with the name "Gender Issues Centre" I was also
accountable to the male members of the union.   Professors and Management
also became involved, taking me aside to assure me that they supported their
women students but that I should really "shut up" about rape, harassment and
other abused of women on campus because they had the "reputation" of the
University to maintain and that they wouldn't want parents to complain
which, would affect their numbers and bottom line.  There were many, many
confrontations and it was all very "what's the point"?  Women who wanted
FEMINISM were pitted against women who wanted to keep and pacify their
boyfriends - empowerment was impossible in such an environment.

I think that it's really important to maintain "feminist" and "women" in any
"names".  Otherwise, what's the point of the programme to begin with.
Women's Studies or Feminist Studies is a very different programme than is
"Gender Studies".

We are losing so much already with reigious extremists appropriating the
words we use to define ourselves and if we don't stand against, we will lose
everything.  Words are important; they tell us who we are and who we can be.
That's important to young women exploring their indentities and if we don't
provide that model, who will?  Sarah Palin and her group "Feminists for
Life?  Shafley and her Eagle Forum"? and in Canada, REAL Women of Canada???
The latter blames us for incest and rape!!!

Be very, very cautious about this Name Change thing.  When REAL Women of
Canada made it's appearance many years ago Feminists here did not want to be
perceived as criticizing it's views and policies and most remained silent,
believing that the group was a "flash in the pan" and would just go away.
Today they are advisors to the Prime Minister of Canada.  Hopefully, we
won't make the same mistake again and remain silent.  Removing the word
"Women" and replacing it with "Gender" is silencing us in the same way.

Just my two cents - Canadian :)
Sasha McInnes
sasha  AT  netbistro.com

"Feminism has fought no wars.
It has killed no opponents.
It has set up no concentration camps,
starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties.
Its battles have been for education, for the vote,
for better working conditions ...
for safety on the streets, for child care,  for social welfare...
for rape crisis clinics, women's refuges, reforms in the laws.
If someone says, "Oh, I'm not a feminist!", I ask,
"Why? What's your problem?"

by Dale Spender
For The Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge

Dear Sasha:
 
Point well taken.  Every issue has two sides, I suppose.  I am not experienced
in handling this issue.  Your experience tells volumes.
Good luck in choosing a name.

Achamma Chandersekaran  
achandersekaran  AT  hotmail.com

For those of you who are considering changing the name of your women's studies
programme to include "gender", I'd recommend that you read the following by
Janine Brodie (York University) and Isabella Bakker (Univeristy of Alberta):

Where Are the Women?
Gender Equity, Budgets and Canadian Public Policy
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2008/09/ReportsStudies1962/index.cfm?pa=A2286B2A  

Among the many wonderful resources and activities of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives is that their publications can be downloaded.


Sasha McInnes
sasha  AT  netbistro.com