Men's Studies?

The following discussion of men's studies--what it is, whether it is a
legitimate field of inquiry, what its relationship is to women's or
gender studies--took place on WMST-L in January/February 2000.  For
additional WMST-L files now available on the Web, including a number
dealing with issues concerning men, see the WMST-L File List.

We are considering mounting an intro to men's studies course that would run
concurrently with intro to women's studies.  We were wondering what kind of
reception others had found when offering this course and what problems, if
any, they encountered.  One concern is that doing so blurs the lines between
women's and gender studies and might take our program in a different direction
than we have been heading.

********************************************************
Honesty is more than just not being dishonest.  It is an
active choice to be responsible for the choices we make
before we act upon them so that we can stand up for them
and not be tempted to be dishonest.
********************************************************
Sharon Jacobson, Ed. D.
SUNY Brockport
Women's Studies Program
Brockport, NY 14420
sjacobso  @  brockport.edu
(716) 395-5697  (office)
(716) 395-2620 (fax)
(716) 638-6174 (home)
*************************************************************

I would have to ask why there is thought to be a need for a men's studies
course? Since I see the original intent of women's studies as introducing
scholarship from and about a long-ignored and marginalized segment of the
population, I would find a comparable course about men to be somewhat
problematic. It would also seem to be giving in to every male who has ever
asked "So where's the men's studies then?" as a way of belittling women's
studies. Now perhaps "masculinity studies" might be a slightly different
track?
What do you have in mind for the course?

Fiona Young

Fiona M Young
Women's Studies Program,
University of Iowa.
Tel: (319) 354-2634

E-mail:
fiona-young  @  uiowa.edu (English only)
fionayoung  @  hotmail.com (English and Japanese)

Fiona Young wrote:

> I would have to ask why there is thought to be a need for a men's studies
> course? Since I see the original intent of women's studies as introducing
> scholarship from and about a long-ignored and marginalized segment of the
> population, I would find a comparable course about men to be somewhat
> problematic.

I couldn't agree more!  It's a little bit like this "interrogating whiteness"
stuff that's fashionable at the moment.  While I agree that it has its place,
just like "interrogating masculinity" has its place, as Fiona suggested, I have
the uneasy feeling that both are becoming just another "Me Too" branch of
studies by the dominant class feeling its power threatened - which is silly
really, given the enormity of the dominant classes' power and the small extent
to which even the most radical and outspoken feminist activity is,
realistically, threatening it (which is not at all meant to suggest that
feminist action is ineffectual or ill-advised:  on the contrary, it is a pity
there is not more of it!)  Proves how scared they are of us, really, doesn't it?
:-)

Bronwyn

What does it mean to be in the world _as a man_?  What happens to persons who
 are
born and raised male?  What social factors affect their growth and development
 as
human beings?  What societal benefits and prohibitions are associated with
maleness?  How is the male subject defined?

Men's studies is not a "me too" reaction to women's studies.  Men's studies
seriously takes up the challenge feminists have issued for years for men to
 locate
themselves _as men_ rather than with the pretense of objective experts in a
 world
where women are outsiders.  I see men's studies as a continuation of feminist
methods in an area of scholarship that is virtually untouched.  It's a little
 odd to
keep all the subjectivity to ourselves.  Should not scholars (men and women
 both)
examine what factors are at play in the experiences of men?  Doesn't that have a
 lot
to do with what feminists are doing?  Moreover, as we penetrate mythology that
justifies the oppression of women, is it helpful to leave untouched the
 mythology
around men?  Men's studies is a vibrant area of scholarship that stands on its
 own
merits.  I also think it furthers and expands women studies.  This is exactly
 what
we've been asking men to do.

The entire discipline of anthropology and the entire literature of
existential philosophy have been tackling and answering the questions
posed by a.r. calvert as the subject matter of "men's studies."  both of
these areas of research and discourse have been and will continue to be
open to analysis, critique, and participation of feminist scholars, and
easily integrated into interdisciplinary approaches to specific issues.

debbie <louis  @  umbc.edu>

I agree with some of you that an intro to men's studies can be
problematic. I see the problem  in the symmetrical construction of the
courses, which reproduces a dualistic concept of gender. Why not
interrogate masculinity in a women's studies intro? That seems more
appropritae to me, since we have to deal with gender(s) beyond "women",
anyway.

Annette Schlichter
UC Irvine
aschlich  @  uci.edu

Interrogating whiteness is not quite the same as studying men (although
it might be parallel to studying masculinities).  I think interrogating
whiteness is a positive thing for feminism, since whiteness has been
rendered invisible and "transparent"; that is, it's assumed to be the norm
against which
everybody else is measured.  When we can problematize whiteness, we can
move beyond that assumption of the "normality" of whiteness.

M. Charlene Ball, Administrative Coordinator
Women's Studies Institute
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia  30303-3083
404/651-4633
404/651-1398 fax
wsimcb  @  panther.gsu.edu
http://www.gsu.edu/womenpower

>Interrogating whiteness is not quite the same as studying men (although
>it might be parallel to studying masculinities).  I think interrogating
>whiteness is a positive thing for feminism, since whiteness has been
>rendered invisible and "transparent"; that is, it's assumed to be the norm
>against which
>everybody else is measured.  When we can problematize whiteness, we can
>move beyond that assumption of the "normality" of whiteness.
<snip>
>> I couldn't agree more!  It's a little bit like this "interrogating
>>whiteness"
>> stuff that's fashionable at the moment.  While I agree that it has its
>>place,
>> just like "interrogating masculinity" has its place, as Fiona suggested, I
> have
>> the uneasy feeling that both are becoming just another "Me Too" branch of
>> studies by the dominant class feeling its power threatened - which is silly
<snip>

I think, maybe, what is being referred to here is a bit different from the
making-visible branch of "whiteness studies."  As I understand it, there
are two very different ways that "whiteness" is being studied at the moment.

One way does just what is suggested above: renders visible that which has
been assumed to be normative and invisible, and challenges the assumptions
of skin color privilege that attend this "normal" state of being (i.e.,
being white).

However, I heard a report about "whiteness studies" on NPR sometime last
fall (sorry--I knew I should have written down the information at the time,
but I didn't) that suggested that there are white folks out there doing
"whiteness studies" in order to provide some sort of balance to ethnic
studies.  There were several interviews with scholars who talked about how
important it is to study "whiteness" so long as there are people studying
"blackness"; I remember one person making pretty explicit his opinion that
ethnic studies is a form of reverse racism.

The impetuses behind these two branches are drastically different.  I would
characterize one (the latter) as a form of racism.  The other (the former)
aims to fight against racism by confronting white privilege.

I imagine that there are "men's studies" scholars who are feminists, and
"men's studies" scholars who are reacting against feminisms, too.  Is this
others' understanding?
Jeannie


+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+
"Context is so little to share, and so vital."
    --Dorothy Allison, "Context"
        in _Skin:_Talking_About_Sex,_Class_&_Literature_

Dr. Jeannie Ludlow                jludlow  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu
Coordinator of the Undergraduate Program    (419)372-0176
American Culture Studies
101 East Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403

Dear Members-

I must voice my agreement with "scout." Until we start looking at masculinity
and the male as part of the construction that condemns us all, men will take
their privilege and position for granted and unquestionably. I first became
interested in the construction of masculinity studying Atom Egoyan's films. I
am always appalled at how unconsciously men live their identities and until
they start studying them, they always will. (o.k, not ALL men, before you hit
that reply button)

The problem for me is, will they study it? Is it just going to be we women
who examine those constructions? I mean, I think "they" need they need
women's studies more than we do and the persistent resistance to it and
ridiculing of it drags on.

I support men studies. The problem is, like diversity studies, the people
that need that information the least take those courses and those who need it
desperately recoil.
How can we restructure our educational systems to get the information where
it is needed?

Stephanie Chastain
chastainst  @  cs.com
P.S. Still looking for your "Your Fired" stories. I know there are more out
there. Pass my request on, please. For those who have responded many thanks
and thanks for responding privately, too.
CHASTAINST  @  CS.COM

Message text written by Sharon Jacobson
>We are considering mounting an intro to men's studies course that would
run
concurrently with intro to women's studies.  We were wondering what kind of
reception others had found when offering this course and what problems, if
any, they encountered.  One concern is that doing so blurs the lines
between
women's and gender studies and might take our program in a different
direction
than we have been heading.<

If I remember correctly, the responses to Sharon's query were pretty much
the same types of responses that the list has seen once before when the
topic of "men's studies" was posed.  

It's actually a term I don't use to describe what I do, since it does have
some connotations of "me-too-ism" at best, backlash at worst.  (After all,
every course without the word "women" in it is a course about men. Except
we call them "literature" "political science" or "history") I say I do
sociology of gender, from a feminist perspective, and the gender I study is
men.  (Incidentally, most of the courses taught these days on men and
masculinity around the country are taught by feminist women and profeminist
men.) 

That said, I obviously agree with those who observed that interrogating
masculinity can be a  vital and necessary extension of the feminist
project: making gender visible as a set of power relations.  After all,
I've devoted my life to it.  What better way is there to decenter the
hegemonic than to render it visible?  Privilege is what keeps priviplege
invisible to those who have it, which is why the analogy to interrogating
whiteness is apt.  If we maintain the fiction that only women are gendered,
we buy into the power that keeps masculinity invisble and normative.  That
is to say, we lose.  

I think we need desperately to interrogate masculinity, and critically, to
both reveal the dynamics of power and privilege, and also to find those
points of entry for men into the discussion of gender equality as allies to
women.  Critical analysis doesn't mean relentlessly critical of the men
themselves.  We need to also examine the ways in which men are changing and
have changed, and also to suggest the strategies of resistance to male
domination that groups of men have developed.  There are positive stories
out there, and I think men also need to hear them to feel that there is a
place for them to begin to unravel the ways in which they (we) have also
been shaped by sexism, our lives disfigured by privilege.  Of course it's
not parallel, equivalent, the "same."  No one but Warren Farrell would say
something as inane as that.  But just as white people need to know how
racism has distorted our lives, so too must men see how sexism and
homophobia have been the pillars upon which we've built an edifice of
masculinity that leaves us feeling empty, defensive, or confused.

Michael Kimmel
SUNY Stony Brook

I have always told students and spoken in other kinds of discussions that
things have to get worse before they get better.
I have always been opposed to the ghetto of so-called "minority" studies in
programs named for their social groups, like "women's studies," "black
americana studies," and "asian studies."
The whole segregation thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But as I always argue, since these groups had no voice in education for
hundreds of years, since white men controlled what history, what art, what
literature, what culture was studied, women, blacks, and a host of others
were left out of the canon.
So, it seems to me "women's studies" and other like programs are a necessary
evil for now in an effort to educate people to the point where courses can be
integrated as "gender studies" (as is happening in many universities slowly)
or a merging of "black americana studies" or "African-American Studies" with
just plain history, and just plain English, and art and so on.

So, what has always puzzled me, given my opinions as outlined above, is why
we need to have a "men's studies" when men's studies is all that there has
been forever???

Seems to me "men's studies" is simply reactionary backlash to women
empowering themselves with courses that pull the blankets off the hidden
sexual discrimmination in every nook and crany of our world. This empowering
for women (and others) is a worthwhile thing, and a good step toward a
society in which gender relations are more about equality and less about
competition and conflict (as much as humans can adapt their natural
tendencies to conflict).
Why men need this empowering is, as the King in _The King and I_ would say:

"a puzzlement."

-- chris tower
WMU, Kalamazoo MI
English/Women's Studies
gmrstudios2  @  cs.com

Greetings, all--

I, too, have a few reservations about the so-called "men's studies" but I
don't believe that it has to be a "backlash" against women's studies,
though there is, indeed, that potential. I think that studying manhood and
masculinity as another construction of gender gives us the opportunity to
stop seeing them as the "norm" and allows us instead to open a few eyes to
how we construct ourselves and the cultural and social context in which we
operate. Perhaps I'm biased in this respect, since I researched American
constructions of white Protestant manhood and masculinity in my
dissertation. At any rate, thanks for bringing this topic up.

cheers,

Evelyn A. Schlatter
Dept. of History
Univ. of New Mexico
evsch  @  unm.edu

Dear Members:

Just a few words in response to this interesting post. Yes, I think we have
studied men and the male world since we started studying. But looking at
great events in history, leaders, authors, inventions is not the same as
looking at how that particular gender has posed particular problems for
themselves, the human race and the earth on a grand
scale. I don't see men studies as the study of how men have shaped the world
any more than women's studies is about that.

I see it as a questioning of the knowledge that we and they have about men.
What is with their sexuality? What about the war thing? Global, human and
personal relations seem to be an enormous problem for them. Parenting? Their
frequent aversion children? Their major fear of women's power?  Money?
Caregiving? Law? The body? Love? And power? Seriously, why aren't they better
at power since they've been doing it for millennia. And while we're at it,
why can't they ask directions or look at a map?

Everything that we have ever studied about men suggests that these issues do
not exist as problems or as questionable. I don't see men's studies being
that way at all.

I tend to think that men coming to some sort of- dare I say it- consciousness
about these things would be good for women.

My point is-we would be taking those courses. They'd be filled to capacity
with women.
Just like all those self-help books have become a kind of exploitation of
women. Men aren't reading about "how to save your marriage." There's a
psychological place they need to be before they can get to the psychological
place they need to be. And for me, that is the problem.

Believe me, I'm no male advocate, in case that thought crossed your minds.
Stephanie
chastainst  @  cs.com

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Michael Kimmel wrote:

> themselves.  We need to also examine the ways in which men are changing and
> have changed, and also to suggest the strategies of resistance to male
> domination that groups of men have developed.  There are positive stories
> out there, and I think men also need to hear them to feel that there is a

Is there such a collection of stories already published? If not, is
someone writing one? I'd love to see references.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandra D. Shattuck, Associate Director          shattuck  @  umbc.edu
Center for Women and Information Technology     www.umbc.edu/cwit
University of Maryland, Baltimore County        research.umbc.edu/~shattuck
Fine Arts 452, 1000 Hilltop Circle              ph:410.455.2822
Baltimore MD 21250                              fx:410.455.1027

Some of the men's studies authors I know of are:
John Stoltenberg
Michael Kimmel
Michael Messner
Harry Brod

I wish I knew more, and if folks want to throw them out--

There's also some really revolting tripe out there.  If you want to read some
really anti-woman stuff, you can check out _Wingspan : Inside the men's
 movement_
(St. Martin's 1992).

However, there's a book I highly recommend if you want to get a glimpse of what
men's studies could be, and that's the book Michael Kimmel edited, _The 
Politics of Manhood : Profeminist men respond to the mythopoetic men's 
movement._

Also, John Stoltenberg's last book, The End of Manhood, seems to hardly have
gotten out.  It's a really radical look at manhood that I think will blow a lot
of minds.  I'm sure it's offensive to many men-- in fact, I've seen his work
referred to disparagingly as penis-hating on a men's movement website.

It's a big mistake to allow Robert Bly and his chums to shape your ideas of the
men's movement and men's studies (these are the me-too chaps), though I do 
think it is important to read some of the texts as an essentialist 
counterpoint to the exciting work of the others.

I'd like to know of more pro-feminist authors whose gender of study is men 
(like Michael Kimmel) and of any websites devoted to this kind of men's 
studies.

(Of course, it just gets more and more interesting when you begin work over a
little on the continuum, like Judith Halberstam's _Female Masculinity_)

A.R. Calvert
scout  @  hoyden.org

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, A.R. Calvert wrote:

> men's studies could be, and that's the book Michael Kimmel edited,
_The Politics > of Manhood : Profeminist men respond to the mythopoetic
men's movement._
> Also, John Stoltenberg's last book, The End of Manhood, seems to hardly have

I appreciate the wonderful suggestions in this post. However, I probably
wasn't as clear in my request for "positive stories" as I could have been.
I was really looking for _stories_ - not so much academic analysis, as
first-person, memoir-type narratives. I have my own narrative of becoming
a feminist, and when I choose to tell it, it's a story that hooks
students. I was thinking that some narratives by men talking about their
journey to a feminist perspective might be effective in the classroom, and
I'd like to know if there are such stories out there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandra D. Shattuck, Associate Director          shattuck  @  umbc.edu
Center for Women and Information Technology     www.umbc.edu/cwit
University of Maryland, Baltimore County        research.umbc.edu/~shattuck
Fine Arts 452, 1000 Hilltop Circle              ph:410.455.2822
Baltimore MD 21250                              fx:410.455.1027

I am posting this message to the listserv in case others are interested..
Stephen Marks, a sociologist at University of Maine, has a wonderful
narrative about his personal journey with feminism and his own
masculinity. He also includes information about his research, but wrote
very openly (at least I think so) about his own experiences. The narrative
is in Donna Sollie and Leigh Leslie's "Gender, Families, and Close
Relationships: Feminist Research Journeys (Current Issues in the Family)".
Published in 1994 by Sage.
This is also a great book about other feminist family researchers.

Hope this helps. I am also interested in this topic, so could others
please post books they know of?

Thanks
Cathy Richards
Oregon State University

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Michael Kimmel wrote:

> themselves.  We need to also examine the ways in which men are changing
and
> have changed, and also to suggest the strategies of resistance to male
> domination that groups of men have developed.  There are positive stories
> out there, and I think men also need to hear them to feel that there is a

to which Sandra Shattuck responded:
>>Is there such a collection of stories already published? If not, is
someone writing one? I'd love to see references.<<

I think one needn't look very far to find examples of men's resistance to
norms of predation, aggression and entitlement.  Many campuses have groups
of men who are working to end date rape, organizing support for Take Back
the Night, etc.  (I wrote about these groups in a piece in Ms. a couple of
years ago.)  My students offer plenty of examples of men who turned down
career moves (transfers etc.) to be around with their kids more.  At the
level of individual change, once the students get the idea that masculinity
is not a monolith, they can investigate the ways in which individual men
try and negotiate change.

NOMAS - The National Organization for Men Against Sexism - is a loose
network of men who work in violence prevention programs (many working in
court-mandated batterers' intervention programs), who work on homophobia
education, and fatherhood, emotional expressivity, and other areas where
men are seeking to change.  And Canada's White Ribbon Campaign is perhaps
the most successful profeminist organization in the world - it's been
started in more than a dozen other countries - and it is based on local men
organizing to end men's violence against women.  [See www.nomas.org and
also www.wrc.org]

At the less "social movement" level, there's some aggregate data about
which groups of men do the most housework and child care (black men do more
than white men who do more than Lationos, though Puerto Ricans do more than
Chicanos who do more than Cubans).  So there are strategies of resistance
in communities of color -- where racist ideas would suggest we ought not to
bother looking.

But if you want an example of the single greatest change in masculinity in
the last 15 years, why not start with the gay male community's response to
AIDS.  Here was a community that was - at least in part - dedicated to
hypermasculine sexual practices -- in terms of numbers of partners,
risk-taking behavior, phallocentrism, objectification, and idealization of
the masculine.  And their response was a dramatic transformation of sexual
activity - by making sure that safety remained eroticized, the exploded the
oxymoron that had traditionally been the way that men understood the phrase
"safe sex."  (After all, incorporating responsibility for one's partner is
something that heterosexual women have been trying to integrate into their
encounters with heterosexual men for some time!)  Rates of new infection
plummeted because gay men worked so tirelessly to transform male sexuality
into a set of practices that could include safety and responsibility,
without sacrificing the demonstration of masculinity.  And in the
tenderness and care the community has shown towards PWAs, and the
fierceness and tenacity of its resistance to public indifference, I think
you have a real model of the "new" man -- able to be both loving and
strong, tender and steadfast.  

To claim that, however, will require that we men do more than confront our
sexism but also confront our homophobia.  Not a small order.  For those
interested - and those who have read this far! - check out FRONTLINE on PBS
at 10PM on Tuesday, February 15.  A very good documentary on gay-bashing
crimes, including Billy Jack Gaither and Mathew Shepard.

Michael Kimmel

P. S. I appreciate A. R. Calvert's kind words about my work.  

written by Stephanie Chastain <CHASTAINST  @  CS.COM>
>>I see it as a questioning of the knowledge that we and they have about men.
What is with their sexuality? What about the war thing? Global, human and
personal relations seem to be an enormous problem for them. Parenting? Their
frequent aversion children? Their major fear of women's power?  Money?
Caregiving? Law? The body? Love? And power? Seriously, why aren't they better
at power since they've been doing it for millennia. And while we're at it,
why can't they ask directions or look at a map?<<

But why couldn't these issues be discussed as part of gender studies that
would focus on everything and everyone.
I see no reason why we need men's studies all of a sudden...
More segregation is not what's needed.
Subjects need to be better integrated and connected.

Still and all, I am appreciating and am fascinated by all the comments being
generated.

peace
chris tower
Western Michigan University
English/Women's Studies
gmrstudios2  @  cs.com