Women's Studies vs. Gender Studies

PART 2 OF 8

 
I am serving on a long range planning committee at my university to make
proposals for the future of Women's Studies.  Currently, we are debating
whether to change the name of the program to Gender Studies.  (The staple
of the program is a women's studies minor.)  I have done
some research on this issue but would be very interested in opinions and
ideas from people on this list.  If this conversation has been had
before, my apologies; I missed it.  Please respond privately--unless it's
been awhile since this topic came up and you think it would be of general
interest--to: elaine  AT  unity.ncsu.edu  Thanks, Elaine Orr

 
I am not directly involved in this, but have got involved in
discussions of it.  (Via publishers I know talking about Gender
Studies' Lists, and people I mentioned it to as a result.)
 
I admit I find it hard to get a grip on Gender Studies as a
notion, even though I know people who define themselves as
wrking in the field (well, one person) or who work in a unit
called that (again, one).
 
There are so many aspects to this that I find difficult.  One is a
political one.  I have always been unhappy about Women's Studies
programs on the undergraduate level - though if one began here,
I would welcome their students - as it becomes easier and
easier then for men to ignore feminist work.  Further to that,
Gender Studies could be something that cuts the ground away from
under feminism's rather shaky feet, rather than a support.
 
The intellectual points.  I would find a course that
combined - and here, we hit some problems right away, however -
non-lesbian-identified feminist writing, lesbian feminism,
gay theory, theorizing on masculinity whether gay or 'straight',
queer theory..., interesting and fruitful.  I am not quite
sure why I would call it gender studies.
 
That is: gender studies could cover more or less everything in the world.
Or, what I have outlined above, could be too broad!  Judith Butler
seems to me beyond doubt to be a theorist of gender; in a specific
context, yes, but with important general insights.  (I oppose
postmodernism!  But I am inclined to see Butler as important.)
Then there are those, of whom Okin is a prime example, who use
gender when they mean sex.  (Or, should be saying sex, in my
pretty firmly held view!)
 
However if institutionally it would gain you something without
running the risk of men taking the posts you had hoped to
create for women - in principle I would not say that, in
practice, I have to - fine.  I have learned the somewhat
bitter way that standing on principle gets you nowhere -
though the crunch is not so bad where you are, believe it
or not.
 
I hope these meanderings are some help.  The professionals
in the field will be able to help you more.
 
_________________________________________________________
Judy Evans                  |        jae2  AT  unix.york.ac.uk
University of York          |
Department of Politics      |
York YO1 5DD                |

 
I am strongly in favor of a gender studies title unless the course focuses
_only_ on women.  Gender implies a distinction imposed by social norms,
and does not so readily marginalize women by defining htem as some sort of
"Other."  I also believe that gender studies more appropriately enables
serious discussion of sexuality, and can include family studies, gay and
lesbian issues in a way that a program entitled "Women's Studies" can do
only at the peril of being accused of trying to impose a canon of
acceptable themes of inquiry that are as prejudicial as those of the
patriarchy.  Clearly the political activism of the first generation of
feminist thought should not be lost, but neither should the equally
admirable qualities of inclusivity and openness.  A useful article
on the topic is "Gender a Useful Category of Historical Analysis"
published several years ago in JAH.
                Michael Slaven slaven  AT  cup.edu

 
I couldn't resist replying to Michael Slaven's comments on Women's
Studies vs. Gender Studies. The biggest single reason for retaining
Women's Studies is, to my mind, the fact that there are topics to be
covered which are not covered elsewhere in the curriculum, which are only
tangentially related to women's engenderment - women do exist apart from
the social construction of their relationship with men, and this
existence is one of the things which has been most ignored in what has
previously counted as "knowledge". Further, to say that sexuality cannot
be fully covered in a course called women's studies is nonsense - are we
some kind of Victorian ladies' club?  What can be covered in a women's
studies course is the way in which women's bodies, women's desire, and
the culture in which women live intersect to create female sexuality -
exactly what the founders of the discipline wished to discuss - if men
are coming to realize that their own sexuality is also socially
constructed, and not part of universal human nature, then courses in
"human sexuality" should be changing to recognize that fact, as indeed
they are-but if one is trying to understand women's historical
existence one must problematize the understandings of FEMALE sexuality
which have long helped to create that existence. I believe that this is
at least as likely to contribute to greater understanding of lesbian
sexuality (something Michael Slaven worries about) as submerging gay and
lesbian studies under a "gender studies" umbrella. Like women, lesbian
and straight, gay people present issues for study apart from their
"gender"; indeed to single out the "gender" of women and gay people as
their most salient feature is to reproduce the problem which creates the
need for women's studies and lesbian and gay studies in the first place.

 
To reply to Harriet Lyons, I would say that I think that my comments were
somewhat misunderstood.  I never advocated dumping the "women's Studies"
rubric in all cases.  In fact, I have a course proposal in the works
at my university called "Women in European History."  What I mean to
say is that I think the opportunities are greater in a _program_ if
it uses "gender" as its title.  Within this kind of framework, I think
there should and would be many (probably the majority) offerings in
women's studies--but this would also allow inclusion of generalized
courses that may otherwise be left out, or inappropriately labeled--and
here I'm thinking of things like courses in sexuality (not specifically
male or female) or even a course like "Homoeroticism in Greek Art,"
which would then fit into a program.  Before a hailstorm of controversy
arises, though, let me also say that I believe that there should also
be addressed the need to maintain an identity for women's studies as
an academic field.  I guess my thinking is that a larger program
usually has more clout.  In other words, even though I am a French
Historian, with special needs and concerns not always fully understood
by my colleagues, I still see that it makes sense for me to be part
of a larger program or department of history.  I'm not--and I say this
emphatically--NOT suggesting a blurring or weakening of the independent
status as a discipline that women's studies must preserve.  I hope this
clears up my position.
                    M. Slaven
                    slaven  AT  cup.edu

 
Michael Slaven wrote:
> I'm not--and I say this
> emphatically--NOT suggesting a blurring or weakening of the independent
> status as a discipline that women's studies must preserve.
>
This is not meant to pick on Michael Slaven, but this statement started me
thinking about exactly what the status of WS is in most institutions, and in
academia in general, concretely and philosophically.  It's my sense
(and I'm willing to be enlightened and informed on this) that, at most colleges
and universities, WS is not treated as an independent discipline, nor is
it funded or otherwise supported as such (i.e., as a department).
 
What this seems to translate into is the following: service and advising
in WS don't count much toward tenure most places, publications in
WS journals are not valued (because, if they are WS journals, they can't
also be literature or sociology journals-which means that WS is treated
as a discipline only when that can be counted against you?).
 
I personally am not sure that, conceptually, WS *should* be
considered a discipline. However, there seem to be few models of how to
promote scholarship and teaching in a field when it isn't organized and
promoted as a discipline. Again, I'm willing to hear otherwise.
 
Two issues are central, at least for me: one is about how to amass the
kind of resources feminist scholars need within specific institutions;
another is about whether WS has a distinctive methodology, "object" of inquiry,
and all that, which I tend to think is not the case (that is, WS scholars do
statistical research; WS scholars also do analysis of narrative).
 
It seems to me that once again one of the important issues is how
shrinking resources are going to be distributed, and what are the best
strategies for maintaining a feminist presence in higher education (after
the PC wars?) I think either "WS" or "Gender Studies" could accomplish
that.
 
Sorry for the rant, but I'd like to hear what others think about this.
 
_________________________________________________________________
|                                                               |
| Maria Pramaggiore                       maria_p  AT  unity.ncsu.edu|
| Department of English                   (919) 515-4138        |
| North Carolina State University                               |
|_______________________________________________________________|

 
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Maria Pramaggiore wrote:
 
> (and I'm willing to be enlightened and informed on this) that, at most
 colleges
> and universities, WS is not treated as an independent discipline, nor is
> it funded or otherwise supported as such (i.e., as a department).
 
> What this seems to translate into is the following: service and advising
> in WS don't count much toward tenure most places, publications in
> WS journals are not valued (because, if they are WS journals, they can't
 
Ws journals can be _theory_ journals, and I have a couple officially
listed here (for Politics - a couple was as much as the general policy
on journal listing would allow).
This is for intra-Dept purposes too boring to relate.  But it points to
what can be done.
There is still a problem insufficiently recognized, that it may well
be more difficult for feminist writers to publish articles, as
the outlets are less.  When my work was empirical I managed to get
into the main 'general' journals.  I've not yet tried with feminist
thought.
 
> I personally am not sure that, conceptually, WS *should* be
> considered a discipline. However, there seem to be few models of how to
> promote scholarship and teaching in a field when it isn't organized and
> promoted as a discipline. Again, I'm willing to hear otherwise.
 
There are examples though of areas of study that might well not
be regarded as a discipline.  What is usually *not* called pol sci
over here, was my first Head used to say, not a discipline but a
subject area, to which we brought the methods of history,
sociology, philosophy... .
(To make a not very good analogy: there are natural sciences where
[sorry, physical sciences] where controlled experimentation is
impossible, but prediction is; I think - I would have to check -
there is one where neither is. But they are 'sciences'.)
These provide models of organizing and promoting non-disciplines
as disciplines!
This is a risky argument for you to use, though it is true!  It
does avoid looking for new methods of arranging matters.
(Not only feminist authors have 'journal problems' in political
science here, though most people would concede we - theorists,
anyway - have a particular problem.  There are hierarchies,
inequalities of access, within and between all these fields
of study.  It might be worth looking at your problem -
I suppose to repeat my point - as a harsh example of a more
general one.)
> Two issues are central, at least for me: one is about how to amass the
> kind of resources feminist scholars need within specific institutions;
Well, I think individually and collectively.  (Sorry to be banal.)
Characteristically we have fewer resources over here - and I
see no place for feminist within the relevant rsearch council -
so I have in mind journals and books.  The other resources I
have are don't have are 'transferrable'!
 
> another is about whether WS has a distinctive methodology,
"object" of inquiry,
> and all that, which I tend to think is not the case (that is, WS scholars do
> statistical research; WS scholars also do analysis of narrative).
 
I agree but here is an even stronger case for saying, well, which
Departments are not eclectic in this manner?  It is as A Political
Scientist that I have worked on voting behaviour and now write
in feminist thought.  Admittedly my (male) Professor and Head
[who is leaving] may be unusual in calmly announcing that 'feminist
theory is political theory'.  But two of us teach feminist
thought courses, and when I asked my colleague - who had the
idea first - whether they would accept mine also, she said:
'As against 59 courses on _men_?'.  (We now have 3 feminist
thought courses in total, as I decided to teach 2.)
Some of my colleagues are textual scholars, critics; some,
political philosophers and conceptual analysts; some,
empirical workers.  Some of the work is historical, some not.
>
> It seems to me that once again one of the important issues is how
> shrinking resources are going to be distributed, and what are the best
> strategies for maintaining a feminist presence in higher education (after
> the PC wars?) I think either "WS" or "Gender Studies" could accomplish
> that.
 
I hope I have said something helpful.  As I said in an earlier post,
I don't actually support undergraduate programmes in WS.  However
I was misleading there, as I did say WS could list my courses as
part of a degree - the other students would still be there.
My strategy I think involves stopping trying to make out a case
for Women's Studies - I am putting this v. badly - not putting a
defensive case as, what _is_ a discipline?  What group or grouping
conforms to it?  This is not exactly a strategy with any clout!  So
I suppose if I were going to use it, I would talk to some scientists
- for other reasons, I already have - and others, about
disciplinary boundaries and so on.
 
Finally of course I write from a country where there is no backlash
of the kind you mean.  But then, have we gained as much as you?
No... .
 
Good luck!
 
_________________________________________________________
Judy Evans                  |        jae2  AT  unix.york.ac.uk
University of York          |
Department of Politics      |
York YO1 5DD                |

 
I can't help it. If I don't post this, I'll be too distracted to do
anything else. I'll keep it short (note upon completion--do I get any
points for good intentions?)
 
1. Yes, Women's Studies would probably get better funding as Gender
Studies. Material/professional resources are very very important. But are
we willing to let that be our *sole* priority? We're obviously dealing
with power relations here--not the issue of breadth (as Michael Slaven's
analogy of French History is to History as Women's Studies is to Gender
Studies) suggests.
 
2. For some of us, Women's Studies is less about putting gender at the
center of analysis as it is about putting women at the center of
analysis. This isn't a semantic distinction. For example, studying the
institution of US slavery via gender studies leaves us little room for
analysis of racism and colonialism except as they are connected to
sexism. Studying the same thing from a women-at-the-center perspective
allows us to look at the ways that, for example, racism and sexism and
capitalism interconnect to impact the people's lives--especially women's.
This would have a tremendous effect on our understanding of, for example,
the lives of slave women.
 
Since women come in all different races and classes and sexual
orientations and every category except gender (in the traditional
male/female model), Women's Studies should concern itself with not only
gender issues, but also with the eradication of racism, heterosexism,
classism and other -isms. I am not arguing that this is in fact the
reality of WS today--but it is, in my opinion, what we should be moving
toward. Having WS subsumed under Gender Studies would negatively impact
this process.
 
And putting women at the center doesn't mean taking men out of the
picture. It just means that men aren't at the center.
 
3. It seems to me that our problem is how to address the extraordinarily
wide range of concerns (read: nearly everything) that affect women while
we are so marginalized and underfunded in most universities. This is a
problem we cannot ignore. We're operating in a system that is not
thrilled with our existence as feminist scholars. I wish I had an answer.
But a transition from Women's Studies to Gender Studies would, in my
humble opinion, move us away from where we need to be in order to be
useful as feminist scholars within academia.
 
I'm sorry to add another message to everyone's already packed list. Feel
free to respond to me privately at mgolden  AT  unix.cc.emory.edu. I'm
particularly interested in hearing from women on the subject.
 
Michelle "why do I spend so much time on the net" Golden

 
On the Gender Studies/Women's Studies debate:
 
In the premier edition of the European Journal of Women's Studies
there is an article on this very topic,
 
"Theorizing Women's Studies, Gender Studies and Masculinity:
The Politics of Naming"  By Diane Richardson and Victoria
Robinson, (University of Sheffield, U.K.)
 
They present a convincing argument for not "deradicalizing"
Women's Studies by subsuming it under Gender Studies, using
the European example.
 
I also remember that Dr. Mary Evans (University of Kent, U.K.),
wrote an article on this topic some time ago. It appearred in
Women's Studies International Forum.
 
Katherine Side
klside  AT  vm1.yorku.ca

 
I'll repeat what I've posted every time this issue has come up on
WMST-L:  What's wrong with the name, "Women and Gender Studies?"  The
women's studies course I teach is The Psychology of Women and Gender,
which is also the title of the book I use for the course.  In the best
of all possible worlds, I'd prefer Feminist Studies for the field and
Feminist Psychology for the course I teach, because I think both are
more accurate descriptions of the field and my course.
 
Arnie Kahn   fac_askahn  AT  vax1.acs.jmu.edu
             fac_askahn  AT  jmuvax

 
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Arnie Kahn wrote:
 
> WMST-L:  What's wrong with the name, "Women and Gender Studies?"  The
 
_My_ problem with this - and I am sorry if it sounds like carping -
is that it's 'women and...' yet again.  I can see that you're
a bit besieged, potentially: Gender Studies subsumes Women's,
'and' adds on... .  However it just is a bit too reminiscent of
say Soviet Politics with a week on women, feminist theory
versus Political Theory, Women and Politics... .
Substitute 'men' and it all gets clearer.
 
I am reminded of the man who said he was waiting for a book
with 'men' in the index.
 
I am sure your course isn't like that.  But maybe you
could give the wording a thought.
 
Judy
_________________________________________________________
Judy Evans                  |        jae2  AT  unix.york.ac.uk
University of York          |
Department of Politics      |
York YO1 5DD                |

 
In response to Arnie Kahn's term "Feminist Psychology", the term "women"
have traditional value associated with female role expectation, social
desirability and descrimination that most men and women agreed with.  When
people saw the term "women", it make people reflect the function and role of
women and help correctly describe their perception and feeling about women.
The term "women" itself has power to incite men, or even women's internal
feeling, which is good for psychological measurement.  The term "faminist"
tend to make blue collar men bring out their feeling because they might not
recognize it and did not see it often.  The "feminist" also implies a
liberation of women traditional roles that majority of poeple might not
agree with.
 
     In fact, "familist" may have wider variety of meanings about female and
also cover up the meaning of "women".  However, my doctoral advisor
prohibited me to write a big word which have different meanings.  For
example, no any suffix should include -ion, ment.  If you want to use
"communication",  the better word is  "talk".  Once we use the term
"communication", we must give many definition to interpret this terms
afterward because it often leaded to many directions without clear
definition.  It might imply "sign language" or "body language".
 
    This is just my personal feeling. Hope that you will get some ideas that
we can discuss more.
 
Jerry Chi
 
jchi  AT  rs6000.ilistu.cmp.edu

 
        The concern has been raised that using "gender" as a central
category of analysis instead of placing "women" at the center, we will
lose the political edge of women's studies.  I share this concern.  It
depends how we use "gender," however.  Wendy Brown's excellent book
_Manhood and Politics_ investigates how notions of masculinity have shaped
the core concept of politics ever since Aristotle.  There's hardly a page
in it devoted to women explicitly, yet the whole book is feminist, through
and through.  If we take it seriously, we start thinking about how to
reshape politics to make it meaningful to women who don't buy
traditionally masculine values.  (Christine DiStefano's _Configurations of
Masculinity_ is another example.)
 
        As foci for our research, I suggest, we need both.  It's far more
difficult for me to puzzle out what departments should be called,
however, and certainly that's a matter of more than symbolic weight.
I'll continue to listen to you with more experience out there.
 
        By the way, are people aware that there *is* a small field of Men's
Studies?  Joseph Pleck and Harry Brod are two authors who publish in this
area.  I'm sure there must be more.
 
Dennis Fischman
dfischmn  AT  acs.bu.edu
(617) 776-4701 home
(617) 353-2907 work                     "Ph.D. in changing the world"

 
I am in the throes of getting a dissertation together which deals with the
construction of gender in two theatre companies (who use cross-dressing and
such).  Being a committed feminist, I have asked myself (and others!) this
question concerning women's studies and gender studies.  I have come to the
rather simple-minded conclusion that the question is not (should not?) be
either/or but and/also.  Gender studies is certainly valuable, but it puts
women's issues in a rather back-seat position.  What I mean by this is that
all the women's history, literature, ect. needs to be advanced by a women's
studies department, and then you can enter into gender studies with a more or
less balanced scale.  Women are still so under-represented that to mesh them
into something called "gender studies" would make them "equal"when they are not
.       I'm very eager to see how all this intersects and am doing this type of
work in my dissertation, but I couldn't have even considered doing this without
my experience in Women's Studies.  Why  cancel one for the other? (except
because of the very real budgetary problems faced by universities).  Just a few
thgouhts.           Felicia Bender   c391738  AT  missou1.missouri.edu

 
I've been reading the conversation about women's studies and gender studies,
which reviews and simultaneously adds to previous conversations on this
subject.  And thinking ... It so happens that recently we, the Women's Studies
committee on our campus, were invited to think about the future of Women's
Studies, a strategic vision, directions ... Even though the Women's Studies
program has been on this campus since 1981, such an invitation could mean
different things.  In addition, I saw an article in the Chronicle of Higher
Education (Sept 28 issue) on Paul Gilroy's work, which presents his ideas
as being on the cutting edge of cultural (intercultural, multicultural, etc.)
studies.  He is a senior lecturer in sociology in England.  The Chronicle says
that he has made "friends and enemies" with his theories on the influence
cultures have on one another.  The article talks about how he believes that
American and British elite thinking about modernism does not take into account
slavery &   AT   the double consciousness of being an outsider and insider at the
same time; the article does refer to DuBois, but makes no references to
this concept of double consciousness outside this context.  And I thought of
how this knowledge about this double consciousness is so much part of women's
studies, and how this article, like the majority of articles, even though
there is now focused articles on women scholars, is so male-centered.
I am not anti-male and I generally believe that attention should be given to
the fact that both sexes coexist, and that there must be scholarship that
takes such coexistence into account.  I think that this is particularly
important in general areas, such as articles ABOUT scholarship.  On the other
hand, I also feel that we need scholarship specifically on women, specifically
on men, specific-culture scholarship, as well as cross-cultural, intercultural
and cross-gender scholarship.  It is the balance that I am concerned about,
a balance that is not there at the moment, and which affects the existence
of women's studies programs every minute.  The arguments by various
contributors in this conversation about women's studies and gender studies
seem valid to me if looked from their perspectives.  However, regardless of
one's perspective, it seems that the belief that femalehood is not as
important as malehood continues to be manifested in many shapes and forms
very consistently, despite the islands (institutional, personal, public,
professional) in which such belief is not predominant.
    At any rate, at every turn, in academic contexts (campuses, conferences,
newspapers, etc.), I see indiference to women's issues and to knowledge about
women, I see the world continue to be described and characterized from male
-centered-only perspectives, and I see resistance to knowledge production about
women.  Race continues to be hierarchically valued more than gender too, and
much effort goes into defending this position.
    I am interested in hearing from others--from an academic perspective.
I hope my message is not seen purely from an emotional perspective.  I am
not feeling down, etc.  I am just making connections between the on-going
conversation and other aspects of the issues being discussed in other contexts.
I am also see women's studies as part of multiculturalism. My own tendencies
are to work and see issues at intersections, such as that of gender & race.
    Well, if you are interested in responding privately, my address is
ishaw  AT  vm1.nodak.edu  If there is public interest in elaborating this
conversation, that would be good too.
 
Ines
 
Ines Senna Shaw
Asst. Prof. of English & Women's Studies Coordinator
North Dakota State University