Women's Studies vs. Gender Studies

PART 7 OF 8

Hi all,
About 15 years ago, the College of New Jersey changed its Women's Studies
program to Women's and Gender Studies. Now some faculty have an interest in
changing the name again. The options that we have so far, in addition to
keeping the status quo, are:
Gender and Sexuality Studies
Feminist and Queer Studies
Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Among the arguments against changing the name is that no discipline is
completely represented by its name (e.g. English). An argument for changing
to Gender and Sexuality is that it's the least threatening and most
representative of the options that is still sayable by someone answering the
department phone. Students also like this option. Some of us in the program
were there at the birth of Women's Studies; some came in with gender and
others with queer studies. The time of entrance into this interdiscipline
infuences which name we are attracted to. It's a very friendly discussion,
and we would love to see what others think.

-- 
Ellen G. Friedman
Professor, Women's and Gender Studies and English
The College of New Jersey PO Box 7718, Ewing, NJ 08628-0718

Hi,

I am in favor of not changing the name.  I think, having been theough
several of these "name" changes that the program changes with it, even
subtly.  I am opposed to the erasure of Women in the title because that's
what often happens.  Many of those Women's studies departments have lost a
great deal when they changed their names, dropping women and substituting
gender.  Keep both.

Denise M
FDU College at Florham
denimars  AT  fdu.edu

Ellen, 

To put my two cent in, the shift from women to gender is the most damaging
thing to ever happen to the women's movement within academia. Think about
the implications before you dump the term "women." I lack the time or the
inclination (at least in terms of this list) to give you my argument about
this but if you want to continue the conversation feel free to get in touch
at the following:

kromack  AT  uwf.edu

K. Romack, University of West Florida

The problem I have when programs drop "women" completely and leave
"gender" is that gender studies as a field has had a rather different
focus than women's studies, often giving short shrift (ironically) to
issues of sexism.  Looking at intro textbooks for women's studies and
gender studies emphasizes the different focus of the two fields -
women's studies tends to be much stronger in gender and sexuality, and
gender studies tends to be much stronger in race and class, generally
speaking (this is based on textbooks and syllabi I've seen).  So, for
this reason, I think it's important to keep "women" in the title.  An
exception to that would be "Feminist and Queer Studies," since a focus
on women is explicit (to me) in the term "feminist" - but here, I
wonder, does a title like this really help students?  Wouldn't it be
easier for most students to explain to future employers their major in
"Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies"?

A larger question, not directed at Ellen, that was posed by a
colleague of mine - why do we wrestle so much with the "women/gender"
part of the equation and not with adding "race/class" to our program
names?  It seems to me to be equally valid - we certainly talk as much
about race and class as we do about gender (I hope)...

Just my $.02...

Jessica Nathanson
Director, Women's Resource Center
Augsburg College
Minneapolis, MN
nathanso  AT  augsburg.edu

Dear all,

I agree with the previous contributors that keeping "women" as
part of Women's Studies is very important, especially because it
points to our history. Some of our students, in my view, are attracted
to Women's Studies not only because of the academic discipline per
se, but also because by having a major or minor in Women's Studies
they become part of a community that has an identity, continuity, and
history toward which the name Women's Studies gestures--even
though they don't always know that history.

I am originally from Romania, and in 1997, together with other
feminists in Timisoara, we started a Women's Studies Center at our
university. We were constantly accused that we were uncritically
importing categories and approaches that worked best elsewhere. Of
course, our scholarly projects documented the history of Romanian
feminist writing and activism, yet these projects were mostly
accessible to scholars and as such condemned to have a limited
appeal. I've been teaching in Women's Studies in the US for
seven years now, and I think that the history signified by this name
is a strength rather than a liability. It also makes me feel as part
of a discipline, which I often find comforting, although my work, like
many others', is interdisciplinary.

A name such as Women, Gender, and Sexuality is not necessarily too
long. Last year I worked in a program titled Center for the Study of
Women, Gender, and Sexuality, and sometimes in conversation both the
coordinator and we would abbreviate it as WGS or as Women and Gender
Studies (to the detriment of "sexuality," unfortunately). Personally, 
I use Women's Studies in conversation and the complete title of the 
program / department in correspondence or on official occasions.

Warm wishes,
Voichita Nachescu, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Women and Gender Studies
Grand Valley State University
nachescv  AT  gvsu.edu

I've been reading this thread avidly because it seems to be so
widespread, and to me, dismaying. I work in a business school, and
they barely have enough women's studies courses to make a minor, but
now they too want to rename and redistribute things. I had developed
and taught two courses for over the last ten years, and was suddenly
told that the committee had decided to take "a look" at my classes
specifically-psychology of women and psychology of men-they pretty
much arbitrarily presented this as a done deal that I wouldn't be
teaching those classes since they wanted to "roll" them into one
course entitled Psychology of Gender.

While I am sure this is a legitimate subject it is not psychology of
women-my fear is much the same as others have articulated, getting rid
of or minimizing once again the "women" in the studies.

My classes always filled and were popular, yet they are doing away
with them for this watered down course. They said I could teach it,
but again, my fear is that isn't going to happen.

I think that name changes are far from innocuous and I feel that it is
another form of backlash against the idea of women being a legitimate
field of study.

I saw this in other areas as well, lots of times as a precursor to
getting rid of courses specifically addressed to and about women.  I
find it sad, scary, and it made me both of those things, along with
angry. Since for me it was presented as a done deal, I don't know what
can be done if things like this are happening elsewhere.  Susan

If the mind can imagine it, the mind can make it so

Dr. Susan Clark-Cook
Clinician
Counseling and Student Development
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Natural and Applied Sciences

We changed our name from "Women's Studies" (WST) to "Women's and Gender 
Studies" (WGS) a few years ago.  We did this primarily to more accurately 
reflect the full range of courses in our program--including some which 
don't rightly fall under the rubric of "WST."  Neverthless, our core 
courses for the major and minor remain "WST" because of their focus.  We 
spent a long time researching and discussing this issue, and I'd be happy 
to share the bibliography our WST librarian at the time developed for us, 
as well as our final proposal and rationale.  Just e-mail me off the list 
and I'll send an attachment.

I did want to add one note in reponse to Jessica's query, which I quote 
here: 

        "A larger question, not directed at Ellen, that was posed by a 
colleague of mine - why do we wrestle so much   with the "women/gender" 
part of the equation and not with adding "race/class" to our program 
names?  It seems to me to be equally valid - we certainly talk as 
much about race and class as we do about gender (I hope)..."
        Jessica Nathanson

One of the many reasons we were committed to keeping "women's studies" in 
the name was that because one cannot rightly talk about women without 
addressing race and class ( since they are part of every woman's 
experience and status), women's studies--at least in theory--ought 
necessarily to incorporate an intersectional analysis.  We didn't feel 
"gender studies" carried the same freight (hence, one needs to itemize the 
variables in the  list "race, class, ... and gender" ). 
 
I would also add that the apostrophe in "women's" was important to us for 
the way it identifies our work as about, for, and (largely) by women. This 
punctuation has given me some interesting opportunities to explain the 
orientation of the field to outsiders at my institution who now are more 
likely to drop it and call us "women and gender studies."  Misnomers, in 
fact, have been one somewhat unforseen drawback to the name change. 
Various offices at the institution have called us (in print) "Women and 
Gender Studies", "Woman and Gender Studies" and even "Women's Issues and 
Gender Studies"!  Students seem not really to have noticed the change, and 
most closely involved faculty continue to use "Women's Studies" as short 
hand, in fact.

And, yes, in my new position I've become increasingly aware of the 
non-referential nature of departmental names in general.  We are 
re-writing our mission statement in the English Department here and are 
finding it much more difficult that when we did so in WGS!

cheers,

Sheila
__________________
Sheila Hassell Hughes
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of English
University of Dayton
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469-1520
shughes  AT  udayton.edu

Dear WMST-Lers,
I just picked up on this thread, having been in the midst of a very
wonderful, but exhausting term, teaching first year students in University
Seminar (three new preps) along with my usual complement of Women's Studies
courses, our school having gone through fiscal exigency and taking away
nearly all of my administrative time.  I am starting off with this statement
because, although our program said if and when - now probably not on my
watch - we develop a major in WS, we would name that B.A. one in "Women's
and Gender Studies"- teaching the USEM class, which I call "Sex and Gender
in Everyday Life," is now making me think we should consider doing that
earlier, while we still, only, have a minor.  But, and I think I would
prefer us to call everything, Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies,"
really.  Too often, while we recognize that we cannot allow the "default"
position to be white (middle and upper middle class) women, we only (still)
invoke the "iron triangle," as some of us used to call it - of gender, race
and class, and leave out other significant social formations and identities
- like sexual orientation - and ethnicity, national origin, religion,
ability/disability, etc.  (I think many of us actually do teach from an
"intersectionist" model, even if there are some problems with that, as I
know some people feel.0

As a historian of women's experience, and a social and cultural historian,
as well as a women's studies generalist - and specialist: in WS, women's and
feminist movement, feminist pedagogy, I think we should keep resisting
(some) administrator's and other's attempts to diminish what we do and claim
all these terms - for _our_ purposes, not others.  This can mean
"short-hand"  - what we and our students say to teach other - as well as
insisting on accurate nomenclature as Sheila Hughes writes.  While I feel
strongly about keeping the word "Women's" (plural,
multivocal/multi-cultural) in our name, I am also, therefore, no longer
afraid of using "gender" (actually, in my description of the "phases" - not
stages - of women's studies I talk about how "gender" came to the fore) -
especially since we have transgender students in our midst and now more
visibly and vocally "out" about this; some of mine are not into changing
their bodies but feel that the gendered categories "women" and "men" do not
"fit."  These are sometimes my smartest, most committed - and yes, feminist,
students - two in particular, one who graduated and became a major force at
the University, working first as the head of the Commuter Students' Services
Center, and getting a scholarship fund for our students who are vets - she
is one, herself, having been a medic in the Army, and who is now working as
a special troubleshooter for at risk students; the other being our Women's
Studies scholarship winner this past year, who sometimes finds zerself
"dismissed" or not included in the usual discussions of what is "feminism,"
and yes, that's not a typo (zerself, z/her usage).

But it is my USEM (first year) students in "Sex and Gender in Everyday Life"
who blew me out of the water this term!  They are so open-hearted,
inquiring, curious, political.  We  may not all agree all the time - we
don't: I have one gay male who was out to the class the first day - who
despised the film "Made in L.A." because he thinks that undocumented
workers/"illegal" immigrants are criminals and should be deported.  He was
ignorant about how gay people have also been criminalized until we started
talking.  But we have an incredible time together and they are so
feminist-friendly, sometimes without knowing they are, when not
self-identified feminists.  I think this is all the case because they are
the children of baby boomers.  And this classroom is diverse, in terms of
sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity: gay, straight, bisexual; white,
Chicano/a, Asian (Japanese American, Pacific Islander), Black.  I absolutely
love them and think that the classroom wouldn't have been nearly one half
male if it had been called "women's studies."  (In contrast, there are only
three men in my introductory Women's Studies class: Women in Society - where
we also cover men and masculinity issues, although the seemingly unlikeliest
male, who is from Saudi Arabia, has proved to be the most respectful and
wonderful pro-feminist! who said he almost dropped out the first day after
seeing only one other male student, at first, but then came (openly) to very
much appreciate that he was being taught by a professor who was a woman -
and a Jew, and that the women, as well as other men, in the class teach him
_a lot_.  (His older sister is a doctor in Saudi Arabia - and yes, she
cannot drive in her home country.)

All I know is that we have to keep vigilant - and open - in our
understanding of how to name our programs/departments and what we want them
to stand for - to be - for ourselves, our colleagues, and our students.
Having been in Women's Studies for over 25 years, (actually more, but that
many as a teaching assistant for WS courses and then faculty member in WS, I
have watched us go through many, many debates - about names, governance,
relationship to our universities institutionally, autonomy vs. integration,
and theory, including issues around race/ethnicity and tblg issues,
postmodernism, disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity,
being "disciplined," WS on the "edge,"  etc. not to mention our relationship
to our Women's Centers on campus and what _they_ get called!  (Here at SOU
our Center is called "The Women's Resource Center"; the coordinator, as well
as the coordinator of the Queer Resource Center are members of our WS
(Program) Council - after years in which we did not invite these, our
colleagues, because we were afraid of "being confused" with the "student
affairs side". We are anyway!! and these two women bring incredibly good
info and good insight to our "academic program" meetings. We do seem to be
coming up against new - or intensified - forms of backlash and cooptation
(although I prefer to think proactively - that we are engaging, instead, in
"micronegotiations" and not simply being "coopted") as the economy for
higher ed keeps going south (especially for what were formerly called "state
supported" or "state assisted" schools, but which I and many now call "state
located"!) and as managerialism and corporatization take over our
universities and colleges.

Finally, I am glad we are, once again, engaging in this discussion about our
"name"; I feel we should both inform and consult with our students,
especially our minors, majors - including our Independent Interdisciplinary
Minors with WS as a primary area, our certificate, and graduate students  -
as well as new colleagues and allies about any name changes - what the
history, current practices, attempts to divert, new areas and pleasures in
necessarily related fields of study - lead us to.  The "name" alone is not
the issue, of course; rather, it is what is _done_ in that name, by us and
by our administrations, by our colleagues, by our opponents.  I still have a
dream that someday we can openly be "Feminist Studies" - maybe Critical
Race/Critical Gender/Sexuality Feminist Studies" - to make clear that we
_are_ inclusive, and "we" is not just the "me" I see in the mirror in the
morning and may, then, think is everyone else.

With respect for all of what we do, who we are, on this list.  Yours in
struggle, as Elly Bulkin used to say, Barbara Scott Winkler, Coordinator
(used to be Director) of Women's Studies, Southern Oregon University,
winklerb  AT  sou.edu or winklerb  AT  charter.net

Apologies in advance if I'm misunderstanding your [Sheila Hughes'] response, 
but my question was, essentially, why are we focusing on names like "women's
and gender studies" and not "critical studies of women, gender, and
race"?  If it is necessary to add "gender" or "sexuality" to make
clear the parameters of the focus of the program (as some have
suggested) - and often, I think, it is - then I would also hope it
would be necessary to add "race" to the name.  I don't think it goes
without saying.  I think many students still view Women's Studies as a
white-focused discipline, and that certainly, many programs/depts are
currently struggling to de-center whiteness in their curricula.
Jessica

Jessica Nathanson
Director, Women's Resource Center
Augsburg College
Minneapolis, MN
nathanso  AT  augsburg.edu