one more time..

Not to seem redundant, but I wanted to provide links to a few interesting articles regarding the future of women’s studies programs, since it seems that David Horowitz sparked some interesting dialogue on the subject with his recent article, “No Ideologue Left Behind“. In it, Horowitz claims that women’s studies programs grew out of the women’s liberation movement, and that their purpose is more politically oriented than intellectually relevant:

“Women’s Studies, then, is equipping women not only to enter society as whole, as productive human beings, but to transform the world to one that will be free of all oppression. This is the statement of a political cause not a program of scholarly inquiry.” (source)

While Horowitz prefers to oversimplfy the women’s studies programs for the sake of his own argument, what he fails to recognize is that while these programs may have found their opportunity for formation in the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s, women’s studies programs today are not merely political training ground for feminist activists without scholarly intention or intellectual relevance. The very notion that women’s studies programs are interdisciplinary programs suggest the scholarly relevance of significant proportions that Horowitz chooses to ignore. The premise of women’s studies programs is not to train political activists, but to challenge the modern assumption of the one-dimensional, ahistorical white man’s version of history, sociology, psychology, theory and philosophy, among many other different disciplines. To recognize that these disciplines are contextual, that perspectives across all subject matter are gendered, historical, and socially affected and constructed  – to ME, this is the very height of scholarly inquiry – and women’s studies provides the tools with which to participate in such inquiry.

Is women’s studies outdated?

Here’s a link to a really great article on the women’s studies vs. gender studies debate. Written in the Twin Cities Daily Planet, Kendall Anderson of the Minnesota Women’s Press explores the issues surrounding the inclusion of gender studies and sexuality studies in women’s studies, as well as the changing of the title of the these programs to be more inclusive of gender and sexuality.

The inclusion of gender identity studies in women’s studies departments over the last decade has been controversial. Some say it’s a natural step, since gender and sexuality identities are different from women’s issues. Many colleges have expanded the discipline to appeal to men; a number of scholars worry that the unique needs of women may be short-changed if the women’s studies curriculum gets watered down. (source)

While I have to agree that the title “women’s” studies has ALWAYS bothered me, I do see that basic feminist history and theory are central to women’s/gender/sexuality studies. I very much hope that in these changing times, in the redefinition of women’s studies, that womenare not lost. However I was just having a conversation with my sister about this very issue this morning. I don’t know why the term “women’s” studies has always bothered me. I have always had a strong and central focus on women’s history and sexuality. And so I have been able to see the benefit in a strong feminist history and theory, but I also can see the difficulty in attempting to relate feminist history and theory to the realities of today’s feminism, which is so heavily influenced and driven by sexuality and gender awareness. Advocating for changes in the women’s studies title, curriculum, structure, and focus is a productive and realistic response to a rapidly changing definition of feminism and and feminist-related areas, such as gender and sexuality, as long as the basic foundation of women’s studies remains.

yes, PLEASE!

Kansas University recently decided to change it’s “women’s studies” major to the more inclusive “women, gender and sexuality studies”. In the article found onLJWorld.com, those involved express both happiness at the more inclusive and perhaps more relevant title, but the program director is also worried that the core of women’s history and feminist influence may be lost in a new program:

“Even though the program is changing, [program director ] Cudd said she wants to hold onto its historical ties. ‘We loathe to lose the women as well because we have this revolutionary beginning with the February Sisters,’ she said. ‘We want to keep that kind of link to our beginning as well.’” (source)

Yet the new program title is a response to the relevance of the term “women’s” studies:

“’The title that’s proposed kind of reflects the diversity of the classes and the diversity of the faculty and the work that they do,’ said Ryan Weaver, a graduate teaching assistant in the program. ‘The work being done in the department isn’t just focused on women and women’s oppression.’” (source)

See, the thing here is that the work being done by the faculty isn’t focused solely on women’s oppression anymore because FEMINISM is not only focused on women’s oppression. I have to applaud the decision (which must have been very difficult) of the university professors to ultimately change what I believe to be a very outdated title.

As a graduate student in a program called “Applied Women’s Studies”, I have severe reservations about writing the title of the program on my own CV. I just don’t agree with an exclusionary “women’s studies” program anymore. Women’s studies has evolved and changed in the same ways that feminism has – with time and with the gradual incorporation of certain liberties and reforms and revelations that have been made in the past few decades. With the genre of “women’s studies” come lesbian and gay studies, comes gender studies, comes sexuality studies, comes MASCULINE studies  – and it seems all but impossible to consider one without any influence from the other. This multiplicitous identity – this myriad of standpoints and possibilities – will enable future feminists and scholars to revolutionize stagnant thought patterns that can be persistent when one is committed to *only* learning about women’s oppression, without one foot in the future, without the foresight to recognize that feminism has multiplied and evolved and reached much further than the simple argument of woman’s oppression.

Of course, the one caveat here, that I believe the program director has already addressed – is the absolute importance of learning women’s history as a core, as a base  – as a supplement to the omissive history we all learned in high school. Learning about first and second wave feminism is integral and vital to the formation of a critical and thoughtful feminist. It really is my hope that these students will be able to learn the basics of feminism, and that their experience might be more enriched by the inclusion of the basics of lesbian/gay history, or trans history, of the history of sexuality, as well as philosophies, theory, and application.

trees and tiaras.

Today I read an editorial online in the Minnesota Women’s Press that I thought could be such a provocative start to a much-needed commentary on the state of feminism today. In the editorial, titled “Princess/Feminist”, St. Martin discusses how raising her young daughter has awakened her to the ways in which one can be both *feminist* and *girly*, two things that St. Martin (and many others) might have previously thought an impossibility:

 ”I am one of the parents who likes to tell people how much I am learning from my kids. Unfortunately, I seem to be a slower learner. They are much better at debunking stereotypes than I am. Neither one of them sees any reason you can’t wear a tiara while you are climbing a tree.” (St. Martin)

 I have to say that I appreciated St. Martin’s candor so much. I often find myself constantly wondering if certain instincts that I have are “anti-feminist” because they might be considered “girlish” (aka. weak and stereotypical). Yet it is this kind of essentialist thinking that leads us right back to another stereotype – that of the FEMINIST. Recently in an interview, Geri Halliwell (Spice Girl) vehemently denied all associations with feminism, which was mainly based on the (ignorant) stereotypical connotation associated with the word:

“OK, concedes Halliwell, maybe she is a feminist: but she has a few distinct caveats. One objection seems to be that she fears feminism will emasculate and demoralise men: but her bigger problem is its image. “It’s about labelling. For me feminism is bra-burning lesbianism. It’s very unglamorous. I’d like to see it rebranded. We need to see a celebration of our femininity and softness.” (Guardian Unlimited)

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I don’t HATE her flippant and irresponsible useof such an outdated stereotype, especially when Halliwell used to be (and might still be?) a role model for an adolescent type of “girl power” that could be considered feminist-ish. But my real issue is with WHY such an archaic stereotype is still floating around out there, and why can’t one be both feminist AND feminine - without the need to separate feminism out of desire to be feminine. Isn’t it possible to be both?

St. Martin seems to think it is – I think it is too. It’s difficult to embrace a plural sort of feminism, one that doesn’t necessarily fit into a tidy box that rejects all things girly and embraces all things strong. I don’t want that binary anymore. When did girly start to automatically mean anti-feminist? I want girls to be able to climb trees wearing tiaras, if that if what they want. I also want them to climb the tree in anything else they want, including a football helmet or a feather boa. Or both at the same time.

beginnings.

I find it incredibly daunting to start a feminist blog. Mainly I think because “starting” is the most difficult part. What kind of tones/themes will i set with my first post? Let me start by introducing myself as a young feminist graduate student. I was a women’s studies major in undergraduate and just began my first semester as a graduate student in the same field. I have strong interests in sexuality and oral history. Psychology and psychoanalysis as they are related to feminism and sexuality fascinate me. I have many other interests as a student, including transnational and transdisciplinary coursework, fieldwork, ethnographic research, and much more. But none of these are reasons for starting this blog.

 I am starting this blog because I am looking for something more from feminism. I am looking for a way to connect academic feminism to everyday life in a way that everyone else can relate to. I am looking for a plural feminism with a multitude of identities and possibilities – one that does not prescribe how things should be, but rather analyzes the way things are and attempts to find middleground - or on a good day, suggest a revolution if that’s what the day calls for. Either way, I feel that many young women today, myself included, are looking for a relevant definition of feminism and this blog is my attempt to find it. I will welcome emails and comments and discussion.

So.

Until tomorrow. (which will be the unofficial official first real post.)