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Is women’s studies outdated?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.