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.
