Faculty
Feminist & Gender Studies 2
Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies 5
Gender & Sexuality Studies 4
Gender Studies 5
Comments:
Feminist & Gender Studies
First, a disclaimer: I'm a male scientist and so am quite removed from the field. However, I do consider myself a feminist and am always a bit irritated by people who dismiss feminism as radical. To me, feminism arises from the simple fact that women have often been written out of history. "Women Studies" (the name I really prefer) were/are college based programs that seek to address this pervasive problem. I think that by and large such programs have done an admirable job. One can easily dismiss this whole controversy with the comment "what's in a name?" However, I suspect already that changing the name to gender studies will ultimately have the effect of diluting the core mission of women studies.
I worry about losing the political commitment embedded in the word "feminism." I appreciate that some people of color have felt excluded from white bourgeois feminism, but I think that current feminists, and particularly feminist scholars, have done a great deal to expand the category, and many scholars of color adopt the label. I also think feminism can and should be relevant to young women.
Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies
more inclusive -- retains historical identity but makes space for queer or transgendered students
This discriminates between three different scholarly fields or areas of inquiry, yet demonstrates their inter-relatedness.
I'd like the concentration to specifically attend to gay/lesbian/transgender/queer ideas and issue; in the past, students have had to set up independent concentrations which is not a bad intellectual exercise, but which is work that should be housed under the auspices of the program.
I think explicit attention to questions of sexuality is long over-due in the program, and foregrounding sexuality as one of the focal points of the concentration will bring it up to date with developments in similar programs across the country. That said, I don't want to lose the emphasis on feminist scholarship that the current title brings up front and center. The title I have chosen is unwieldy, but seems to be the best compromise between these two, somewhat divergent impulses.
I am electing the most inclusive choice—Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies—because I believe the program draws students and faculty members with primary interests in each one of these areas of inquiry. I don’t think Gender Studies adequately names some of the early and ongoing work in feminist studies, and I believe we owe students a sense of historical and social history even if they choose to position themselves in opposition to some aspects of this history. Why not embrace each of these three names, and conceive of one goal of the program as the articulation of their separate and connected histories?
Gender & Sexuality Studies
I believe our concentrations and departments should be named after the topics studied and not after the intellectual perspectives of the faculty teaching the courses (and even more importantly, not after the intellectual perspective of the student). So the word "feminist" should not be in the title of the concentration. "Gender and Sexuality" is an accurate description of the topical focus of the concentration. "Women, Gender and Sexuality" would be even more accurate given the current year's list of courses (none of which focus on Men's Issues) and the introductory paragraph now in the catalog. But I would hope that courses focussing on maleness and masculinity could find a place within the concentration (as they have in past years when they have been offered).
Gender, it seems to me, achieves neutrality of diction while encompassing sociopolitical experience associated with male and female body type (or body preference). I'm sympathetic with those who would preserve "feminism" as a historic/cultural designation, but I'm hopeful that the Concentration will find a broader audience when the perceived partisanship of the name "feminism" is eliminated. "Sexuality," I think, encompasses behavior, as distinct from body type. Given that homosexual members of society are frequently subjected to vernacular accusations of gender mis-alignment (the very notion of "effeminacy" inscribes this problem into standard discourse as well), I think it helpful to maintain a titular distinction between "Gender" and "Sexuality".
As long as you're changing the name anyway, why not include gay and lesbian issues? "Gender Studies" leaves us out. Again.
Though I have little sympathy for concerns that younger people do not "identify" with the "feminist" label (as if majoring in religion therefore made one devoutly religious), I suspect that a transition to gender could take place without losing the history and centrality of feminist scholarship. As an analogy, I think of how ethnic studies departments have succeeded quite well, despite risking much more, I think, in potentially obfuscating or lumping together the various trajectories of separate lines of racial/ethnic scholarship. One of the benefits of such programs has been in fact the creation of "whiteness studies," which has not displaced the study of other races and ethnicities as much as decentered whiteness from its status as a kind of "un-raced" subject position. I would like to think that "gender" could help facilitate the same thing with "maleness". In that same vein, "ethnic studies" programs may be rare, like "gender studies" programs, but that is no mark against them. Why not be at the forefront of a movement? Sexuality is a different beast, however, and I think its inclusion should be based on whether or not we are serious about actually providing teaching in this area. Sexuality intersects with gender, definitely, but is in no way equivalent with it, and not simply in respect to gay and lesbian sexualities (again, I think an identitarian critique is misplaced here). There are multiple ways to look at sexuality in which gender is important, but not central. This is, I would argue, the whole value of sexuality as a study apart from gender--to explore ways in which it figures not simply in tropes of hetero or homosexual relations but as perversion, deviance, eros, agape, seduction, sensuality, pleasure, etc. in areas stretching from global economics to genetic cloning to environmentalism. So I encourage us to add "sexuality" only if and when we are prepared to discuss and teach many of these forms and variations, and not just because we want to talk about "queer" issues.
Gender includes "Feminist", but not specifically "Sexuality" . That's why I prefer this option to the next one.
Gender Studies
personally like the 'Feminist and Gender' alternative but realize that the "Gender" alternative is more encompassing than 'Feminist and gender' without being repetitive as is 'feminist, gender and sexuality'. Furthermore, although many students are interested in the entire spectrum of gender studies, I think that there are some people interested in studying Feminism (for example in history) and others whose primary interests are sexuality. Within 'Gender studies' each student could build a satisfying and rigorous concentration program without feeling obliged to address feminism AND sexuality.
This seems to me to recognize the concentrations focus without privileging a particular orientation, and therefore to be better suited to the possible breadth of the field and to future developments that may take place. Feminism will of course remain an important approach within gender studies (and an important part of the history of that discipline).
Its broad enough to be totally inclusive -- emphasizes that gender is a central category of analysis used in these courses. This name doesn't privilege sexuality over feminist or vice-versa. Its broadness might bring in students who wouldn't otherwise look at this area.
It seems the most broad, and doesn't limit the concentration, should it want to change direction some time in the future. Including the words "feminist" or "sexuality" in the title do not leave much room for slight change without changing the name again.
Too opaque; too indiscriminate.
because it is short, comprehensive and it works!
feel that previous name was sexist.
Less is more- this short title allows maximum latitude of interpretation, whether the actual concentration emphasizes sexuality, gender roles, feminist thought, or any combination thereof.
While I really think that "feminist and gender studies" is really the best name for various reasons, "gender studies" would give more flexibility and might prove more attractive to students. What is essential is that within courses in the concentration the feminist roots of the study of gender as a tool to undo past, present, and future oppression be emphasized. It is hard to imagine a course that takes gender as its primary object of inquiry but does not engage feminist theory. Even a course of masculinites would need to do this.
General comments on the concentration:
I don't know much about the concentration, so I don't know quite which name would be most appropriate now.
Don't spend too much more time agonizing over this!
I feel that the concentration is an important and engaging site for interdisciplinary work, for both students and faculty; feel that the core course might be reimagined as an intro course in order to bring students into the conversation earlier in their academic careers - this might enable faculty to think of how they might cast their 300 level classes in relation to the program (cross listed so that spaces can be reserved for concentrators, perhaps), thus creating several contexts in which students from different disciplines could come together in conversation and debate.
Here's to a prosperous and productive program.
I was glad to see the Presidents of NOW and Fem. Maj. Speak at Bryn Mawr.
For results from students, click here.
For results from the faculty, click here.
For results from the professional and administrative staff, click here.
For results from those unidentified, click here.
To return to the survey results page, click here.